Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to simply thank many people who worked on this, including certainly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who has spent a phenomenal amount of time on this along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), and others who have just for the last month or so spent countless hours. I also want to take the time out to recognize our staff, certainly Paul Brathwaite, the policy director of the Congressional Black Caucus, Lee Perselay and Alana Fisher, Michael Goodman and Norman Meyer, and so many others who gave so much of their time, their blood, their sweat, and their tears because they want to see a better budget and they want to see America do better. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, at this juncture, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) to respond.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the first vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and chair of the Asian-Pacific Caucus.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am proud to introduce the Congressional Black Caucus 2005 fiscal year budget alternative. Our theme and philosophy for the CBC 2005 budget alternative is ``Investing in America's Future, Restoring Fiscal Responsibility and Fulfilling Our Shared Sacrifice.'' Before we begin, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), and all the Congressional Black Caucus members on the Committee on the Budget and the entire Congressional Black Caucus for their diligent work in putting this budget together. The Congressional Black Caucus thought it vitally important that we provide a Federal budget that goes to the center of people's lives. Contrary to the rosy picture painted by the President, the majority of Americans are hurting under the Bush administration's fiscal policies. Over 40 million Americans are without health insurance. Almost 9 million Americans woke up this morning without a job, and thousands of those individuals have become discouraged by the stagnant economy and have given up looking for work. Most alarming, Mr. Chairman, the American dream of a quality education remains out of reach for millions of children and families. The Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative answers all of these pressing issues and at the same time places our Nation back on the path of fiscal responsibility and accountability. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows: Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 1 offered by Mr. Cummings: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). (Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, we are supported tremendously by the Hispanic Caucus and certainly the Asian Pacific Caucus, and we are very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great State of Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), the second vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too want to thank the chairman of the committee for yielding and giving us the additional 10 minutes. We really appreciate it.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time, I am closing now. Mr. Chairman, again, we thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said it and the members of Congressional Black Caucus said it quite well. What we are addressing here and the reason we called our budget ``Investing in America While Ensuring Fiscal Responsibility'' is that we believe very strongly in a balanced budget. We believe very strongly that we must address the issues of terrorism. It is very significant and very important to us. But at the same time, we do believe that we need to take care of Americans right here at home. Many of our members in the Congressional Black Caucus look at our schools, and we are extremely concerned. That is why we spent a phenomenal amount of time and put a lot of emphasis on No Child Left Behind to make sure that it is properly funded, because we want those children to have a future. I have often said that our children are the living messages we send to a future we will never see. We want to make sure they go into that future well educated, well prepared, and well ready to take on the many opportunities that will be before them. We also make sure that we secure funding for initiatives such as the COPS program because we realize that our neighborhoods have to be safe in order for people to live the best lives that they can. Again, we look at the budget from the standpoint of this, and it is a very simple thing, Mr. Chairman. It simply is that we have one life to live. This is no dress rehearsal, and this so happens to be that life. It is our belief that the balance that we have provided in our budget is a much better alternative than the budget that the other side has presented and the President's. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for the Congressional Black Caucus' ``Investing in America While Ensuring Fiscal Responsibility'' budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 393, and in support of the Spratt Democratic Alternative Budget. Mr. Chairman, to call the Republican budget resolution a budget is really a stretch. As we all understand budgets, basically, they are supposed to reflect meaningful spending priorities, incorporate sound fiscal policy and in the end to balance themselves. The Republican and Bush budgets fail on all these points and needless to say the American people will suffer as a result. Let me lay out why this is such a travesty. When the Bush Administration took office, the nation was in the proverbial days of milk and honey. The budget was experiencing a third year of record surplus and most of us in Congress were elated with the prospect of putting a permanent lockbox on the Social Security Trust Fund--all while keeping the nation's budget in the black at least until 2011. Those of us who adhere to budgets, know that you always have to save money for a rainy day, but apparently Republicans skipped this life lesson. In fact, they managed to squander the $521 billion surplus and shepherd through $1.7 trillion in irresponsible tax cuts. We are now facing a deficit of $521 billion this year and debt accumulation of $1.2 trillion over the next two years. I think the American people agree that these numbers do not reflect sound fiscal policy. First, this 5-year Republican budget as reported, would result in a deficit of $377.7 billion in FY 2005, with a promise to cut the deficit in half in five years to $235.2 billion in FY09--with no prospect of balancing over its life. It is also a short-sighted budget, one that does not take into account many costs, like fixing the AMT. If this were a traditional 10-year budget, the numbers would be different and the outlook even more bleak. The Republican and Bush five year budgets are very disingenuous, since ten-year numbers would show even further deficits, having to account for the retirement of many Baby Boomers starting in 2008. If they were 10 year budgets, they would reflect the CBO estimates, that over the next 10 years, their tax cuts will actually cost our country over $3 trillion. Second, the Republican budget includes a reconciliation directive to the Ways and Means Committee to approve $138 billion in tax cuts over five years--making nearly all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. We should not consider extending tax cuts, while we are considering the budget reconciliation legislation--especially when extending these tax cuts will not result in a better economy in the foreseeable future. Third, the Republican budget caps placed in the bill will ensure that the steep cuts in domestic discretionary spending, outside of homeland security, remain permanent. I should mention that this budget also cuts numerous discretionary domestic programs, most of which are in education. The sleight of hand in this budget, is that the budget caps will not be used to restore funding to these programs in the out years, but to pay for the tax cuts for those who don't need them. Also, any subsequent entitlement increases under the Republican budget one-sided pay-go rules, have to be offset in the current year by decreased spending in a domestic spending bill. The tax cuts, however, do not need to be offset. This sounds very unfair to me and leads me to just one conclusion. This budget seems, by design, to hurt those who need our help the most. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is inherently unbalanced. It cuts critical domestic spending by over $120 billion, while increasing defense spending by over $1 trillion. It cuts education, LIHEAP, WIC, child care, Medicaid, veterans' healthcare, and environmental protection, just to name a few. It jeopardizes Social Security by further extending tax cuts and it provides slipshod protection of our troops by not accounting for the current war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also jeopardizes teacher quality and training and ensures the ``No Child Left Behind'' Act, will be left behind by billions of dollars from its authorized funding level. How are students expected to meet the stringent accountability standards under the Act on a shoe string budget? In contrast, the Spratt alternative budget focuses national spending on priorities that benefit all Americans. It does this by funding key domestic priorities which address the needs of middle income and working families, while fully supporting the national defense and protection of our homeland. These priorities include education, health care, our veterans, homeland security, and an extension of middle-class tax cuts--all while achieving a balanced budget in 8 years. It would immediately repeal tax cuts for the upper income brackets, the top 1 percent of income earners, who own 33 percent of the nation's wealth--and extend middle/low income tax cuts to help the bottom 50 percent, who account for just 3 percent of our nation's wealth. Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget alternative is feasible, balanced and fiscally responsible--it will get our country on the road to recovery while funding meaningful national priorities for our children, for our seniors, for our veterans and for our communities. It reflects the guiding principle that as a Nation we must come together and share in the sacrifice that is required to strengthen our economy and put us on better fiscal footing. Mr. Chairman, in these difficult and troubling times, we have a tremendous responsibility as a Congress to protect and provide for the needs of all Americans. But I, and many of my colleagues, believe that the Republican budget plan callously throws this responsibility aside. The Republican-proposed $1.4 trillion tax cut is a reckless measure to pursue, especially as we face war in Iraq and a continued war on terror--to defend our homeland and hometowns. The Republicans and the President continue to claim unabashedly, that tax cuts will serve to stimulate our economy, but the evidence does not support this assertion. The `trickle-down' tax cuts of 20 years ago did not revitalize our economy, and similar tax cuts today will not fare better. In fact, the CBO estimates that the Republican budget will add over a trillion in deficits over the next ten years, after completely depleting the surplus of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. In the end, one can only conclude that the Republican budget balances itself on the backs of Americans who can least afford it. Lastly on tax cuts, I must point out that tax cuts of 3 years ago did not prevent the loss of over 3 million private sector jobs--a more drastic tax cut today, as proposed in the Republican budget, likewise will not eliminate the resulting almost 6 percent high unemployment rate. It is completely implausible to think that tax cuts--80 percent of which goes to the top 1 percent--for those earning over $250,000 or more, will revitalize and restore our economy. They cannot and will not. These tax cuts have shown themselves to be a failure and we should not continue with this disingenuous fiscal policy. Mr. Chairman we have many challenges facing us in this Congress and in our country. We are one year into a war that often and rightfully diverts attention away from important debates. I would be remiss if I did not salute our men and women in the military who are fighting to defend our country--I support them wholeheartedly and pray for their safe return home. I hope we can restore the deep cuts to veterans benefits and health plans found Republican budget before our troops return. In closing, the American people need to know that the Republican budget plan is an obstacle that keeps us from meeting the human needs challenges of our Nation. The Spratt Democratic Budget alternative is a more fiscally sound, reality-based proposal--with priorities that reflect the needs of all Americans. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the balanced Democratic Budget Substitute. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Spratt budget substitute and strong opposition to the underlying Republican budget resolution. Rhode Islanders are facing challenges on many fronts. Unfortunately, the budget proposed by House Resolutions does little to ease the burden of those currently facing education, health care, and housing obstacles. Worse yet, the Republicans want to continue to borrow more and more money from future generations to pay for their failed economic policies. Under the Republican budget, the obstacles we face today will only grow in the coming years. Working within the horrible fiscal confines that the country has been boxed into by the majority, the Spratt substitute manages to balance the budget in 8 years, cut taxes for all taxpayers, and provide realistic funding for education, veterans health care, Medicaid, infrastructure and homeland security, which were all shortchanged by the Republicans. The Spratt substitute has a better bottom line than the Republican budget every year, so there will be lower deficits, smaller interest payments, and a less national debt. In addition, the Spratt substitutes restores PAYGO rules to ensure that spending is not increased or revenue is not decreased without fully offsetting the new costs. Simply put, the Spratt substitute is better than the Republican plan in every way. As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and the Armed Services Committee, I have been steadfast in my support for a strong national defense and a well-equipped Homeland Security infrastructure. Since September 11th, the government has worked daily to protect the American people from another attack. Unfortunately, this budget does little to provide for our men and women in uniform, or to bolster safety within our borders. The Spratt substitute fully funds our defense requirements and reserves money to ensure our troops in Iraq have the support needed. Veterans are not forgotten, and their health care programs are funded $1.3 billion above the Republican plan. In addition, the Spratt substitute contains more than $5 billion in additional homeland security funding for port security and first responders. The budget before us does little to strengthen our country or offer Americans an equal opportunity to succeed. These difficult times require shared sacrifice to get our country back on track. We are asking our service members and first responders to sacrifice as they protect us at home and abroad. We are asking our working families to sacrifice as they try to weather the difficult economy and the job. This budget gives millionaires a ``No Need to Sacrifice'' pass while paying for tax cuts with money borrowed from future generations. I believe in lower taxes, but I also believe in providing tax cuts for those who are in the greatest need. But under the Republican budget, those earning low to moderate incomes are passed over again in favor of benefits for the wealthy. One key point the majority continues to ignore is that they are increasing the ``debt tax.'' Currently, every man, woman, and child in America owes more than $1,100 in interest alone on the national debt. Under the Republican plan, this increases to nearly $1,750 per person by 2009. These interest payments do not provide security, education, or health care: they are a product of mismanagement of taxpayer funds. Deficit spending has stymied job growth is plaguing our economy. No Rhode Islander would write a check without sufficient funds to cash that check. Neither should the government. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Spratt budget substitute and opposing the underlying Republican plan.