[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.

                          ____________________