[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 23 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H747-H754]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS HOUR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs.
Christensen) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
minority leader.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead this Special
Order for an hour on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus and to
have some of my distinguished colleagues join me.
But as we begin the Special Order to call attention to the travesty
that the Republican leadership is proposing and the cuts that they will
be trying to enact for the balance of this year, I want to say
something that begins to put these cuts into a particular perspective.
I'm sure that everyone is aware that today is Valentine's Day, a day
in which we supposedly celebrate love. As the Republican leadership
begins the onslaught on some very important programs, I want to share
with them and all of us something that Dr. Cornel West has been
reminding us of as of late, that is, that justice is what love looks
like in the public arena.
So on this day when we show those close to us we love them, we should
also be showing the American people our commitment to justice. Mr.
Speaker, the cuts being proposed with the continuing resolution are
anything but just.
With that, I would like to yield first to our distinguished assistant
minority leader, Mr. Clyburn, the gentleman from South Carolina, who
has been a leader for his State, for this Congress, and for our
country, particularly a leader of high morals who leads this country in
making sure that we stay true to the values that this country was
founded on and continue to operate in that faith.
Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time and
thank her for her tremendous leadership on this and many other areas
that come before this Congress.
I want to take just a few moments to talk about an issue that's very,
very important to a significant number of citizens in our great
country. The Wharton School of Business recently held a conference
named in honor of Whitney Young, a leader and friend in the struggle
for social justice, equality, and civil rights. Whitney Young is
probably known best for growing and transforming the Urban League from
a sleepy little organization into one of the country's biggest and most
aggressive crusaders for social justice.
What he is less known for is his call for a ``domestic Marshall
Plan,'' a program to eradicate poverty and deprivation in the United
States, similar to the Marshall Plan that was launched to reconstruct
Europe after World War II. I would like to use that call for a domestic
Marshall Plan as a jumping-off point for my remarks this evening.
Some of Whitney Young's ideas were incorporated into President Lyndon
Johnson's War on Poverty over 40 years ago, yet the scourge is still
with us. Before the War on Poverty and the Great Society, we had the
New Deal. All of these investments in America helped to move us forward
as a Nation. But some communities have been left behind each time, and
we have begun to call them ``persistent poverty communities,'' places
that have had more
[[Page H748]]
than 20 percent of their populations living beneath the poverty level
for more than 30 years.
Approximately 15 percent of all counties in America qualify as
persistent poverty counties under this definition. These counties are
diverse and spread across the country, including Appalachian
communities in Kentucky and West Virginia; Native American communities
in South Dakota and Alaska; Latino communities in Arizona and New
Mexico; African American communities in Mississippi and South Carolina;
and urban communities in Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, and St.
Louis.
{time} 1930
Democrats represent 149 of these counties, with a total population of
8.7 million. Republicans represent 311 of these counties, with a total
population of 8.3 million. Fourteen, with a total population of 5.3
million, are split between Democrats and Republicans.
A total of 43 Democrats and 84 Republicans represent at least a part
of one of these counties. Thirty-five of the 50 states have at least
one persistent poverty county. Fifteen of South Carolina's 46 counties
meet this ignoble distinction, and seven of them are in the Sixth
Congressional District that I proudly represent.
This is not a red state or a blue state issue. That's why in the map
beside me the persistent poverty communities are colored in purple
because poverty knows no political affiliation. Poverty has never been
limited to race, region, or creed.
For many years, counties along the I-95 corridor in South Carolina
were passed over for economic development. Federal funds found their
way to South Carolina, but mysteriously did not find their way into the
Sixth Congressional District.
The I-95 corridor is plagued with health disparities. The Sixth
District has the dubious distinction of leading the State in incidents
of stroke, heart disease, and diabetes. We lead the State in
amputations for both adult and juvenile diabetes. This region is known
as the buckle of the stroke belt, and is home to the highest rate of
prostate cancer deaths among black males in the South.
Scientists tell me that many of these health problems are directly
related to water quality. In some of these places in my district, the
water is not fit for human consumption. One particular instance in
which my office was involved, the Health Department would not allow a
water hookup to a home because of the contamination. Yet, the people
still drink the water because they have no choice.
Two years ago I offered a provision in the Rural Development section
of the Recovery Act that we called the 10-20-30 formula. It stipulated
that at least 10 percent of the funds be targeted to counties where at
least a 20 percent poverty rate has persisted for the past 30 years.
The formula is working.
Marion County, South Carolina, received a $3 million loan and a $4.7
million grant to build 71 miles of water lines, and three water
projects in Orangeburg County benefited from this formula, including a
$5.6 million grant to bring potable water to these communities.
Citizens in these counties will soon be enjoying their first clean
glass of water from the faucet, free of contaminants and pollutants,
thanks to this formula.
In the coming days and weeks, I will personally reach out to all 127
Members who represent persistent poverty counties in hopes of bringing
together a bipartisan task force to ensure that these areas are not
overlooked as we emerge from the recession. Hopefully, this task force
will work to build on the success of the 10-20-30 formula in the rural
development program by extending it to all Federal departments with
grant-making authority going forward.
I thank my friend from the Virgin Islands for allowing me to speak
about this important issue today.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Clyburn, and we thank you so much
for developing that formula that has begun to help communities that
have been long distressed with high poverty levels for all that time,
and we look forward to the work of your task force. Obviously this is
not a Democrat issue or a Republican issue; it's an American issue. And
we look forward to supporting that task force and the work that you
will be doing.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who leads the Congressional Black
Caucus budget and has led it for all the years that I have been here.
And I must say that in all of the budgets that he has helped us prepare
and present to this body, they have been thoughtful, they have provided
funding to the important areas that our communities and some of the
communities that Mr. Clyburn talked about needed, but still has reduced
the deficit in every instance.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and if
we're going to be able to address the important matters that our
assistant leader has suggested, it's going to depend on our ability to
get the budget under control.
When we talk about the budget, we need to put the budget in
perspective. I was first elected in 1992, and in 1993 we considered a
budget that put an end to fiscal recklessness. We passed a budget that,
by the end of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, had not only
eliminated the deficit, but had created enough surplus to have paid off
the entire national debt held by the public by 2 years ago. That would
mean that we'd owe no money to Japan, no money to China, no money to
Saudi Arabia. That budget also created a record number of jobs
and record economic activity, as noted by the record increase in the
Dow Jones Industrial Average. So we had a good budget. We had fiscal
responsibility, but unfortunately, in 2001, that came to an end when we
reverted to fiscal irresponsibility.
Under the Bush administration, we passed two tax cuts without paying
for them, a prescriptive drug benefit without paying for it, fought two
wars in the middle of cutting taxes, and a $700 billion bailout, all of
which put us in the economic ditch.
Now, in order to get these large deficits we now have under control,
we're going to have to make some tough choices. Unfortunately, last
year we started off in the wrong direction. We considered a huge tax
cut bill last year that went in the wrong direction at a total cost, 2-
year cost, of $800 billion. And to put that in perspective, $800
billion is more than we spent on the TARP program, about the same as
the stimulus, about the same as what the health care bill spends in 10
years, that tax cut bill spent in two.
In case people don't really appreciate how big a bill that was, we
checked with the National Conference of State Legislatures and
ascertained that the total general fund budget, add them up, for 50
states, general fund budget of 50 states was $650 billion. We, in one
vote, cut taxes by $800 billion.
And before that bill was passed, we asked, well, how are you going to
pay for it? One of the ways is that we jeopardize Social Security in
the bill, cutting the payroll tax, so money coming into Social Security
will have to be subsidized by the general fund. That puts the Social
Security program in competition with everything else in the budget. And
so we put Social Security in jeopardy.
And we also had tax cuts for dead multimillionaires. I say dead
multimillionaires because everybody expected us to have an exemption of
$3.5 million, $7 million per couple, where you pay no taxes and begin
paying taxes after that. Well, we increased that exemption, the amount
you can get without paying any estate tax, to $5 million, and reduced
the rate.
{time} 1940
That additional assistance to dead multimillionaires cost $24
billion. Again, how are we going to pay for it?
You can look at the continuing resolution in next year's budget, a
budget that the Republicans have already attacked for not cutting
enough, and look what it does to the safety net:
LIHEAP, the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, for
those that can't pay their energy bills and risk freezing to death, we
cut that by one-half billion dollars to help fund the multimillionaire
tax cut;
Women Infants and Children, the WIC program, so that babies can be
born healthy and start off on the right track, we cut that program;
Job training and employment services, for those who have lost their
jobs and may never return, trying to get a job that will be there, we
cut that program;
[[Page H749]]
Community health centers, public housing, at a time of record
foreclosures, we're cutting those programs to partially fund that tax
cut.
Opportunities:
Head Start, we only address the needs in Head Start for half the
eligible children. We are going to cut Head Start to deprive millions
of children of that important opportunity of starting off on the right
track. We have found that Head Start will increase graduation rates,
reduce delinquency, reduce the need for welfare, save more money than
it costs. We're cutting that program;
TRIO and GEAR UP, programs that encourage young people to go to
college, we're cutting those programs;
Assistance to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Hispanic-serving institutions by significant amounts. Those deal with a
lot of first-generation children;
Funds for improvement of postsecondary education, cut.
Our investments in America's future:
NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science
Foundation, Advanced Research Project, all cut. These are investments
in our future;
The National Infrastructure Innovation Fund, and rescinding billions
in high-speed rail. Other countries are investing in high-speed rail.
We're cutting high-speed rail.
Now, we should be more responsible when it comes to balancing the
budget, and we can do it. But you can't do it by beginning the
discussion with an $800 billion tax cut without telling people how you
are going to pay for it. Cutting critical safety net programs,
initiatives to give opportunities for our youth, and initiatives that
will invest in our future, these are the things that are being cut to
fund that tax cut bill from last year.
We cannot disassociate ourselves from the connection of cuts that we
are making today from the tax cut bills that we passed before. People
are saying, well, we can't afford it. Well, we could have afforded it
had we not passed that tax cut. We need to rescind what we did last
year so we do not have to make these draconian cuts this year.
We should have been honest with the people last year. I don't think
the people want cuts in Social Security, the safety net, and
investments in our future. We can do better, and that's why we are
going to be fighting against these draconian cuts that are so important
to so many people and make sure that we go off and continue on the
right track, as we did in 1993, where we can pass a responsible budget,
address the needs of the people, create jobs, economic activity, and we
were on course to paying off the national debt.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And I remember when the tax
cuts were being debated and you led us, because we knew that those tax
cuts would be paid for by cuts to the programs that our communities
need most and that the American people want. The Pew Foundation did a
poll that showed that people don't want cuts in those programs.
It was interesting, Paul Krugman in The New York Times today made a
good point. Because the bill doesn't have one of those nice names that
are usually attached to Republican bills when they are doing something
that would hurt the public, he suggested we call it the Eat the Future
bill, because that's what we're doing. We're taking away things now
that we need to invest in to build our future.
So thank you, Mr. Scott, and thank you for your leadership on the
budget.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to our leader, the chair
of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver from Missouri.
Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think that what Congressman Bobby Scott just said has to be echoed.
And as is often said on the floor in this august Chamber is that I
would like to associate myself with the comments of the previous
speaker.
Congresswoman Donna Christensen has led the discussion on this vital
issue that we will not be silent about. Mr. Speaker, in my real life as
an ordained United Methodist pastor, I say to our congregation and
congregations where I speak that if you want to know what a person is
really like, if you want to know who a person really is, look through
their checkbook. The checkbook will reveal quite clearly what a person
believes in.
The same thing is true of a corporation and a nation, and the budget
of the United States is a bold statement about who we are as a Nation.
It says clearly what we believe in and the things we don't believe in.
It is a statement that paints a picture of the United States of
America.
Mr. Speaker, the picture that is being painted now is a picture that
could be used on the chiller channel. It is a picture of a nation that
would prefer to move toward deficit and debt reduction by unduly
placing pain on the poor or, most appropriately and significantly, on
the men and women of this country who are now pushed aside.
Normally, when we talk about the poor, in people's minds they see
minorities and the people who are lazy and shiftless and who don't want
to work. We are experiencing the greatest economic crisis since October
1929, and the people who we are looking at as being available to be
discarded are police officers and teachers and State employees and
municipal workers who have been laid off.
Every State in the Union is having financial problems. Every State in
the Union is laying off employees. In my hometown, Kansas City,
Missouri, we have a $60 million shortfall. The State government has a
$200 million shortfall, and so State workers are being laid off. What
we are saying now is that the people who are already experiencing pain
should get ready to experience some additional pain.
And I have heard over and over and over again, well, everybody must
share in the pain. The question that I have asked that nobody has
answered, I asked this in our committee last week: Why? Why should
everybody end up suffering? Because everybody didn't contribute to this
problem, number one. And, on top of that, the individuals who were hurt
as a result of the recession we are asking to receive some additional
pain. And that is simply not the way I think we want to project
ourselves to ourselves, and certainly to the international community.
As Congressman Scott mentioned, we had a tax cut and made some major
decisions before we went home for Christmas, and nobody stood on the
floor and repeatedly asked the question: How are we going to pay for
it? Well, now we are going to pay for it by equally, as we like to say,
trying to place the pain on everyone.
We are not talking about getting rid of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
And the amazing thing is that the people, Wall Street, who caused much
of the problems, are now being rewarded for causing the problems. We
are going to say, okay, we're going to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac. We're going to do all kinds of things that would accommodate the
Wall Street barons who helped cause the crisis.
{time} 1950
And the poorest people in this country are going to end up suffering
even more so. We even had to fight to continue unemployment benefits.
We had a battle on this floor to continue the unemployment benefits for
people who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs, such as
police officers and firefighters.
Then we come out with this budget. This budget that we are about to
debate is a nervous breakdown on paper. It is not something that we can
be proud of as people of the United States, because it shows that we
don't think in terms of trying to minimize the pain on the least of
these.
Now, to be sure, the United States faces a painful and profound
problem with our deficit and our debt. It has to be dealt with. I am on
the Financial Services Committee. I asked this question in the
committee last week: Are we serious about cutting the debt, when we say
we are not going to talk about the entitlements?
We are not going to talk about Social Security, we are not going to
talk about Medicare or Medicaid, and we certainly can't do anything
with the annual debt service, which is a part of the budget that we
can't make decisions on. We have to pay it. So, if we are not seriously
trying to reduce the deficit by dealing with the entitlements, then
what we are saying is we are going to play with the American public,
tell them we are trying to be serious about the debt, when we know we
are not.
[[Page H750]]
This is not going to make any kind of substantial reduction in our
deficit over the long term. We have got to seriously deal with this
problem, and we are not doing it. We are absolutely not dealing with
it. Nobody wants to talk about the Social Security issue, because they
are thinking about reelection. Not because it shouldn't be dealt with,
but they are thinking reelection.
There is criticism, well, the President should have lead the
discussion on changing the retirement age on Social Security to a
higher number, or somehow creating a new system whereby we have a means
test, where individuals who are making $500,000 a year simply can't
also draw their Social Security. We are not even talking about that.
And there is nobody on this Hill who can stand up and say we can
address this problem very seriously without dealing with the
entitlements.
So I am sorry that we are going to hurt so many people in the process
of just kind of tinkering around the edges of what is a very serious
problem.
My final comment, Congresswoman Christensen, is there are a lot of
people who ran for office and said we are going to deal with this
deficit. But even they are not talking about the only way in which we
can change this problem that we are having. Every economist will tell
you that that is the only way we are going to deal with the deficit.
There is not a single economist who is credible who will say we can
deal with this in any other way, yet we are not dealing with it, and it
is really a great tragedy.
I do think, as I conclude my comments, Mrs. Christensen, that the
whole issue of what we are doing is so painful that even Ben Bernanke
is saying, yes, we have to make cuts. But he is also saying you have to
be careful. Look, the United States is the only entity putting money
into the economy in any serious way right now, and if we withdraw it
there could be economic consequences of withdrawing the kind of money
we are talking about withdrawing.
Some of us are going to challenge it at every opportunity, because it
is the wrong thing to do.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Congressman Cleaver. We are certainly
fortunate to having you leading the Congressional Black Caucus at this
time. I think we need a pastor as leader.
At church yesterday, my minister spoke about our need as Christians.
But this would apply to any faith, that we must be on the side of the
dispossessed, the helpless, the hopeless, and the marginalized, and the
cuts that the Republicans plan would clearly hurt the least of these
and are definitely not on their side.
I want to yield at this time to the gentlewoman from Texas,
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you very much,
Congresswoman Christensen.
The National Science Foundation was created in 1950; the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, and NASA were created in
1958; and the Department of Energy was established in 1977. Some of the
technologies which originated from these Federal investments include
the laser, Internet, fiber optics, and nuclear power.
Companies which sprang forth from these efforts include companies
like Google, SAS, Cisco Systems, Orbital Sciences, and Sun
Microsystems. These five companies alone employ 130,000 people, 130,000
jobs which were created from relatively modest Federal investment. And
there are hundreds of companies which had their beginning in Federal
research grants.
The equation is clear: Federal investment in research and development
leads to new technologies and products which create jobs. And on the
other side of the equation, focused investment in STEM education
produces a highly-skilled workforce which ensures these high-tech jobs
stay in America.
At a Science and Technology Committee last session, Tom Donohue of
the United States Chamber of Commerce had this to say: ``Research and
development is the very lifeblood of our knowledge economy.'' That just
about sums it up. In addition, investments in R&D also help to increase
the participation of minorities in the R&D enterprises.
Through the efforts of many in Congress, including those speaking
tonight, we have made great progress in expanding the pool of talent
that this country can draw on to address the competitiveness challenge
that we are facing. However, the CR before us this week would take us
back and undo much of the good work that has been done to date.
Let me just quote a few negative impacts of this proposed CR. The CR
would severely reduce, by 78 percent, funding for Hispanic-serving
colleges and completely eliminate Federal support for several other
programs for minority-serving colleges, including tribal colleges and
institutions that serve significant numbers of black and Asian
students.
The key Education Department program for historically black colleges
and universities would lose $85 million of the $266 million it received
in 2010, or about a third of it. The CR eliminates $103 million for the
Tech-Prep Program for vocational education, which heavily benefits
community colleges, and also guts funding for the creation and support
of statewide education data systems and eliminates all congressional
earmarks for individual institutions, which in 2010 totaled almost $2
billion for colleges and universities.
Under this proposal, title I would be cut by $693.5 million. The cut
to title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would mean
2,400 schools that serve nearly 1 million disadvantaged students would
lose funding for teachers, tutors, and after-school programs. Nearly
10,000 teacher aides could lose their jobs.
Head Start was targeted for one of the biggest reductions, a $1
billion cut below fiscal 2010. The massive cuts to the Head Start
Program would remove 218,000 low income children and families and close
more than 16,000 Head Start and Early Head Start classrooms across the
country. It would leave 55,000 teachers, teacher assistants, and
related staff without jobs.
The Pell Grant scholarship maximum award would be reduced by $845,
from $5,550 to $4,750. Many of the 9.4 million students who are
projected to receive a Pell Grant in the 2011-2012 school year would
see a lower grant award, requiring them to take on more loans for their
college tuition.
{time} 2000
In addition, it makes cuts to the programs of the National Science
Foundation that would lead to elimination of huge research grants,
affecting thousands of researchers, which can only have a negative
impact on opportunities for minorities to make contributions in science
and technology.
And I can fill up an hour debate time all by myself if I were to list
all of the terrible impacts that the proposed cuts to the Department of
Energy, NIST, NASA, NOAA, and EPA would have. Each of these agencies is
critical to our future competitiveness and each of these agencies is
slated for ill-founded cuts.
Unfortunately, our children and our grandchildren will be the ones
who ultimately pay the price for misguided cuts when they inherit an
America that is no longer the world leader in innovation.
We can do better. I urge my colleagues to reject the cuts being
proposed in the Republican CR.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, a former chair of the CBC
and a leader in science for many years.
I now yield to the other gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila
Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and
thank her for leading. As I see my colleagues on the floor, let me just
try to focus on one or two points. And maybe on this Valentine's
evening--I think a lot of our colleagues who were fortunate enough to
have their spouses here rushed off, and we're delighted. Let me wish
everyone a happy Valentine's Day. And let me wish my husband in Texas,
far away, a happy Valentine's Day. But he might not be having such a
good Valentine's Day because he is in higher education. And, frankly,
this CR is going to put more than a dent. It is going to put a real
bite.
This is an effort to show you what progress we've made. Private
sector employment has increased for 12 straight months. Private
employers added more than 1.3 million jobs in 2010. But they have to
have an educated
[[Page H751]]
workforce. And, as you can see, we're going up. The cup is half full
and not half empty. But when you have the numbers that I'm about to
relate to you, where you're seeing Pell Grants cut 15 percent--Mr.
Speaker, I met with my universities--the University of Houston, Houston
Community College, Lone Star, Texas Southern University; and if there
was one thing that they emphasized it is the equal opportunity that is
provided to all students through a Pell Grant.
If we are to go with the CR as it is, we're talking about a reduction
in the middle of the school year of $5,550 to $4,705. Do you know what
that does to a student? It doesn't tell them, Let me try to ramp up my
extra job. It says, I am dropping out. You know what happens to the
workforce? It disappears. And so I am concerned that we are in this
predicament.
So let me tell you something else. I have been a strong champion of
the COPS On the Beat program. And we have seen evidence of the fact
that we have gained in the downsizing, or the decreasing, of crime. The
proposed CR will cut $600 million in funding to community-oriented
policing. And, of course, what will happen is 3,000 fewer officers. You
can be assured Houston, Texas, which got their first COPS grants just a
few months ago, that I worked very hard on, will be one of the victims
of that.
Let me just conclude by suggesting that one of the points my good
friend the assistant leader made, community health clinics is not a
partisan issue. It is to give access to all communities, and
particularly rural communities. I'm from Texas. One of the reasons I
fought so hard for community health clinics, particularly under the
Bush administration, I actually talked to former President Bush and one
of our encounters was to challenge and to encourage how we could in
fact secure, if you will, more funding for Texas for community health
centers in the rural areas. I'm glad we worked together, and actually
we've seen a ramp-up. And we've seen a ramp-up with the Affordable Care
Act, which helps to provide the kind of, if you will, health care for
those in faraway communities where there are not enough doctors.
Finally, may I say to you that to cut the National Science Foundation
is terrible. It doesn't make any sense. And I would offer to say that
this is about work. Health care; cops to make it safe; Pell Grants to
train the 21st-century workforce. I know there are colleagues on the
other side of the aisle that will work with us to get this CR where it
needs to be. I, too, am for a reasoned budget-cutting that we need to
do. I did it in years past. We balanced the budget in 1997. We can do
it again. I, frankly, believe we should not cut into the very quality
of life that is so needed.
Let me thank my good friend and the Congressional Black Caucus,
working with my other colleagues to ensure that we stand for job
creation, investing in job creation. Unfortunately, the CR, as it
stands today--the continuing resolution, for those who are not sure of
what that is--is not going to work. Let's invest in America.
H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution making appropriations to fund the
federal government through September 20, 2011 contains some very deep
cuts that will be very hurtful to many Americans, especially those who
are the most vulnerable--disadvantaged women and families, children,
minorities, and the elderly. The proposed cuts in the CR will have a
disproportionate affect the low-income and minority portions of our
population.
As we face a large deficit and growing debt, we know that cuts will
have to be made. And yes, some of those cuts will be painful. However,
we must be careful not to place added burdens and cause greater harm to
those Americans who are the most vulnerable in need of our support the
most.
The proposed CR calls for a 15% reduction in funding for Pell grants.
Such a cut will reduce the maximum Pell grant award from its current
level of $5,550 to $4,705. This would present a serious problem for
institutions of higher learning, but more importantly, it creates a
major hardship on students. Current students who receive Pell grants
would have to figure out a way to come up with nearly an additional
$1,000 in order to continue their education. Students who have been
accepted to school and have received their financial aid packages are
also put in a position that would force them to find and secure
additional funds for their schooling. Pell Grants provide the basic
foundation of federal student aid and help more than 8 million students
afford to attend college.
To some of us, $800-$1,000 may not seem significant. However, to a
student who qualifies for Pell grant assistance, and who relies on
those funds, this would be a great hardship, potentially forcing
students to take time off from their schooling.
The proposed CR will cut $1.3 billion of funding previously allocated
to support Community Health Centers. These types of facilities are
widely utilized in low income areas and oftentimes, are the backbone of
health care services in the areas in which they are located. Without
them, quality health care for many poor and disadvantaged Americans
will be out of reach.
Although my Republican colleagues claim that the proposed CR will not
cut precious education funding, there are, in fact, significant cuts
that will have a detrimental impact on education--especially higher
education. Many fellowships offered at institutions of higher education
are funded by competitive and non-competitive grants issued by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). Cutting funding to these organizations will impose a great
hardship on students striving to educate themselves in order that they
can be competitive in a global economy.
Under the proposed CR, NSF funding would be cut by $139 million.
Under the proposed CR, NIH funding would be cut by $1 billion.
The proposed CR will cut nearly $2 million dollars from the Minority
Business Development Agency.
The proposed CR would cut $600 million dollars from the Community
Oriented Policing Services programs (COPS). Such a cut would require a
complete elimination of the hiring programs. Over the years, COPS has
funded the hiring of more than 122,000 state and local police officers
and sheriff's deputies in communities across America. This proposed cut
will prevent the hiring and rehiring of over 3,000 fewer law
enforcement officers.
The public safety of our communities is important, and during these
tough economic times as we recover from one of our country's worse
recessions, every job counts. We can not afford cuts that will cost
jobs for hardworking American people.
Another instance where the CR disproportionately affects our low-
income, minority population is the cut to WIC funding. The current CR
calls for a huge cut, $758 million, to funding for the WIC program,
which supplements nutrition for low-income and disadvantaged women and
children.
Under the proposed CR, the entire Title X provision, which funds
family planning resources such as Planned Parenthood, would be
eliminated, a cut of $327 million. Family planning funding has been an
essential tool for many communities, especially in low income areas.
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), we set aside
funds to help invigorate the economy across various areas. These funds
were intended to be used over a number to encourage the continued
growth of the economy. However, under the proposed CR, any unobligated
or uncommitted stimulus funding would be eliminated.
The cut of $1.1 billion, or 14% below the FY2010 appropriation ($7.2
billion in FY2010) and more than $500 million below FY2008, would
translate to a massive loss of comprehensive early childhood services,
causing more than 200,000 children across the country to be kicked out
of the Head Start program. This further reduction is catastrophic and
will also put thousands of Head Start teachers out of work and into the
unemployment lines. Additionally, this funding level would mean cuts to
research grants, training and technical assistance grants and
monitoring activities.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Congresswoman Jackson Lee. Thank you for
your leadership on so many issues. I'm not sure if you mentioned, but
there's also some job training programs that would be cut under the CR
at a time when jobs are so badly needed across this country.
At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia,
Hank Johnson, who joined me the last time we had a Special Order.
Thanks for joining us again this evening.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands. I appreciate how much you care about people.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government touches all of us, every
single person who lives in America. The Federal budget touches each one
of us in some way or another. Whether or not it would be when we call
9/11 for police help or whether or not we call 9/11 for the fire
department, or even when we are sending our children to school, the
teachers, they are touched by the Federal budget.
What we now have, which has been introduced on Friday by the folks on
[[Page H752]]
the other side of the aisle, my Republican brothers and sisters, is an
assault on each one of us. It's an extremist position that they have
taken to cut things that are so important to Americans' quality of
life. And I just simply don't believe that the majority of the American
people are in favor of eliminating the positions of thousands of police
officers across this land; of leaving fire departments high and dry,
with not enough personnel. And we certainly don't want our schools to
have hundreds of kids in one classroom because we don't pay for
teachers. Those positions are going to be hurt and severely impacted
with these extremist budget cuts that are being recommended by the
Republicans.
Certainly, they want to break the backs of the unions that represent
these employees because they know that the Federal Government--they
know that these workers are protected by moneys that the Federal
Government transfers to the States and local governments. In fact, with
the recovery bill that was passed out of this very body back in 2009,
$800-some-odd billion, it was the greatest transfer of Federal dollars
to the States in the history of this Nation. And what it did, Mr.
Speaker, was to save the jobs of police officers, firefighters,
municipal workers, and teachers across this land.
But we are now at the point where there is no understanding, no
admission that that recovery package actually helped, when in fact it
did. Lots of people would not be working right now if it had not been
for that recovery package. What we want to do now is exactly the
opposite. We want to cut the budget, we want to cut aid and assistance
to States and local governments to such a degree that it will force
those governments to start laying off workers en masse. And it's not
good for America, it's not good for Americans. And certainly there is a
better way.
{time} 2010
Especially when you think about it, we could pay for it if we
eliminate some of these tax breaks for the wealthy and from people who
don't need them.
Take the oil companies, for example. Can they afford to lose some of
their multibillion dollar tax breaks in that great big, unwieldy Tax
Code? Sure, they can. That's going to help us, but there's nothing like
that coming from my friends on the other side of the aisle.
They just simply want to balance this budget on the backs of the
working people of this country. They want to turn this country into a
pink slip nation, and they want to balance the budget on the backs of
working people. So I'm going to do everything I can to speak on behalf
of the shrinking middle class, who are the people I serve.
Thank you, Congresswoman.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Congressman Johnson. Thank you for your
passion on behalf of the middle class and the poor.
As Congressman Scott said, throughout this recession, it has been the
working people and the poor who have borne the brunt of the recession.
Now they're being asked to give more. While those who are wealthier and
the corporations did very well, they are being asked to give nothing.
So we do need to make sure that our voices are heard and that we do
everything we can to make sure that the programs that are so important
to this country and to the future of this country, if we are going to
win the future, are not lost, beginning with this CR.
I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Donald Payne, also a former chair of the Congressional Black
Caucus. He has been a leader in education as well as in international
affairs, and is a senior member of the Education and the Workforce
Committee.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentlelady from
the Virgin Islands, Congresswoman Donna Christensen, our distinguished
chair of the CBC Health Braintrust, for anchoring this evening's
Special Order on the budget. Her leadership and continued diligence in
addressing the issues that confront our Nation in general, but African
Americans in particular, are imperative to our progress as a Nation.
Recently, Republican House leadership introduced a continuing
resolution containing the largest spending cuts in history.
Subsequently, President Obama unveiled his FY 2012 budget to support
the Nation's competitive growth while making difficult decisions to
address our economic deficit.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to remember that, as we consider
these spending proposals, in addition to our economic deficit, we have
a job deficit, which continues to worsen, in part, by an ever-growing
educational deficit. They work together. While we must work to rein in
spending, we must not cut funding to the extent that our development
and growth in the areas of education and employment will be hampered if
we do that.
One of the challenges in addressing unemployment has been the rapid
decline in certain occupations and industries and in our labor market's
inability to meet the demands of new occupations and industries. More
than two-thirds of workers in occupations and industries that are
growing have at least some postsecondary education compared to one-
third of workers in occupations and industries that are declining. The
demand for postsecondary education, as well as the rapid increase in
baby boom retirements, is predicted to result in a shortage of more
than 14 million college graduates by the year 2020 in this country.
In addition, military recruiters are likely to experience a shortage
in traditional high school recruiting due to the high school dropout
crisis and low student proficiency levels. Among high school graduates,
about one in five does not meet the minimum standards necessary to
enlist in the U.S. Army today.
These facts highlight the reality that our growing education deficit
is a greater long-term threat to our Nation's well-being than any other
challenge we face today. The 2009 Program for International Student
Assessment shows 15-year-old students in the U.S. are performing about
average in reading and science and below average in math. Of the 34
developed countries assessed, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in
science, and 25th in math. While these scores are all higher than those
from 2003 and 2006, they are far behind our global competitors, which
include South Korea, Finland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai in
China, and Canada.
Our domestic assessment results paint a similar picture. The National
Center for Education Statistics reports that as of 2009 only about 33
percent of our Nation's fourth-graders are proficient readers. These
low proficiency levels continue to fuel our dropout crisis on the high
school and college levels. Nearly 7,000 students drop out of high
school in our Nation daily, and about one-third of first-year American
college students are required to take at least one remedial course.
Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of these students are
underrepresented minorities.
Further threatening our global standing is the higher education
deficit in the science and technology fields. In 2000, Asian
universities produced 1.2 million science and engineering graduates.
European universities produced 850,000, and the United States produced
500,000.
In an economy dependent upon an innovative workforce, in addition to
addressing our national high school and college graduation rates, we
must increase our level of science, technology, engineering, and math
(STEM) field graduates. To do so, we need an innovative agenda to
develop the potential of all students, especially unrepresented
minorities, who have represented the bottom of the academic achievement
gap in this country for too long.
For this reason, and as I conclude, I commend the President for his
proposed investments in education to support early learning, to improve
schoolteachers and leaders, to improve science, technology,
engineering, and math education, and to promote college access and
completion.
However, I strongly oppose the nearly $5 billion reduction proposal
from the Republican House leadership in the area of education. Cuts to
teacher and school leadership programs, as well as Head Start, Pell
Grants, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers are
counterproductive in our effort to strengthen our national
competitiveness.
[[Page H753]]
I am also gravely concerned about proposed cuts to programs that
stimulate job growth, that assist the working poor, that address health
disparities, and that increase diversity. I strongly oppose cuts to the
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, training and employment
services, community health centers, low-income home energy assistance
programs, and neighborhood development initiatives. These cuts and
others disproportionately impact our most vulnerable population.
While I understand that our economic crisis calls for difficult
budgeting constraints, I believe this should be a shared
responsibility, not an overhaul of the Nation's economic crisis at the
expense of our most vulnerable populations and our global
competitiveness as a Nation.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Congressman Payne, for joining us this
evening and for pointing out those very important issues that could be
lost if this CR is passed as proposed.
I want to just talk about a few issues.
On the first day of the 112th Congress and this Republican-led House,
the leadership took away the vote, in the Committee of the Whole, from
the District of Columbia and the Territories. Apparently, that was not
enough. Last week, they moved to impose their will and their
conservative ideology on the people of our Nation's capital. Now, in
the continuing resolution that is proposed, the assault continues,
because the Office of Insular Affairs, which would support our
Territories moving to more self-sufficiency, is slated to get cut by
almost $7 million.
My district had a major flood disaster late last year, something that
has not happened in recent or even distant memory. A beloved member of
our community drowned, and many lost property and suffered damage to
property. The proposed CR would cut funding for flood emergencies. I am
sure that places like Tennessee and New Orleans and other places that
have had floods recently or that are the potential flood areas of our
Nation would not want to have flood disaster funding cut.
{time} 2020
My district also has the highest concentration of greenhouse gases
per square mile, and we're fully dependent on diesel for our power. The
cost of electricity in the Virgin Islands is crushing families, closing
businesses, and hurting our elderly. But in the Republican-proposed CR,
they are planning to cut almost every EPA program that we need to
protect the health and safety of communities like mine and almost every
program that supports the development of renewable energy.
After the Bush administration turned a surplus into the deficit we're
now trying to close, communities across this country experienced a
continuing increase in violent crime because of the economic distress
that they faced. And so what do my Republicans want to do? In the CR,
they want to cut funding for police programs, for the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Administration, as well as many other health
programs, for juvenile delinquency prevention, for job training
programs, as well as the community block grant and community
development programs, programs that our communities need to address the
rising gun violence that this economic crisis is exacerbating.
For years, the Republican caucus has been trying to get their hands
on the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for
the Humanities, as well as the Smithsonian funding. So these important
programs, which are probably needed more than ever because there's so
much pain and suffering across this country, they're also on the
chopping block.
As you've heard, WIC has already been cut twice last year, and yet it
is proposed to be cut over $600 million. And if that were not enough,
over $200 million is proposed to be cut from maternal and child health
programs. Where is the justice and the love for our country's children?
At this time, I'd like to just yield once again for the remaining
time to the Congresswoman from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee,
to speak on some of the other areas that the CR would cut and hurt our
effort to win the future.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Congresswoman Christensen, you don't know
now how difficult it is for many of us to accept the assignment or the
lack of assignment that this present majority leadership gave to the
territories, and I want to thank you for placing this squarely on the
record, frankly.
We worked harmoniously with the District of Columbia and the Virgin
Islands and Samoa and Guam and other places, Puerto Rico. We worked
because it was important to have the insight and constructive input on
these legislative initiatives but, more importantly, on the floor of
the House. So let me just reemphasize in joining you to say that the
territories should not suffer. In the CR, they do.
I just want to hold up, this was a letter to my colleagues, a letter
to America, a letter to Houstonians. This is the long list of cuts, and
let me just cite for you very quickly so that you understand what we're
talking about. We have to cut, but can we do it in a manner that is
constructive?
Everybody is running from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,
and we frankly understand that, and so they put the pressure on 16
percent, but you're cutting in the middle of the year, when people are
dependent on this funding.
Juvenile justice, $2.3 million. The COPS program, I already
mentioned, many cops will be laid off.
NASA, $379 million, literally stopping NASA, the National Aeronautics
Space Administration, in its tracks, forgetting about human
exploration, forgetting about science.
The Legal Services Corporation. No one without counsel can speak for
a person who is desperate and cannot access counsel. So, if you have
counsel, which really was what I was saying, you cannot speak for
someone who does not. Legal Services Corporation is the wedge between
justice and being thrown out.
EPA, $1.6 billion; women and infant children, $758 million; job
training--I just mentioned you have to invest in job training--$2
billion; and community health centers, $1.3 billion; high-speed rail,
$1 billion. And of course, all of that is about jobs.
As so, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, as a Member of
the larger body of Members, Republicans and Democrats, this CR is going
to be a bite that is so stiff and so tough, I am hoping that some will
view it not as a political prize, not as ``I did it. They told me to go
here and do it.'' When you come inside this august body, you drop your
partisan politics and you ask the question: What is good for America?
You're not a partisan Democrat, a partisan Republican, or a partisan
tea party. What you are is ``Can we come together?''
Now, I know I am not going to agree with all these cuts, but I didn't
mention all these cuts. I know some of these things have to be. I
didn't mention GSA. I think we're cutting them too much, but I believe
we have some common ground, but how can you cut Pell grants? Students
are in, if you will, they're actually in school and you are cutting
them.
Let me just say to the gentlelady as I yield back, thank you. Let's
come together as Americans. And I thank you for leading this hour on
behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus.
President Clinton left President Bush with a ten year projected
surplus of $5.6 trillion in 2001. Whereas, President Bush on January
20, 2009 left President Obama with a $1.2 trillion deficit. Keep in
mind that this was the deficit on day one of the Obama Administration,
weeks before the President enacted a single piece of legislation and
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The failed economic policies of the Bush Administration led to this
enormous deficit--the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts totaled $1.3 trillion over
ten years, in which most of the tax relief went to the top 1% of income
earners; a Medicare Prescription Drug benefit with a ten year cost of
nearly $1 trillion that was not offset; two overseas wars that are
nearing a cost of $1 trillion; a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street
banks; and all these unpaid for policies were compounded by the worst
economic recession in 70 years that began in 2007 which led to huge
shortfalls in federal tax revenue and increased reliance on
unemployment insurance and other federal social safety net programs.
In order to get these large deficits under control, we have some
tough choices to make.
How much longer can we afford to extend the Bush-era tax cuts?
[[Page H754]]
The President and Congress extended all of them through 2012 at a two
year cost of $800 billion.
A ten year extension of all these tax cuts will cost $3.8 trillion--
$3 trillion of which are the popular middle-class tax cuts.
Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released its
latest projections of the Social Security Trust Fund. It was previously
projected to go into a cash deficit in 2017, but now CBO has projected
that the trust fund is now running a deficit. The trust is expected to
be exhausted in 2037.
We can no longer operate under the assumption of the last decade,
that we can increase spending and reduce taxes without having to pay
for it.
The last Congress took important steps to restore some important
tools that were used to produce the first budget surplus in more than a
generation in the late 1990s, such as Statutory Pay-As-You-Go--meaning
if Congress wants to increase mandatory spending, we have to offset it
by reducing spending elsewhere in the budget or increase taxes to cover
the increase.
Unfortunately, the new Republican majority has changed House rules
gutting PAY-GO's effectiveness in the congressional budget process. The
so-called CUT-GO rule prohibits offsetting any new mandatory spending
with a revenue increase. This makes it nearly impossible to offset any
new spending or tax cuts with revenue increases and will require only
spending cuts.
In another unprecedented change, the House voted to give the House
Budget Committee Chairman the sole responsibility for setting
discretionary spending levels for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011.
The House of Representatives as a whole will be deprived of the right
to vote up or down the Budget Chairman's levels.
We have to remember that what we do with the Federal budget touches
everyone. Our fiscal problems are very complex and they need to be
addressed, but there is no simple, one-size-fits-all solution.
H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution making appropriations to fund the
federal government through September 20, 2011 contains some very deep
cuts that will be very hurtful to many Americans, especially those who
are the most vulnerable--disadvantaged women and families, children,
minorities, and the elderly.
As we face a large deficit and growing debt, we know that cuts will
have to be made. And yes, some of those cuts will be painful. However,
we must be careful not to place added burdens and cause greater harms
to those Americans who are the most vulnerable in need of our support
the most.
The proposed CR will cut funding allocated to support Community
Health Centers. These types of facilities are widely utilized in low
income areas and oftentimes, are the backbone of healthcare services in
the areas in which they are located. Without them, quality health care
for many poor and disadvantaged Americans will be out of reach.
Although my Republican colleagues claim that the proposed CR will not
cut precious education funding, there are, in fact, significant cuts
that will have a detrimental impact on education--especially higher
education. Many fellowships offered at institutions of higher education
are funded by competitive and non-competitive grants issued by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). Cutting funding to these organizations will impose a great
hardship on students striving to educate themselves in order that they
can be competitive in a global economy.
Under the proposed CR, NSF funding would be cut by $139 million.
Under the proposed CR, NIH funding would be cut by $1 billion.
The proposed CR will cut nearly $2 million dollars from the Minority
Business Development Agency.
The proposed CR would cut $600 million dollars from the Community
Oriented Policing Services programs (COPS). Such a cut would require a
complete elimination of the hiring programs. Over the years, COPS has
funded the hiring of more than 122,000 state and local police officers
and sheriffs deputies in communities across America. This proposed cut
will prevent the hiring and rehiring of over 3,000 fewer law
enforcement officers.
The public safety of our communities is important, and during these
tough economic times as we recover from one of our country's worse
recessions, every job counts. We can not afford cuts that will cost
jobs for hardworking American people.
Another instance where the CR disproportionately effects our low-
income, minority population is the cut to WIC funding. The current CR
calls for a huge cut, $758 million, to funding for the WIC program,
which supplements nutrition for low-income and disadvantaged women and
children.
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), we set aside
funds to help invigorate the economy across various areas. These funds
were intended to be used over a number to encourage the continued
growth of the economy. However, under the proposed CR, any unobligated
or uncommitted stimulus funding would be eliminated.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I just want to assure you that the Congressional
Black Caucus will work with all of our colleagues to craft a budget
that's fair and yet reduces the deficit, as we've done every year.
____________________