[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 12 (Tuesday, February 8, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H383-H391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       AN IMMORAL BUDGET PROPOSAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the President has presented his budget to the 
Congress. We have begun a process which is the most moral process our 
government undertakes each year.
  The budget of the United States is a moral statement. The President 
begins that budget process by making his own moral statement. The 
process goes forward with the Congress deliberating; and when we come 
out at the end of the year with the appropriations based on this 
budget, we are making a statement to the Nation and to the world of 
what our moral values are, stating what are our moral values.
  This budget shows our moral values are really in serious trouble, 
because I think this is a budget of war against peace. You could call 
this a war-against-peace budget. It is not exaggerating to say it is 
kind of a barbarity-against-civilization budget. Because what we are 
doing is saving money. We are going to save money in all the areas 
which would carry forward our civilization and benefit peace and 
benefit a productive society; we are going to save that money in order 
to put it into the military. That is what this budget is all about.
  It is a very dishonest budget to begin with, because the largest 
items of expenditure for this coming year are not even put in the 
budget. We are going to be asked in a few weeks to vote on a budget 
which includes $80 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That 
is not included in this budget. We ought to be honest about that.
  We ought to be honest about the fact that Social Security proposals 
are being made which will require tremendous amounts of money to be 
drained from the budget also. So it is not an honest budget to begin 
with. It is not a moral budget, or it is a moral budget is that 
reflects bad morals.
  The morality that we must undertake here is understanding what the 
Congressional Black Caucus always has understood, which is that this is 
the most important item on the agenda of the Congress; and we must deal 
with items like education, like health care, housing, et cetera. We 
have disparities which exist and impact upon the black community, and 
those disparities really impact on the total working-family community, 
and the majority of Americans are impacted.

                              {time}  2000

  So as we pursue the closing of the gap between those disparities, we 
are also pursuing that for the rest of America, as well as for the 
African American community.
  The chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus will elaborate on that 
more in a few minutes. I just want to say that this omission that we 
are dealing with here tonight is the beginning of the process. We are 
going to have debates, negotiation, and legislation. I hope that those 
of us who debate and discuss and negotiate will show greater moral 
fiber than has been displayed so far, and that at the end of

[[Page H384]]

this process in the fall, when we begin to vote on the appropriations 
bills, there will be a different moral manifesto of the Nation 
emerging, unlike the one in the statement made by this budget.
  The way a nation spends its money, as I said before, provides the 
whole world with indisputable evidence of what its real moral values 
are. Our true beliefs are reflected in the way we allocate our 
resources; and here I will just give one example. They have cut $4 
billion worth of education programs. The President and the White House 
propose to cut $4 billion worth of education programs. At the same 
time, we have a program called the Missile Defense Systems program, and 
it is adding, it is increasing that budget. It will now be $8 billion. 
Twice as much as is being cut for education is going to be spent this 
coming year on the Missile Defense program, which does not work. And 
they say that they are cutting the education programs because they do 
not work.
  This defense program has been around for some time. It used to be 
called Star Wars. All kinds of different labels have been placed upon 
it, but we read occasionally about them testing it and rockets going 
off in the sky and misfiring; and every time that happens it is $75 
million or $100 million. The failed test costs us millions of dollars, 
yet we go on, we continue. It does not work, it costs millions of 
dollars, but we do not eliminate it.
  Security, they say, is the number one issue, and I agree, security is 
the number one issue. The definition of security is what we have to 
discuss. Security is not throwing dollars at the military. Security is 
not throwing dollars at missile systems that do not work and missile 
systems which are almost irrelevant at this point. That is not 
security. Security means more than just guns, missiles, bombers.
  I do want to applaud the President for increasing slightly the 
Millennium Fund, which is supposed to help nations across the world 
improve their own governments and deliver better education and health 
care to their own people. Education, in particular, is a concern of the 
Millennium Fund. The Millennium Fund got started as a result of an 
analysis. The Millennium Fund understood what happened with Osama bin 
Laden and the gathering of forces in Afghanistan. They came out of the 
madrassas, Pakistan primarily. Large numbers came out.
  What is a madrassa? A madrassa is a name for a school, a religious 
school, and they were teaching there reading, writing, and the 
military, how to shoot, and how to hate. They recognized that there was 
an unlimited supply of such youth. They cannot get a decent meal at 
home; their parents are happy to have them go off to the madrassa and 
give them over to the madrassa for whatever they want them to do, 
including military training, which later leads to them being a part of 
al Qaeda. The analysts understood this, so they began to be concerned 
about fighting terror by improving the conditions of the people abroad, 
starting with the funding for education.
  Education at home, however, is going to be neglected. Education at 
home is as much a matter of national security as education anywhere in 
the world. Education is the least expensive way for us to guarantee our 
security. We can guarantee our security far cheaper with education 
being spread, beginning at home, than we can by throwing more money at 
the military and starving health care programs, housing programs, and 
education programs here at home in order to improve the military.
  Among the programs that are being eliminated is a program that 
relates to foreign languages. If ever it was clear that foreign 
languages are important, it is right now when our own ability to fight 
the terrorists has been shown to be inadequate because we cannot 
translate the language, we cannot understand enough. There are not 
enough people around who can translate Arabic, let alone the more 
difficult languages of Urdu and Pashtu, and the languages that have 
seldom been before studied in our schools. We should be appropriating 
billions of dollars in order to train more young people in languages.
  I can go on and on, and I intend later to come back and discuss in 
great detail some of these programs, especially in education, that are 
being eliminated and what their impact is on our society as a whole.
  We have a steady increase in the population of our prisons, a steady 
increase of African American males in our population of the prisons. 
There is a relationship between the tremendous number of cuts over the 
last 10 years in social programs and the steady increase of African 
American males in our prisons. They cost much more to maintain in our 
prisons, of course, than the cost is to provide a decent education, 
either in elementary and secondary education, or in college.
  But I will pause here and call upon the President of the 
Congressional Black Caucus to enunciate the Caucus's emphasis and 
position as we go into this process of deliberating on this budget to 
make this budget a more moral document, reflecting a more civilized 
approach to guarantee the security of the American people and people 
all over the world.
  I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  (Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens) for reserving the 1 hour of time this evening for 
the Congressional Black Caucus to make preliminary comments on the 
President's proposed budget.
  When the Congressional Black Caucus met with President Bush on 
January 26, we presented a CBC agenda that would close disparities and 
create opportunity. We outlined six areas in which significant barriers 
exist that prevent African Americans from enjoying the same quality of 
life as white Americans. We requested the President's support and asked 
him to demonstrate it both verbally and substantively. Unfortunately, 
the budget that the President sent to Congress yesterday falls far 
short of the substantive goals that we hoped the President would have 
set forth to eliminate disparities.
  The first area we presented to the President was in the area of 
closing the achievement and opportunity gaps in education. In his 
budget, the President proposes eliminating the Perkins loan program, 
which provides low-interest loans to low- and middle-income college 
students. This proposal would have disastrous effects on African 
American college students, many of whom rely heavily on Federal 
financial aid programs to offset the cost of obtaining higher 
education. As it is, African Americans attend college at a lower rate 
than white Americans. If the President succeeds in his plan to 
eliminate the Perkins loan program, a college education would simply be 
unaffordable and unattainable for many African American college 
students.
  African American college enrollment rates are 10 percent lower than 
white college enrollment rates. College graduation rates are even worse 
for African American students. Only 46 percent of African American 
freshmen ever graduate from college, compared to 67 percent of white 
freshmen. According to the Education Trust, the typical American 
college or university has a graduation rate gap between white and 
African American students of over 10 percentage points. A quarter of 
institutions have a gap of 20 percentage points or more.
  In a recent study by the Luna Foundation For Education, the 
Foundation found that the single most important financial variable 
influencing whether or not a student will attend college is the amount 
of need-based financial aid being provided. In spite of these 
disparities, the President seeks to not only eliminate the Perkins loan 
program, but he is proposing to eliminate the Gear Up and the TRIO 
programs as well.
  The sole purpose of the Gear Up program, which our Congressional 
Black Caucus colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) 
introduced, and the TRIO program, both of those programs are designed 
to prepare low-income and disadvantaged students for college. In other 
words, the President, through his budget, wants to eliminate the very 
programs that would help close the achievement and opportunity gaps in 
education. In fact, one out of every three programs that the President 
proposes to cut or eliminate in his budget is in the Department of 
Education. So the President has not been

[[Page H385]]

responsive at all to the CBC agenda in that area.
  The second area we outlined to the President was in the area of 
health care, providing quality health care for every American. The 
President's proposed budget slashes at least $45 billion from the 
Medicaid program, which provides health coverage to 50 million low-
income children, working families, seniors, and others who would 
otherwise be uninsured. The President's proposed cuts to Medicaid would 
have devastating effects on the working poor and would have 
particularly devastating effects on African Americans.
  According to Families USA, African Americans are generally less 
likely to receive employer-based health care because African Americans 
are more likely than whites to work in positions where health care 
benefits are not offered, work for companies, typically small 
companies, that cannot afford to pay for employee health insurance, and 
to be unable to afford health insurance premiums when coverage is 
offered.
  The third area we asked the President to respond to was in the area 
of economic security, building wealth, and business employment. The 
African American unemployment rate is consistently more than double the 
average national average. In inner cities, that number is even larger. 
Yet, the President proposes cutting the budget for the Department of 
Labor by 4.4 percent, including Workforce Investment Act State grants. 
Further, while the African American homeownership rate is over 20 
percentage points behind that of white Americans, the President 
proposes cutting funding for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development by almost $3.7 billion.
  We asked the President to address disparities in foreign policy, 
eradicating poverty, hunger, and armed conflicts around the world, 
especially in Africa and the Caribbean, which is a major component of 
the CBC's agenda. Unfortunately, the President's budget offered no 
solutions on how to strengthen the economic stability and self-
sufficiency of countries in the African Diaspora.
  The Caucus supports reducing the heavy burden that debt has on many 
countries and reengaging with the United Nations, regional 
organizations, and countries throughout the world to help promote civil 
society, global health, fair trade, and peace. While we applaud the 
President for his proposal to fund the global initiative to fight HIV/
AIDS, we implore him to also provide financial assistance to end the 
fighting in African countries that are engaged in civil war and in 
genocide.
  We asked the President to help address retirement security for 
African Americans and the disparities that exist there. During the last 
several weeks, President Bush has traveled the country, selling his 
Social Security reform proposal to the American people. Because African 
Americans rely heavily on the survivor disability and retirement 
benefits provided by Social Security, the CBC is extremely interested 
in the details of this proposal. Contrary to the President's claims, 
African Americans receive a higher rate of return than whites, due to 
their heavier reliance on the full range of benefits offered by Social 
Security.
  The CBC has made it clear to the President that we are against any 
proposal that would result in future benefit cuts or divert payroll 
taxes from the Social Security Trust Fund. African Americans are 8 
percent of all retired beneficiaries, 13 percent of survivor 
beneficiaries, and 18 percent of all disability recipients. Social 
Security is the only source of retirement income for 40 percent of 
older Americans, and if those benefits were reduced, the poverty rate 
for older African Americans would double almost overnight.
  Social Security is one of the most effective programs in the history 
of the United States and is essential to the livelihood of African 
Americans.
  We asked the President to ensure justice for every American. The CBC 
supports criminal and juvenile justice reform that focuses greater 
emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation, reduces recidivism by 
successfully reintegrating former inmates into society, and ends 
arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences.

                              {time}  2015

  We also strongly support preserving affirmative action until all the 
effects of past and present discrimination have been eliminated.
  While the President's budget does include $75 million for a prisoner 
reentry initiative, much more rehabilitation needs to be done for 
prisoners while they are in prison.
  In addition, we are disappointed to report that the President's 
fiscal year budget proposes to cut funding for the Justice Department's 
civil rights division even while we all know that more enforcement is 
necessary. And despite that fact our election system does not work 
properly, the President's budget proposes to eliminate grants to States 
for election reform.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, the budget that the President sent to 
Congress yesterday reflects priorities and values that are not in line 
with those held by the majority of American families or by the 
Congressional Black Caucus.
  Today the President told reporters that his budget sets priorities. 
He went on to say, ``Our priorities are winning the war on terror, 
protecting our homeland, and growing our economy.'' I would say to the 
President that while we fight the war on terror, America's families 
also want to fight the war on poverty. While we protect our homeland, 
we must also ensure that American families are able to buy affordable 
homes. While we must grow our economy, we must also provide retirement 
security for American families in times of economic downturn. These, 
Mr. President, are America's priorities.
  I hope the President will work with the Congressional Black Caucus to 
turn these priorities into realities.
  Mr. Speaker, the following is a summary of some of the draconian cuts 
that the President has proposed in his budget.

 Bush Administration FY 2006 Housing Budget--Continuing the Assault on 
                          the Most Vulnerable

       The Bush Administration's FY 2006 Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development (HUD) budget makes deep cuts to a wide 
     range of housing programs that serve low-income families, the 
     elderly, and disabled persons. Overall, the HUD budget is cut 
     by 11.5 percent. Critical housing and community development 
     programs (CDBG, Brownfields cleanup, and Empowerment Zones) 
     are eliminated and are consolidated into a new program in the 
     Commerce Department, with an overall funding cut of 35 
     percent. The biggest funding cuts are targeted at those 
     programs that serve our most vulnerable citizens, as follows:


                                the poor

       CDBG: Transfers CDBG flexible block grants to the Commerce 
     Department, with a 35 percent cut. This proposal would result 
     in $1.16 billion less in funding for low-income housing than 
     last year.
       Public Housing. Eliminates HOPE VI public housing 
     revitalization program, and rescinds the $143 million funded 
     in FY05. Also cuts ongoing funding for public housing by $270 
     million. The overall request is 30 percent lower in real 
     terms than when the Bush Administration took office.
       HOME Block Grants. Cuts HOME block grants by $66 million (a 
     4 percent cut).
       Section 8 vouchers. Purports to fully fund voucher 
     renewals. But, the budget promises that legislation will be 
     introduced later to renew the Administration block grant 
     proposal--to gut the targeting of funds to the poorest 
     families and the maintenance of affordable voucher rent 
     levels.
       AIDS Housing (HOPWA). Cuts HOPWA funding by $14 million (a 
     5 percent cut).
       Lead Paint Abatement. Cuts funding for lead paint abatement 
     by $48 million (a 29 percent cut).


                              the disabled

       Cuts 50 percent from the Section 811 disabled housing 
     program (from $238 m. to $119 m). Also eliminates the Federal 
     role in funding construction of new housing for the disabled.


                               minorities

       Fair Housing: Cuts the Fair Housing budget by 16 percent.
       Minority Higher Education Institutions. Cuts Section 107 
     grants by 16 percent. Section 107 grants fund Historically 
     Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
     Institutions, Community Development Work Study, and other 
     related programs.
       La Raza. Eliminates funding for the National Council of La 
     Raza for affordable housing activities and technical 
     assistance (funded at $4.8 million in FY 2005).


                             rural housing

       Rural Housing Service. Cuts funding by 73 percent for 
     Section 515, the core RHS affordable housing program. Also 
     eliminates the Section 515 program's authority to fund new 
     construction.
       HUD Rural Housing an Economic Development Program. 
     Eliminates this $24 million program, consolidating it with 17 
     other programs in the Commerce Dept.


                        native American housing

       Cuts funding for Native American housing block grants by 
     $110 million, a 16 percent cut.

[[Page H386]]

       Eliminates funding for the National American Indian Housing 
     Council ($2.4 m. in FY 05).

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus.
  Mr. Speaker, the following is a statement by the CBC chairman on the 
Bush budget and the Congressional Black Caucus' core agenda.

      CBC Chair Calls Bush Budget Proposal Extremely Disappointing

Bush Budget Blueprint Offers No Solutions to End Disparities that Exist 
                             in Our Society

       Today, Congressman Mel Watt (D-NC), Chairman of the 
     Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), issued the following 
     statement in response to President George Bush's fiscal year 
     2006 budget proposal:
       ``On first review of President Bush's budget proposal, I 
     find it extremely disappointing. Mr. Bush's proposal 
     recommends severe cuts in education, food and nutrition 
     programs, and literacy initiatives for youth and young 
     adults.
       ``The proposed budget neglects suggestions offered by the 
     Congressional Black Caucus for ending disparities that exist 
     between African Americans and White Americans in every aspect 
     of life. The CBC gave the President three distinct 
     opportunities to respond favorably to our Agenda: (1) during 
     a meeting with the President on January 26th when the CBC 
     delivered our Agenda which outlined these disparities and 
     offered ways to eliminate the gap; (2) during the State of 
     the Union address; and (3) in his budget proposal. 
     Unfortunately, the President missed all three opportunities. 
     This budget appears to offer no real solutions for change and 
     falls short of what the CBC hoped would be included in the 
     document.
       ``In summary, Members of the CBC are extremely disappointed 
     with the President's budget proposal and will work with our 
     colleagues on the Hill for a budge that reflects the values 
     and concerns of all Americans: education, health care, 
     economic opportunity, justice for all, retirement security 
     and foreign policy.''
                                  ____

       The CBC advocates Closing the Achievement and Opportunity 
     Gaps in Education as the most critical path to achieving our 
     objectives in all areas of our Agenda. To do so, the CBC 
     supports devoting more attention and, where necessary, more 
     resources to:
       1. Early childhood nutrition, Head Start and movement 
     toward universal pre-school;
       2. For children in school, student nutrition, identifying 
     and providing education and assistance appropriate to the 
     needs of each individual student to fulfill the promise of No 
     Child Left Behind, dropout prevention, after-school programs, 
     school modernization and infrastructure and equipment 
     enhancement;
       3. Pell Grants, scholarships, loan assistance and other 
     specialized programs to enable and provide incentives to more 
     African-American students to obtain college, graduate or 
     professional degrees or otherwise receive training and 
     retraining to meet changing job needs; and
       4. Preserving and improving Historically Black Colleges and 
     Universities.
       The following are some of the dramatic disparities that the 
     CBC believes would be reduced by the above priorities: In 
     2003, 39 percent of African American 4th grade students could 
     read at or above a basic reading level compared to 74 percent 
     of White 4th grade students and 39 percent of African 
     American 8th grade students performed at or above a basic 
     math level compared to 79 percent of White 8th grade 
     students; High school completion rates--83.7 percent African-
     Americans, 91.8 percent Whites; Bachelor Degree recipients--
     16.4 percent African-Americans, 31.7 percent Whites; Digital 
     Divide--41.3 percent of African Americans are capable of 
     accessing the Internet, 61.5 percent of Whites.
       The CBC advocates Assuring Quality Health Care for Every 
     American. To do so, the CBC believes that health care must 
     emphasize universal access, affordability and prevention and 
     should provide meaningful coverage for prescription 
     medications to every American. Among the dramatic disparities 
     the CBC believes would be reduced by doing so include:
       In December 2004, the American Journal of Public Health 
     reported that 886,000 more African Americans died between 
     1991 and 2000 than would have died had equal health care been 
     available; while African-Americans comprised 12 percent of 
     the U.S. population in 2000, they represented 19.6 percent of 
     the uninsured and this disparity has grown since then; Black 
     men experience twice the average death rate from prostate 
     cancer; in 2002, the African-American AIDS diagnosis rate was 
     11 times the White diagnosis rate (23 times more for women 
     and 9 times more for men); African Americans are two times 
     more likely to have diabetes than Whites and four times more 
     likely to see their diabetes progress to end-stage renal 
     disease and four times more likely to have a stroke.
       The CBC advocates FOCUSING ON EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC 
     SECURITY, BUILDING WEALTH AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. The CBC 
     supports:
       1. Eradicating employment discrimination and insuring the 
     employment of a diverse workforce by employers in the private 
     sector and in government (including staffs of Committees and 
     Members of Congress);
       2. Protecting the rights and working conditions of all 
     employees;
       3. A living wage for all employees;
       4. The advancement of African Americans into management, 
     executive and director positions;
       5. Equal access to capital for individuals and businesses 
     and the elimination of redlining and predatory lending 
     practices;
       6. Expanding affordable rental and ownership of housing; 
     and
       7. Aggressive minority business goals and participation in 
     government and private contracting.
       Among the dramatic disparities the CBC believes would be 
     reduced by pursuing these policies are the following: 
     Unemployment rates for African Americans are consistently 
     almost double the rates for White Americans; the median 
     weekly earnings of full-time African-American workers is 
     consistently over $130 less than White workers who are 
     similarly educated and situated; the poverty rate for African 
     Americans is almost double the national poverty rate (24 
     percent vs. 12.5 percent) and more than triple (33 percent 
     vs. 9.8 percent) for children under the age of 18; home 
     ownership for African Americans is 48 percent compared to 72 
     percent for White Americans and African Americans are more 
     than two times more likely to be denied a mortgage and more 
     than two times more likely to receive sub-prime loans; and 
     minority-owned businesses receive only 57 cents of each 
     dollar they would be expected to receive based on the 
     percentage of ``ready, willing and able'' businesses that are 
     minority owned.
       The CBC advocates INSURING JUSTICE FOR ALL. To do so, the 
     CBC supports:
       1. Guaranteeing equal access to the vote, making sure that 
     every vote is counted, extension of the expiring provisions 
     of the Voting Rights Act and reinstatement of voting rights 
     after criminal defendants have served their sentences;
       2. Ending racial and ethnic profiling;
       3. Criminal and Juvenile Justice Reform, including greater 
     emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation and ending 
     arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences;
       4. Appointment of fair and impartial Judges; and
       5. Preserving Affirmative Action until all the effects of 
     past and present discrimination have been eliminated.
       Among the dramatic disparities the CBC believes would be 
     reduced by pursuing the above policies are the following: 
     Practices of the kind documented in Florida in 2000 and in 
     Ohio in 2004, the latter in a 100+ page Investigative Report 
     issued by members of the House Judiciary Committee in January 
     2005; and African-American men are 44 percent of all male 
     inmates in State and Federal prisons and jails (an estimated 
     12 percent of black males) and African-American females are 
     five times more likely than White females to be incarcerated.
       The CBC advocates RETIREMENT SECURITY FOR ALL AMERICANS. 
     The CBC supports the following to each this objective:
       1. Preserving Social Security as a safety net for older 
     Americans and guaranteeing that Social Security benefits 
     continue to be paid; and
       2. Making it possible for people of all income levels to 
     accumulate assets and save for retirement as means of 
     supplementing their Social Security benefits.
       Among the realities the CBC believes the above policies 
     would help address are the following: Social Security 
     benefits are the only source of retirement income for 40 
     percent of older African Americans and without these benefits 
     the poverty rate for African-American seniors would more than 
     double; and 28 percent of African Americans receive income 
     from assets upon retirement compared to 62 percent of White 
     Americans and 32 percent of African-American retirees receive 
     income from private pension plans compared to 45 percent of 
     White-American retirees.
       The CBC advocates INCREASING EQUITY IN FOREIGN POLICY. To 
     do so, the CBC supports:
       1. Reaching the Millennium Goals for developing countries;
       2. Eradicating poverty, hunger and armed conflicts in 
     countries around the world, especially in Africa and the 
     Caribbean;
       3. Reducing the heavy burden that debt has on many 
     countries; and
       4. Reengaging with the United Nations, regional 
     organizations and countries throughout the world to help 
     promote civil society, global health, fair trade and peace 
     and to help combat terrorism and increase security at home.
       Among the realities the CBC believes the above policies 
     would help address are the following: Nearly 1.3 billion 
     people around the world live in poverty and do not have safe 
     drinking water; More than one-third of the world's children 
     are malnourished; Within the last 10 years, approximately two 
     million children have been killed in armed conflicts, many 
     after being forced to be child soldiers; Many poor countries 
     spend 30 percent-40 percent of their annual budgets (often 
     more than they spend on health and education combined); and 
     Horrific conditions can lead individuals to become more 
     disaffected and susceptible to recruitment by terrorist 
     organizations.
       OTHER PRIORITY AREAS: There are many areas in addition to 
     the above in which disparities continue to exist and on which 
     the CBC Action Agenda will also focus. Some of these areas 
     include building stronger African-American families, 
     improving the welfare of children, increasing African-
     American political representation, reducing inequities and 
     improving opportunities for African Americans to advance in 
     the military,

[[Page H387]]

     documenting and preserving African-American history by 
     assuring that financing and construction of the African-
     American Museum moves forward and eliminating waste, fraud, 
     abuse and disparities in every area of government.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a 
former member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to put the budget 
into perspective to see where we are with the budget as we discuss the 
priorities.
  This chart just shows where we are starting with the first Bush 
administration ending with a $290 billion deficit. The 8 years of the 
Clinton administration, each year better than the previous year, up to 
a $236 billion surplus, with surpluses increasing as far as the eye 
could see.
  The first year of the Bush administration we used up all of the 
surplus and ended up just with the Social Security and Medicare 
surplus, and each year worse than the year before. This year we expect 
a $427 billion deficit. Last year we ended up with a $412 billion 
deficit. When President Clinton left office, we had expected a surplus 
of $400 billion, a swing of over $800 billion.
  That is significant, Mr. Speaker, because if you look at what we get 
from the individual income tax, everybody's individual income tax, it 
is less than $800 billion. That was the swing just in 1 year.
  Mr. OWENS. Would the gentleman mind explaining the fact that every 
penny of the deficit costs us additional money because we pay interest 
on what we borrow and that is another expenditure that is added to the 
budget?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When President Clinton left office it looked 
as though we could pay off the national debt by 2008 or 2009, which 
meant we would be paying out zero interest on the national debt. We 
would be able to replace all the money in the trust funds by about 
2012, 2014, somewhere in there so there would be zero interest on the 
national debt paid to the trust funds.
  Right now, about 2009, interest national debt is projected, instead 
around zero, about $300 billion a year. At $30,000 apiece that is 
enough to hire 10 million Americans, more than the total number 
unemployed today.
  Where are we going? This chart shows, this red line is President 
Bush's projection of cutting the deficit in half in 5 years. First of 
all, we just showed that we started off with a surplus. We ought to be 
replacing the surplus, not just cleaning up half the mess. So the 
discussion about whether or not you can cut the deficit in half in 5 
years really is out of place.
  This chart up here shows in 2002, after 2001 President Bush projected 
surpluses in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and now he is talking 
about cutting the deficit in half. This chart down here shows a more 
realistic projection because it includes actually the war in Iraq and 
Social Security privatization, interest on all of that debt, extending 
the tax cuts and all of these policies would put us down on this line 
below.
  Mr. OWENS. I want to congratulate the gentleman on his observation 
there, because I have thumbed through the budget documents, the 
introductions, and the administration is applauding itself for reducing 
the budget in half in 5 to 10 years.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The budget deficit.
  Mr. OWENS. The deficit in half. Great applause is being showered upon 
them when we should not have a deficit to begin with.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. We should have a surplus. And you will notice 
if we adopt these policies we will not even come close.
  I mentioned Social Security. It is hard to take the Social Security 
plan seriously because this green line shows that we will be able to 
pay full benefits until 2042. If we adopt the President's plan to solve 
the problem, because after 2042 we will have a deficit, the President's 
plan goes bankrupt 11 years earlier. So if that is the solution to the 
problem, it is just very difficult to take that very seriously. 
Furthermore, there was not that much of a problem. In fact, the Social 
Security shortfall was about $3.7 trillion. If we do not make the tax 
cuts permanent for the top 1 percent, that is enough to just about 
cover the entire shortfall. Making the tax cuts permanent, $11.6 
trillion, is much more than the Social Security shortfalls.
  So when you talk about your priorities, there is a priority, tax cuts 
for the top 1 percent first. Worry about Social Security second. I 
think we should worry about Social Security first and then tax cuts 
second.
  If you look at the other kinds of priorities, look at the criminal 
justice priorities. I serve on the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) mentioned some of the 
disparities in the criminal justice system.
  There is a good part of the budget. There is more money in 
residential drug treatment and drug courts, but unfortunately it 
appears to be at the expense of other good programs in the substance 
abuse area. There is more money for offender reentry, $5.6 million for 
a total of $15 million; but we have hundreds of thousands of prisoners 
coming out of prison, so that is woefully inadequate. But, 
unfortunately, they are severe cuts, not only in education but in 
prevention programs, like Safe and Drug Free Schools, Weed and Seed and 
other prevention programs, the COPS program which will actually reduce 
crime.
  There is more money for prisons, building two new prisons. 
Unfortunately, that only exacerbates the disparities there are now. For 
every 100,000 whites in America, 366 are in jail today. But for every 
100,000 blacks, 2,209 are in jail today. We need to be putting more 
money into prevention and less money into prisons. And if we put it 
into prevention, we will not need the additional prisons.
  Mr. OWENS. Do those figures apply to black males?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. African generally.
  If we put more money into prevention, we would not have to build 
those two new prisons as we have to today.
  Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman for his excellent presentation.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Owens) has 31 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman, my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President released his budget blueprint 
for the 2006 fiscal year. While many of us are still reviewing the 
document, one thing is evident. The President proposes Draconian cuts 
to scores of programs which millions of people depend on in order to 
protect the tax cuts which only benefit a few Americans.
  The President's $2.57 trillion budget calls for freezing or cutting 
the funding for nearly every domestic discretionary program except 
defense and homeland security in the hopes of reducing the budget 
deficit. However, this budget does virtually nothing to reduce the 
deficit this year or any other year. In fact, the President's budget is 
calling for a deficit of $427 billion in 2005, a record high, and $390 
billion in 2006. And since the President fails to include the cost of 
many of his top priorities in this budget, which will cost at least $2 
trillion, the deficit will likely be either larger this year, next year 
and for many of the following years.
  Mr. Speaker, as ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Community Opportunity of the House Committee on Financial 
Services, I am extremely alarmed about the President's decision to 
transfer community development programs from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, that is HUD, to the Department of Commerce.
  Under the President's misguided plan, nearly all of the programs that 
comprise the Community Development Fund, including the Community 
Development Block Grant, will be moved out of the HUD program and 
combined with 17 other programs in the Commerce Department.
  Brownfields, section 108 loan guarantees, and the Renewal 
Communities/Empowerment Zone Program are all slated to move to 
Commerce.
  Once these programs are relocated to the Commerce Department, the 
President proposes to fund the 18 combined

[[Page H388]]

programs at 35 percent less than they are receiving now. This will be 
devastating to my home city of Los Angeles and many other urban and 
rural areas which depend on Community Development Fund programs to 
improve their communities.
  Mr. Speaker, cities, States, and community-based organizations 
throughout the country depend on Community Development Block Grant 
funds because they are extremely flexible. In fact, Community 
Development Block Grant funds can be used for housing rehabilitation; 
new housing construction; down payment assistance and other help for 
first-time home buyers; lead-based paint detection and removal; the 
purchase of land and buildings; the construction or rehabilitation of 
public facilities such as shelters for people experiencing homelessness 
or victims of domestic violence; making buildings accessible to the 
elderly and disabled; ``public services'' such as job training, 
transportation, health care, and child care, public services are capped 
at 15 percent of a jurisdiction's CDBG funds; capacity building for 
nonprofits; rehabilitating commercial or industrial buildings; and 
loans or grant to businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, the Commerce Department has no experience in community 
development programs, and it is likely that programs like the Community 
Development Block Grant with targeting provisions to focus on people 
with low and moderate incomes would receive far less consideration from 
the Commerce Department than other parts of the consolidated program. 
Thus, while the overall cut in community development funds is about 35 
percent, the cuts to the Community Development Block Grant would be 
even larger.
  The public may not know or understand the details of how the 
Community Development Block Grant funds are allocated to local 
community, but every mayor, every county official, every community 
development professional knows the indispensable role of Community 
Development Block Grant funds in funding housing, neighborhood 
improvements, and public services.

                              {time}  2030

  The proposed cuts to the Community Development Block Grant program 
will leave a huge hole in the budgets of our local governments, a hole 
they cannot and will not be able to fill with their own resources.
  The net effect of cuts to the Community Development Block Grant 
program will be a huge decrease in housing and economic revitalization 
at the local level. When the public sees the programs and services that 
will have to be eliminated if these cuts are enacted, they will be 
outraged, as they should be.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot shoehorn $5.6 billion in programs into a $3.71 
billion program without many people being hurt. Unfortunately, as is 
usually the case with this administration, it is low- and moderate-
income Americans who will suffer.
  These cuts would devastate local efforts in my city, in my county and 
in local communities throughout America to provide housing, 
neighborhood improvements and public services to youth, the disabled, 
battered and abused spouses and the elderly.
  These proposals are designed to decimate the CDBG program, to end it 
as we know it, not to improve the program. They must be resisted.
  May I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying, it is outrageous that this so-
called conservative President has been spending like a drunken sailor, 
and he has created this situation that we are in with this huge 
deficit; and now, after having given cuts to the richest 1 percent in 
America, he would try to fool the American people by saying he is going 
to cut back on programs or services that are not needed. It is shameful 
and it is unconscionable that he would balance the budget on the backs 
of the most needy, on the backs of working families who are trying to 
get along.
  This country must be organized to deal with this issue, and I intend 
to be very active in the effort to educate the public about what this 
President is doing.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her statement, 
and I might want to consider also, and all of us should consider, the 
fact that in this area of Community Development Block Grants, it is one 
of the areas where great promises are being made to faith-based 
organizations; and I wonder if the movement of this program from HUD 
into the Commerce Department is partially to facilitate a movement of 
grants into faith-based organizations, without scrutiny, without any 
peer review process and with the maximum amount of favoritism. It is 
something we should bear in mind.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. 
Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Owens) for yielding to me and for his leadership. I look forward 
to working with him and our other colleagues to propose a fix for the 
wrongs that are in the President's budget with the budget that the 
Congressional Black Caucus will present a little later in this process.
  I have heard a lot of descriptions, Mr. Speaker, of the President's 
budget, but the word that keeps coming to my mind is shameless.
  It is a budget of misplaced priorities that will only serve to widen 
the disparities that the Congressional Black Caucus and many other good 
Members of this and the other body have been working tirelessly to 
close, gaps that belie the values on which this country was founded and 
undermine our Nation's promise.
  First of all, the budget we have been sent is unfair. The burden of 
the deficit, the war and homeland security is thrust on the poor and 
the middle class, while the wealthy would reap the benefit of tax cuts, 
which further take us down the slippery slope of debt and deficit.
  It is based on more of the trickle-down economics that have never 
worked because the trickle always stops just short of those who need it 
most. Let us have some trickle-up economics for a change, so that there 
would be shared burden and shared benefits, if any.
  Further, the President's budget does nothing to reduce the deficit. 
It keeps and deepens our debt to China and other countries and defers 
payments on what we do today to our children and grandchildren. They 
should not have their future crippled by debts we can and must avoid in 
our time.
  Try though the White House might, they cannot seriously think they 
can justify it by budget shell games and turning attention to certain 
past increases the President signed only after having been made to do 
so, kicking and screaming all the way, by Democrats.
  If left as it is, this budget would deal a serious blow to health. As 
in years past, no mention is made by the Secretary of the most serious 
issue facing us in health care today, the inequality and injustice of 
health care disparities, especially in racial and ethnic minority 
populations.
  Medicaid, which has been faced with increased demands due to the 
failed economic policies of this administration, takes a near fatal hit 
in the President's budget. This is the bulwark of health care in this 
country, and it needs to be strengthened, not weakened.
  Further, the Centers for Disease Control, on whom the protection of 
our health, the prevention of disease and the strength of our 
bioterrorism shield depends, would see a severe cut, as would programs 
that train doctors, nurses and other health providers. It cuts 
bioterrorism medical training and preparedness in hospitals, many of 
whom cannot adequately meet their everyday demands, not to mention 
surge in the case of an attack.
  Rural health programs are slashed; newborn sickle cell screening and 
Indian health facilities construction grants are eliminated; and there 
are even cuts to CDC's HIV and AIDS, STD and TB budget at a time when 
our communities continue to be plagued by these diseases. Just today, I 
read of a TB outbreak, a tuberculosis outbreak, in northeastern South 
Carolina.
  No ounce of prevention; with this budget we will have to pay the full 
pound of cure.
  Today, I shared a program with former Speaker Newt Gingrich. I would 
suggest that the President and the House leadership and Senate 
leadership speak with him on this. He gets it.

  Here I am not quoting him verbatim, but I am doing so accurately. He 
said that this country must raise the level of health care of everyone, 
no matter

[[Page H389]]

where they live, of all races and ethnicities on a par with our white 
population and continue to raise that bar as well. He further went on 
to say that unless we do so and place more emphasis on prevention, we 
will never contain the dramatic increases in health care spending or 
improve the health of this Nation overall.
  This is the message that we in the Congressional Black Caucus, 
together with our colleagues in the Hispanic Caucus, Native American 
Caucus and Asian Pacific Island Caucus, as well as the Progressive 
Caucus, have been trying to get across all along. I hope that hearing 
it from a Republican leader can finally have that message break 
through.
  When the Congressional Black Caucus met with President Bush a few 
weeks ago, we tried to impress upon him the urgency of acting, not 
talking, but acting with budget and programs, to close the gaps in 
health care that weaken this country morally, economically and in terms 
of our national security. As we also told him, we tell our colleagues: 
Every year that we fail to live up to what is our moral obligation to 
do good, to heal, to feed and to clothe the least of these, as we have 
been called, we as a Congress, through our omission, are complicit in 
the premature, preventable deaths of close to 100,000 African Americans 
and other people of color every year.
  The submission of the President's budget is only the beginning of a 
process. It began wrong, but we can and must make it right. All we are 
asking for is a budget that is fair, that is just and that finally 
brings about the equality for all that our country has promised.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is sort of an expert in this 
area.
  What does my colleague think of the fact that repeatedly the 
Republican message has begun to bang away at the fact they are going to 
provide more money for Community Health Centers? I have several good 
Community Health Centers in my district, but they are offered as a 
substitute for any of the real health care benefits financed by the 
Federal Government.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, with the 
level funding, from Maternal and Child Healthy Starts with cuts in many 
of the prevention programs, with the elimination of funding for 
training the physicians, the doctors and nurses and other health 
providers, from our communities who have the cultural sensitivity to 
deal with the diverse populations that use the Community Health 
Centers, there will be empty buildings.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, they are robbing Peter but not giving it all 
to Paul.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Yes, exactly.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Owens), for organizing, really, this opportunity to 
educate the public and the administration and, of course, Congress with 
regard to the most pressing issues confronting our country as it 
relates to this budget, especially as it relates to those who have not 
benefited from the huge tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, few traditions are more significant in our democracy 
than the President's annual submission of the budget. It provides us 
really a window on the President's and the administration's values and 
their priorities for this term. It also sets the tone and the standard 
for us in Congress by marking the spending levels for this year.
  Now, I quite frankly had to go back and reread the President's State 
of the Union speech, because I wanted to see how consistent this budget 
was in terms of what he presented to the country in his State of the 
Union address. So I would like to mention a couple of those points 
tonight.
  First of all, of course, in his State of the Union message he said 
that one of the deepest values of our country is compassion. I think we 
have heard that tonight this President's 2006 budget shows very little 
compassion. Instead of sending us a budget for the American people, for 
the people, this President has sent us a budget that really turns our 
back on the people and on their future. It sacrifices our children, our 
seniors, our security, our veterans, our environment and our economy in 
order to advance special interests and to make permanent tax cuts for 
the wealthy.
  In his State of the Union speech, the President also said over the 
next several months on issue after issue, let us do what Americans have 
always done and build a better world for our children and our 
grandchildren. Well, let me tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, how does 
cutting $5 billion in housing, how does eliminating funding for Hope 
VI, how does cutting funding by 50 percent for the disabled in terms of 
housing, how does this create a better world for our children and for 
our grandchildren?

  The assault on the poor in this budget is appalling, and the cuts 
keep coming. The President's budget has cut Community Development Block 
Grants, has cut housing assistance for people living with HIV and AIDS. 
It has cut the lead paint abatement program. It cuts the fair housing 
program. It cuts rural housing initiatives. It cuts Native American 
housing. It cuts the Youth Build program. It has eliminated the 
empowerment zone and brownfield programs, and this is just the tip of 
the iceberg.
  Again, going back to the President's State of the Union speech, how 
does this budget build a better world for our children and for our 
grandchildren?
  Also in his State of the Union speech, the President acknowledged, 
rightfully so, the devastatingly high rates of HIV and AIDS in the 
African American community, and Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge the 
President's leadership in calling on Congress to reauthorize the Ryan 
White CARE Act. During last week's State of the Union speech, the 
President indicated this, but again, I must say, looking at this 
budget, it offers very little for our minority AIDS initiative.
  He proposes a $10 million increase in the Ryan White CARE Act, $10 
million. This is far short of what is needed. We need at least $513 
million more this year to keep people off of waiting lists and to 
prevent new infections. In short, we need a budget that provides a 
minimum of about $2.6 billion if we are really serious about addressing 
this HIV and AIDS crisis here in America. A $10 million increase in the 
Ryan White CARE Act really does not signal the seriousness of this 
crisis.
  Furthermore, we need more money for the minority AIDS initiative. 
Ever since this President has been in office, we have flat-funded the 
minority AIDS initiative at $407 million. We need at least $610 million 
this year if the President is really serious, again as he said in his 
State of the Union address, if he is serious about addressing the HIV/
AIDS pandemic in our communities.

                              {time}  2045

  The budget does not reflect what the President has said in terms of 
the seriousness of this in our country.
  Also, in the State of the Union, the President devoted a large 
portion of his speech to address Social Security. And as he described 
it, Social Security is one of America's most important institutions, a 
symbol of trust, he said, between the generations, and that it is 
headed towards bankruptcy. Well, even if we discount the fact that the 
President simply is incorrect, and I believe he is and many of us do, 
in his assessment about Social Security's solvency, his budget for 2006 
does not even include the cost of his estimated $1.3 trillion proposal 
for Social Security privatization over the decade after its enactment. 
This is a critical omission.
  And the President said in his State of the Union speech that a 
taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely or not at all. Well, let me just 
say parenthetically, I believe not only should tax dollars be spent 
wisely but they should be spent with compassion, as he talked about 
earlier, not or not at all. But in this budget, these cuts that the 
President has proposed are not even wise, let alone compassionate.
  Also, the President's State of the Union speech was about freedom and 
democracy; very grandiose statements he made. But I wondered when I was 
listening to him why justice, as a value, why this was omitted really 
from these grand statements in the State of the Union. Well, quite 
frankly, after reading and reviewing this budget, I can see why. It 
explains why. Because there is no justice in this budget.

[[Page H390]]

  So, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to go back to the drawing board, and 
we need to remind the President about his State of the Union message. 
And I would say, as many have said before, that we want not just a 
budget but a just budget.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and 
I would like to go back to my introduction where I said that the budget 
is a statement of the morality of America. What our moral position is 
is stated in the budget. The beautiful rhetoric of the inaugural 
address, the beautiful rhetoric of the State of the Union address, they 
must be followed up with concrete statements of how we spend our money. 
That is not the case. We spend our money quite differently from the 
high standard that was set in the President's inaugural address and in 
his State of the Union address.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine 
Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. I have a couple of questions for the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) and for the chairman, but before that we have had 
several discussions about the budget and what the budget reflects.
  Mr. Speaker, when you are in a group or organization, or in the 
church, you can tell something about the people as to how they spend 
their money. It is clear that this Bush administration does not value 
the people that are paying the bills. They do not value the people that 
are paying the bills. All you have to do is follow the dollars. Every 
single domestic program is cut under this administration.
  My question has to go back to starting with Social Security. My 
question, one, pertains to the Social Security program that we just 
celebrated a few years ago, how many years it has been in existence, 
the most successful program in the history of this country. I guess I 
am the only Member that remembers that the Republicans said that they 
want to see the program wither on the vine.
  Would my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), explain 
how old the program is and why it was started in the first place.

  Mr. OWENS. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentlewoman that it is 
more than 60 years old. And if I had a glass of wine here, I would 
drink a toast to it. Let us drink a toast to an aging lady in her 60s. 
That is really the prime these days. The most beautiful program that 
ever was developed, Social Security. It does not need an extreme 
makeover. It may need a few repairs here and there, but it does not 
need the kind of demolition that the President is planning for Social 
Security, the greatest program we have ever had. And we should all work 
and fight together to keep it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I might add that we would have 50 percent more 
of our seniors living in poverty were it not for Social Security. Our 
disabled rely on Social Security. Our survivors rely on Social 
Security, as a result of Social Security benefits. This does not need 
to be dismantled or privatized. It is a program that provides a safety 
net.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my chief of staff and I 
were talking today about the program. He is a young man in his 40s, but 
his father died when he was a young man, and he was able to get that 
benefit that took care of him until he went to college. That is a 
benefit of the Social Security program. So it helps those people that 
have parents who die, and it also helps the disabled; is that correct?
  Ms. LEE. That is correct. And I know many individuals who are 
disabled who would have a very dismal life had it not been for Social 
Security. Young people who are disabled are able to receive Social 
Security. It ensures a quality of life for those who, for whatever 
reason, have not been able to move forward. I do not want to see this 
touched for the disabled or for young people whose parents have died or 
for our senior citizens.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I thank the gentleman for this 
discussion tonight.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that among the programs 
eliminated, and I will submit a list of programs proposed for 
elimination in the education area, but among those programs are the 
Arts in Education program; Community Technology Centers, designed to 
close the digital gap between the poorer communities and the middle-
class communities; the Javitz Gifted and Talented Education program, a 
tiny program, but many people complain there is nothing for the gifted, 
and so we need that. Regional Education Laboratories, which have 
existed for a long time, are going to be phased out. Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools and Communities State Grants, a program popular all across the 
Nation, which is proposed for elimination. TRIO Talent Search; TRIO 
Upward Bound program. The Vocational Education State Grants.
  Drastic reductions are proposed in order to save money, as I said 
before. In order to save money to give more to the military, we are 
going to guarantee the security of the Nation by wiping out the 
programs that are the most beneficial for the development of our own 
population. The greatest resource that any nation can have is its own 
people, the people's development, the people's talent, the people's 
education. And we are turning our backs on that in this budget, which 
is a bad moral statement in comparison with what the President has said 
in his rhetoric in the inaugural address and in the State of the Union 
address.
  The budget is a concrete statement. It is evidence of just how moral 
we are, and this budget falls short in many ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
allowing me the opportunity to have this discussion with my colleagues 
on a very important journey, road map, debate that will take place both 
in the House and the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to have been able to come to the floor and 
begin a discussion on the bipartisan efforts to pass a budget that 
would impact the American people in a positive way, but I think it is 
important to reiterate why we are standing here today. It is not 
because we want to cite the failings of the administration, but because 
we are concerned about the negative impact that this budget will have 
on millions and millions of Americans.
  Let me refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker. We are going to be cutting 
in the President's budget, which will be debated now on the floor of 
the House, $60 billion for Medicaid. That is not $6 billion, not $16 
billion; but it is $60 billion which includes those dollars for nursing 
home residents, those dollars for indigent mothers and their children, 
those dollars that cover the Children's Health Insurance Program that 
many States are already suffering because there is not enough money.
  We will see a cut of 43 programs in education up to $1.3 billion. 
That means that the extra burden on school districts will now 
accelerate. And those schools that are looking for additional funds for 
the increased population, it will not be there.
  Veterans, the very people who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
now will find their care cut by $1.2 billion over 5 years. And we note 
that that House committee has been reconfigured and therefore we do not 
have the kind of advocacy we look for.
  Environmental Protection Agency, $300 million. Department of Justice, 
the DNA labs the President spoke about, $1.1 billion.
  Let me say this: I applaud the community health clinics that will 
have a positive impact on Houston, and Texas in general, and many other 
cities the President has proposed. I applaud the dollars for Homeland 
Security. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot in this budget pay for the needs 
of the American people by making the tax cuts permanent and taking $1.5 
trillion to $2 trillion to change the Social Security System to a 
private special account.
  I close by saying this to those who are listening to this debate: get 
engaged. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York and ask my 
colleagues to be a part of this debate. This budget can be changed. 
Social Security can be saved. And for those who think that the private 
account is worthy, spend for 40 years $1,000, to the young people who 
might be listening; have invested $99,000; give back to the United 
States $79,000, and only receive $21,000 for your annuity.

[[Page H391]]

  This budget must be changed. It must be a budget that is invested to 
help the American people. I thank the Speaker, and I look forward to 
the debate. I also thank the distinguished gentleman from New York and 
my colleagues who have been on the floor for their participation in 
this very worthy debate.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith the list of programs slated 
for elimination, which I referred to earlier:

                 III. Programs Proposed for Elimination

       The 2006 request continues the practice of the Bush 
     Administration--also consistent with previous administrations 
     over the past 25 years--of proposing to eliminate or 
     consolidate funding for programs that have achieved their 
     original purpose, that duplicate other programs, that may be 
     carried out with flexible State formula grant funds, or that 
     involve activities that are better or more appropriately 
     supported through State, local, or private resources. In 
     addition. the government-wide Program Assessment Rating Tool, 
     or PART, helps focus funding of Department of Education 
     programs that generate positive results for students and that 
     meet strong accountability standards. For 2006, PART findings 
     were used to redirect funds from ineffective programs to more 
     effective activities, as well as to identify reforms to help 
     address programs weaknesses.
       The following table shows the programs proposed for 
     elimination in the President's 2006 budget request. 
     Termination of these 48 programs frees up almost $4.3 
     billion--based on 2005 levels--for reallocation to more 
     effective, higher-priority activities. Following the table is 
     a brief summary of each program and the rationale for its 
     elimination.


                          Program Terminations

                         [2005 BA in millions]

Alcohol Abuse Reduction...........................................$32.7
Arts in Education..................................................35.6
B.J. Stupa Olympic Scholarships.....................................1.0
Byrd Honors Scholarship............................................40.7
Civic Education....................................................29.4
Close Up Fellowships................................................1.5
Community Technology Centers........................................5.0
Comprehensive School Reform.......................................205.3
Demonstration Projects for Students with Disabilities...............6.9
Educational Technology State Grants...............................496.0
Elementary and Secondary School Counseling.........................34.7
Even Start........................................................225.1
Excellence in Economic Education....................................1.5
Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners................8.6
Federal Perkins Loan Cancellations.................................66.1
Foreign Language Assistance........................................17.9
Foundations for Learning............................................1.0
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs..306.5
Interest Subsidy Grants.............................................1.5
Javits Gifted and Talented Education...............................11.0
Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships.....................65.6
Literacy Programs for Prisoners.....................................5.0
Menal Health Integration in School..................................5.0
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers....................................2.3
National Writing Project...........................................20.3
Occupational and Employment Information.............................9.3
Parental Informational and Resources Centers.......................41.9
Projects with Industry.............................................21.6
Ready to Teach.....................................................14.3
Recreational Programs...............................................2.5
Regional Educational Laboratories..................................66.1
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grant............437.4
Schooll Dropout Prevention..........................................4.9
School Leadership..................................................14.9
Smaller Learning Communities.......................................94.5
Star Schools.......................................................20.8
State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders......................21.8
Support Employment State Grants....................................37.4
Teacher Quality Enhancement........................................68.3
Tech-Prep Demonstration.............................................4.9
Tech-Prep Education State Grants..................................105.8
Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program.............3.0
TRIO Talent Search................................................144.9
TRIO Upward Bound.................................................312.6
Underground Railroad Program........................................2.2
Vocational Education National Programs.............................11.8
Vocational Education State Grants...............................1,194.3
Women's Educational Equity..........................................3.0
                                                             __________
                                                             
    Total.......................................................4,264.4


                          Program Descriptions

                 [Figures reflect 2005 BA in millions]

Alcohol Abuse Reduction...........................................$32.7
Supports programs to reduce alcohol abuse in secondary schools. 
    These programs may be funded through other Safe and Drug-Free 
    Schools and Communities National Programs and State Grants for 
    Innovative Programs.
Arts in Education.................................................$35.6
Makes non-competitive awards to VSA arts and the John F. Kennedy 
    Center for the Performing Arts as well as competitive awards for 
    national demonstrations and Federal leadership activities to 
    encourage the integration of the arts into the school 
    curriculum. Eliminating funding for the program is consistent 
    with Administration policy of terminating small categorical 
    programs with limited impact in order to fund higher priorities. 
    Arts education programs may be funded under other authorities.
B.J. Stupak Olympic Scholarships...................................$1.0
Provides financial assistance to athletes who are training at the 
    United States Olympic Education Center or one of the United 
    States Olympic Training Centers and who are pursuing a 
    postsecondary education. Athletes can receive grant, work-study, 
    and loan assistance through the Department's postsecondary 
    student aid programs. Rated Results Not Demonstrated by the PART 
    due to lack of performance data and program design deficiencies, 
    including its duplication of other Federal student aid programs.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
vehemently state my disappointment, frustration, and objection to the 
FY 2006 budget submitted by President Bush.
  When President Bush submitted his 2006 budget to Congress on Monday 
he said, ``The taxpayers of America don't want us spending our money 
into something that's not achieving results.'' I couldn't agree more. 
The unnecessary tax cuts for the rich and an optional war with Iraq are 
not producing results.
  The President's 2006 budget request slashes social programs while 
increasing military spending. Yet not a single dime of his FY 2006 
budget is earmarked for Iraq. Instead, those costs are hidden from the 
American people in the form of an $80 billion emergency supplemental 
request to Congress. This budget will severely impact Texas citizens 
negatively, as well as other American citizens. They deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, never before has America faced such an array of issues 
that demand creative, competent leadership. But the Administration has 
pursued solutions that serve only to escalate the problems we are 
facing. Programs and policies that not only provide assistance for the 
poor but for a large portion of the American people who need help to 
keep their heads above water are under attack. On the cutting block by 
this Administration are grants for college tuition; housing assistance 
under Section 8; food stamps; health care for the uninsured.
  Eight million Americans are unemployed. But Republicans passed a new 
set of tax breaks that reward corporations who send jobs overseas. 
About 45 million Americans have no health insurance. But Republicans 
have proposed Health Savings Accounts that benefit a wealthy few, 
encourage employers to drop insurance coverage and will increase the 
number of uninsured by 350,000. Over 8 million children nationwide are 
struggling to meet new national education standards. But Republicans 
refused to provide promised help to our schools, leaving millions of 
children without the help they need in reading and math.
  America needs a national security policy that is as strong and brave 
and as decent as the heroes who serve in uniform. We must make sure 
that they have the training and equipment they need to get the job done 
right.
  Democrats are working to build a future that is worthy of the trust 
of the American people, the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, 
and the aspirations of all of America's children.

                          ____________________