Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. During the debate, we have talked about how much debate is going on. I just point out that this debate is on a closed rule so that we cannot offer amendments to the bill. We have to take it or leave it. There are a lot of improvements that could be made if we have a full and open debate. That is not happening today because the majority passed a closed rule prohibiting any amendments to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will enter into the Record an article from the Morning Call newspaper in Pennsylvania, and I will just read the first sentence. April 23, 2004, ``The chairman of the Pennsylvania Medical Society acknowledged Thursday to State lawmakers that the doctors group lacks statistical evidence to support its 3-year claim that doctors are leaving the State in large numbers.'' The whole article will be introduced. I have the GAO study that was cited June, 2003; and let me just read a couple of points out of it: ``Multiple factors have contributed to the recent increases in medical malpractice premiums in seven States we analyzed. First, since 1998 insurers' losses on medical malpractice claims have increased rapidly in some States,'' and they ``found that the increased losses appeared to be the greatest contributor to increased premium rates, but a lack of comprehensive data at the national and State levels on insurers' medical malpractice claims and the associated losses prevented us from fully analyzing the composition and causes of those losses. ``Second, from 1998 through 2001, medical malpractice insurers experienced decreases in their investment income as interest rates fell on the bonds that generally make up around 80 percent of these insurers' investment portfolios. `` . . . a decrease in investment income meant that income from insurance premiums had to cover a larger share of insurers' costs. Third, during the 1990s, insurers competed vigorously for medical malpractice business, and several factors, including high investment returns, permitted them to offer prices that in hindsight, for some insurers, did not completely cover their ultimate losses on that business. As a result of this, some companies became insolvent or voluntarily left the market, reducing the downward competitive pressure on premium rates that had existed through the 1990s.'' I say that to say that there are a number of factors that have caused the premiums to go up that have nothing to do with the medical malpractice situation or the laws in medical malpractice and that this bill may or may not have anything to do with future premiums. [From the Morning Call, April 23, 2004] Doctors Can't Prove Thinning Ranks (By John M.R. Bull) Harrisburg.--The chairman of the Pennsylvania Medical Society acknowledged Thursday to state lawmakers that the doctors group lacks statistical evidence to support its three-year claim that doctors are leaving the state in large numbers. ``Some data sources show an 800-doctor gain,'' internist Daniel Glunk of Williamsport testified before the House Insurance Committee. ``The problem is no one has definitive numbers . . . and that there is conflicting data.'' That number includes 1,000 medical residents. If those aren't counted, he said, there would be a net loss of 200 doctors out of 35,500 since 2002. ``How can the medical society, if you can't agree on the numbers, continue to tout that doctors are leaving'' said Rep. Thomas Tangretti, D-Westmoreland, his voice rising in apparent anger. ``You've run ads saying will the last doctor please turn off the X-ray machine.'' ``You've been frightening people, particularly senior citizens, and now we find it was all probably wrong-headed and disingenuous,'' Tangretti said, getting louder. ``Before you continue to frighten people about access to health care, you better get your numbers right. It's an outrage.'' Other lawmakers voiced irritation at his testimony, delivered four days after The Morning Call published new and previously undisclosed figures--some of them from the medical society itself--that make clear doctors are not leaving in large numbers. For three years, the doctors lobby has insisted that doctors, particularly specialists who perform high-risk procedures, are leaving the state in droves, putting patient care in jeopardy. Among other tactics, the medical society has promoted a list of 1,700 ``disappearing doctors'' as proof there are fewer physicians in Pennsylvania. The Morning Call revealed Sunday that new state Insurance Department numbers show doctors have not left the state in waves. There were 35,474 doctors in 2002, as determined by the number who paid their state-mandated supplemental insurance. Now the figure is at least 34,997. The newest number includes doctors who have applied to the Insurance Department for a piece of $230 million in state tax dollars recently appropriated to offset their rising malpractice premiums, along with a separate list of doctors who had primary insurance coverage at the end of last year but who haven't yet applied for state money. That total doesn't include doctors who might have moved to Pennsylvania in the last year, might not be in Insurance Department records yet, and who might not know the state has money set aside for them. In one of several criticisms of The Morning Call's work, the medical society has contended it might be misleading to compare 2002 figures to a list of individual doctors who recently applied for state money and others known to have malpractice insurance at the end of last year. But society officials have not publicly explained why that could be the case. The new Insurance Department figures show no appreciable reduction in the number of high-risk specialists, a maximum reduction of 56 out of 4,700 since 2002. The medical society has admitted it has separate statistics that show a reduction of only 16 specialists--defined as neurosurgeons, general surgeons, orthopedic surgeons and ob-gyns--during that time frame. ``This a matter of credibility,'' Rep. Nick Micozzie, R- Delaware, chairman of the House Insurance Committee, said after the hearing. ``We've been hearing for three years now that doctors are leaving in large numbers and there is a shortage.'' ``I go into my doctor's office and there's a sign that says ``Call Nick Micozzie to Save Our Doctors,'' he said. ``Well, saving our doctors is a different issue than claiming doctors are leaving in large numbers.'' In reference to the three-year campaign, Glunk told the committee that anecdotal evidence indicates there aren't enough of some kind of specialists in some parts of the state, and that not enough young doctors are choosing to move to Pennsylvania. For three years, the medical society and its associated group, Politically Active Physicians Association, have waged an intensive public relations and lobbying campaign to convince legislators and their constituents that doctors are fleeing the state en masse. The effort was triggered by medical malpractice premiums that started soaring in 2001 and continue to climb. Rather than pay prices that doubled seemingly overnight, some doctors did indeed depart, others altered their practices to avoid high-risk procedures. As a result, lawmakers have enacted a series of court reforms sought by doctors as a way to drive down the rising premiums. A new cigarette tax raises roughly $230 million a year to help doctors afford malpractice premiums. Applications for that money are being processed now. Doctors continue to demand a cap on jury awards on pain and suffering damages in malpractice lawsuits and have threatened to leave the state if they don't get them. On Thursday, Glunk told the panel of lawmakers that the disappearing doctors list is not actually a list of doctors who disappeared. It is more of a list of doctors who might have been impacted by rising malpractice rates and who might have retired, moved, or curtailed their practices as a result, he explained. The list makes no mention of doctors who have relocated to Pennsylvania since 2002, lawmakers noted. ``Naturally people leave their profession. You don't count doctors coming in,'' said Rep. Tony DeLuca, D-Pittsburgh told Glunk. ``If you don't have accurate statistics on the number of doctors, how can we tell? How can we make policy like that?'' Lawmakers from both parties say the list--created and maintained by Donna Rovito, the wife of an Allentown physician--has been used extensively as a lobbying tool to support doctor claims. Democratic House leaders Thursday called for a moratorium on any more medical malpractice reforms until lawmakers ascertain whether doctors are leaving the sate in large numbers, and whether the medical society deliberately misled lawmakers. ``The data they repeatedly cite, and which served as the basis for legislative action in the last two years, appears to be seriously inaccurate and part of a deceptive campaign,'' said Rep. Mike Veon, D-Beaver, the House Minority Whip. ``We want the real numbers and there should be no further action until the deficiencies of the data are corrected and we know the truth.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today, April 28th, the Commonwealth of Virginia celebrates the birthday of James Monroe, who served as the fifth President of the United States from 1817 to 1825. James Monroe was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia to Spence Monroe and Eliza Jones Monroe on April 28, 1758. As a student of law at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he studied under the tutelage of Thomas Jefferson, a young James Monroe decided to join the Continental Army and was soon fighting at the side of George Washington in New York. Lieutenant Colonel Monroe earned recognition from General Washington as ``a brave and active officer.'' After the Revolutionary War, Monroe was appointed Military Commissioner of Virginia. After a distinguished military career and completion of his legal studies, Monroe was elected to the Continental Congress in 1783, where he avidly fought to promote a bill of rights. It was at this time that he met and married Elizabeth Kortright. In 1790, Monroe was elected to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia as a U.S. Senator, followed by an appointment to serve as the U.S. Minister to France from 1794 to 1796. Monroe returned home and was elected in 1799 to serve as the Governor of our great Commonwealth. In 1803, Monroe helped negotiate the Louisiana Purchase. Eventually, Monroe's political ideals led him to become U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Secretary of War, and then, ultimately, President, at which time he began a new Era of Good Feelings for the nation. Monroe served two terms as President--his popularity at the end of his first term so high that he ran unopposed in 1820. During his tenure as President, Monroe signed the ``Missouri Compromise,'' barring slavery in territories north and west of Missouri, as well as the ``Monroe Doctrine,'' which denounced European intervention and colonization in the Western Hemisphere. James Monroe was a loyal public servant and an important figure in both Virginian and American history. He set an example we can look to today by being a chief executive who usually chose the middle path, the path of compromise. Governor Mark R. Warner has recognized today, April 28, 2004, as James Monroe Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Therefore, on this day, the anniversary of the birth of James Monroe, I ask for unanimous consent that the Governor's Certificate of Recognition be entered into the Record. Certificate of Recognition Whereas, James Monroe was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia to Spence Monroe and Eliza Jones Monroe on April 28, 1758, and he studied law under the tutelage of Thomas Jefferson at the College of William and Mary; and Whereas, James Monroe fought with the Continental Army as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Revolutionary War, earning recognition from General George Washington as ``a brave and active officer''; and Whereas, as a young politician, James Monroe joined the anti-Federalists in the Virginia Convention, where he helped ratify the Constitution of the United States of America, and in 1790, he was elected to represent the Commonwealth as a United States Senator, and Whereas, James Monroe was the United States' Minister to France from 1794-1796 and, along with Robert R. Livingston, he utilized his understanding of foreign policy and his powerful skills of persuasion to negotiate the Louisiana Purchase; and Whereas, James Monroe served as the fifth President of the United States from 1817-1825, during which time he signed the ``Missouri Compromise,'' barring slavery in territories north and west of Missouri, as well as ``The Monroe Doctrine,'' which denounced European intervention and colonization in the Western Hemisphere; and Whereas, James Monroe was a loyal public servant and an important leader in both Virginian and American history, and he left behind a legacy as one of our nation's great foreign policy leaders; Now, therefore, I, Mark R. Warner, do hereby recognize April 28, 2004, as James Monroe Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I just think this is an unfortunate situation to have 5 minutes to debate this important issue. The question is, who will take the risk? If the rental car agency is not going to provide the insurance for the drivers, who will? Are they responsible or required to have insurance? Will the victims of negligence have to pay their own bills? This is just unfortunate. We have 50 different States, 50 different laws. They have all dealt with this situation individually. It is unconscionable to try to decide this in a 5-minute debate. I hope we defeat the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget is committed to making America more secure by investing in our homeland security, equipping our troops, and caring for our veterans. It also adds to our security by funding initiatives such as the COPS program, local law enforcement block grants, and juvenile crime prevention programs. The CBC alternative builds for America's future and addresses domestic challenges our country faces. It fully funds No Child Left Behind, provides funds for school construction, and increases funding for other education and job-training programs. The CBC alternative also provides funding for the minority health initiative, health insurance for the uninsured, supports child nutrition programs, funds job creation programs under the SBA, and extends unemployment insurance benefits. The funding for these important domestic needs comes from two sources: one, a reduction in the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for individuals whose gross income exceeds approximately $200,000; and the closing of tax loopholes, abusive shelters, and methods of tax avoidance. These funds total an estimated $35.5 billion in fiscal year 2005 and are used for the domestic spending and deficit reduction parts of the budget. The funding for urgent homeland security needs, veterans programs and benefits, and additional support for the troops in Iraq comes from two sources: a $9.2 billion reduction in ballistic missile defense and $3.6 billion from instances of fraud, waste and abuse within the Department of Defense such as defense contractor overcharges. Some of these funds have been reallocated to protect our troops in Iraq by providing them with bulletproof vests, vehicle armor, personal support equipment, night-vision goggles and radio jammers to protect personnel and vehicles from improvised explosive devices. Another portion of these funds is allocated to address vital homeland security needs, including rail and port security grants, cargo screening equipment, first responders, communications systems for first responders, Federal air marshals, and the Centers for Disease Control. The remainder of these funds are used to restore cuts in veterans health care and provide enhanced benefits to our veterans in survivor benefits, medical and prosthetic research, long-term care, mental health care and GI bill benefits. The alternative budget also eliminates the disabled veterans tax. We believe that the sum of all of these initiatives will make us more secure as a Nation. At the same time that we invest in America and our future, the CBC alternative recognizes that we cannot place the burden of our choices on our children and grandchildren. A top priority of the CBC is to address the exploding deficit. The CBC alternative budget therefore reduces the deficit by $70 billion compared to the House majority's budget over the next 5 years. This fiscal responsibility is rewarded with a reduction of $8 billion in interest payments over that same period of time compared to the House majority's budget. Members of the CBC have worked tirelessly to create a budget that is fiscally responsible and recognizes the needs of the American people. It is a sound budget that protects and promotes the best interests of America.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I also thank the chairman of the committee for his consideration in yielding us time. The Congressional Black Caucus alternative is committed to making America more secure. It invests in homeland security, especially for Federal air marshals, CDC, port security grants. It equips our troops with such equipment as reinforced trucks to protect from the landmines, the radio jammers that protect from long distance bombing. It also protects our veterans. The underlying budget includes an increase in veterans health, but unfortunately not enough of an increase in veterans health to maintain present services. The veterans committee has indicated that $2.5 million is necessary. This, the underlying budget, does not include $2.5 million. Our budget does. It adds to security with COPS, local police on the beat, law enforcement block grants, juvenile crime prevention. It invests in our future. No Child Left Behind is fully funded in the Congressional Black Caucus budget. We provide school construction funds, health initiative and job creation programs. The economic policy of this administration has failed and lost 3 million jobs. You cannot blame that on 9-11 because you have to go back to Harry Truman, past the Korean War, past the Vietnam War, past the last Persian Gulf War to find an administration with a 3 million job loss. This budget invests in job creation. I will admit we have to make some tough choices. Those with incomes over $200,000 may not enjoy a continuation of the tax cuts under the original budget. But those are the tough choices made. And we have priorities. Do we fund missile defense, or do we fund port security grants? These are the tough choices that are made. After we have made those tough choices, we look up and have a deficit $70 billion lower compared to the Republican budget, $8 billion reduction in interest payments alone. This is a fiscally responsible budget. It invests in the appropriate values of the Nation, and I would hope that it would be the pleasure of the House to adopt the CBC budget.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on domestic security. We have to put this in perspective. We have heard a lot about strength, growth, and opportunity. This is a budget deficit that we are in right now. This is the Clinton administration, the Bush administration. When we run up those deficits, we have the opportunity to pay interest on the national debt. By 2010 we will be paying almost $350 billion a year in additional interest on the national debt over what we were going to pay, and we will have that opportunity to pay it year after year. We have suffered this kind of growth. This is the number of jobs created every 4 years since this administration, a loss of jobs, the worst in 50 years. This chart includes the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War. That is the kind of growth that we have had. When we have that kind of squeeze on the government, there are things we cannot do and one is port security. I represent the port of Hampton Roads in Virginia; 2,700 container ships come in every year. We passed a bill last year that required the Coast Guard to look at what we needed to protect our ports. We have vulnerabilities. These ships can contain anything. They can be used as weapons. And we need more personnel; we need more equipment to protect our ports. They estimated $1.1 billion was needed by now to protect our ports. We have appropriated about half of that. This budget, as the gentleman from Virginia has indicated, does not have money, in fact, has less money for homeland security. So we are not going to be able to meet those needs for equipment and personnel to secure our ports. Alternative budgets do that. The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget, the Democratic alternative, the Congressional Black Caucus budget have funds for port security to make sure that we can meet these needs. The Republican budget does not, and therefore we ought to reject the Republican budget.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Is that the one behind you? The red, green and yellow on the floor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his hard work on the budget. It is a lot of hard work and a lot of dedication. He articulates what the problem is. I like to use charts when I discuss the budget because sometimes people lose perspective of exactly what the problem is when you talk about the budget and the mess that we are in. This is a chart showing the deficit from the Johnson administration, Nixon, Ford, Carter. The red here is the Reagan and Bush deficits; the green is the Clinton administration digging us out of the mess; and the red is the present Bush administration budget. The difference between the $100 billion surplus that we expected and the over-$650 billion deficit we see now, this is on-budget, this is after you have spent the $150 billion Medicare and Social Security surplus, that is a $750 billion swing. That is a big number. I like to put it in perspective. If you look on the Federal budget, on the line item Revenue Individual Income Tax, that is all the individual income tax that we take in, we take in less than $800 billion in individual income tax. Here in 3 years, the budget deterioration, the deficit situation has deteriorated $750 billion, almost the entire value of the entire individual income tax that we take in. As the gentleman from South Carolina indicated, we had a surplus. When this administration came in, the budget discussion, the questions that were asked of Chairman Greenspan, questions like, if we paid off the entire national debt, what would happen to the interest rates? What would happen to the bond market? Should we retire all of the debt or just the long-term debt or maybe just the short-term debt? That was the discussion, how to pay off the national debt. Since the first budget of this administration was enacted, we have not heard anything about paying off the national debt. Some of the Republicans want to take credit for some of the hard work and tough decisions made during the Clinton administration. I would remind them that when the Clinton administration came in and passed the first budget, it was passed by the narrowest of margins and not a single Republican in the House or in the Senate voted to start this green line going up. In 1995, when the Republicans used those votes, demagogued those votes, took over the House and the Senate and offered their first budget, it included massive tax cuts. President Clinton vetoed those tax cuts. They threatened to close down the government if he did not sign the tax cuts. He vetoed them anyway. They shut down the government and he vetoed them again. He would not sign a budget that would wreck the progress that we had already made. As a result of the presidential vetoes, not the congressional action, the presidential vetoes, we maintained a straight line all the way up to a surplus of $100 billion. When President Bush came in, the Congress passed those tax cuts again, and we see what happened as a result. The administration promises to cut the deficit in half within 5 years. First of all, as the gentleman from South Carolina indicated, the President is not going to be able to achieve that goal. But the goal itself is insulting. We started this administration with a surplus expected to be $100 billion and now we have gotten into the mess and the President only promises to clean up half of the mess. What we ought to be talking about is, when do we get back to a major surplus and when do we pay off this additional debt that we actually have? We got into that mess with massive tax cuts. The administration and some Republicans like to say, who got the tax cuts? This chart by 20th percentiles shows the lowest 20 percent, the middle 20 percent, third 20 percent, fourth 20 percent, the highest 20 percent, highest upper- income brackets. Who got the tax cuts? You can call it what you want. This is the chart. There is a line here at about the 50 percent mark. Half of the value of the tax cuts went to the upper 1 percent of the population. So whatever they say, this is the chart. When you run up that kind of debt, you have to pay it back off, but in the meanwhile, you have to pay interest on the national debt. This chart shows the interest that we will be paying on the national debt. This line is the interest we expected to pay as we were paying off the entire national debt; that is this dark line here. The red line is the interest on the national debt that we are going to have to pay because we have messed up the budget. These lines show the difference in interest on the national debt. It is going to be $341 billion more in interest on the national debt every year and growing. By 2010, about $1.2 trillion in additional interest on the national debt. $341 billion additional interest on the national debt; like I said, we are bringing in less than $800 billion in individual income tax, but $341 billion at $34,000 apiece, that is enough to hire 10 million Americans, give 10 million American jobs at $34,000 apiece. There are only 9 million listed as unemployed. Ten million could have been hired with just the difference in interest on the national debt. Ten million. We are struggling to hire 100,000 police officers and cannot do it. We would like to hire 100,000 additional teachers, maybe even 1 million teachers. Ten million additional people at $34,000 apiece just in the lost interest on the debt. We were told we got into that mess to create jobs. You need a chart to show the jobs. This is one chart. There are other charts that show the same picture, the number of jobs from everybody's administration back to Harry Truman. Harry Truman created about 4 million jobs in his second administration. Eisenhower, about 1.9 million jobs the first term, lost about 200,000 in the next term, but it is a net plus, 1.7 million. Kennedy-Johnson, Johnson, Nixon, Ford. Everyone creating jobs. Clinton, over 10 million jobs the first term, another 10 million jobs the second term; until you get to this administration, lost almost 3 million jobs already. When we look at this chart, we wonder what happened. This administration will point to 9-11 as the cause for the loss in jobs. In my view, because we had so much additional spending right after 9-11, about $40 billion, properly done, we should have been gaining jobs after 9-11. But whatever the situation with 9-11, just remember that this chart includes the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the hostages in Iran, Grenada, Persian Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo. Everyone has had military involvement including the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and everyone creates jobs during those crises except this administration. We have lost jobs. Now, we need to look at the chart because some in this administration will say that the tax cuts are working. Look at the chart. The economy is doing well. We look at the chart. This is the worst since Harry Truman. Actually, the worst since the Great Depression, but this chart just goes back 50 years. This is not a good result. The tax cuts did not work. Millions of Americans lost their jobs. The final chart shows the real crisis that we have, and that is maintaining Social Security. Chairman Greenspan said if we make the tax cuts permanent, we have to, I think he said, adjust Social Security. He did not say cut, but the people will get less than they anticipated. Most people would call that a cut. Increase the age of retirement, reduce the cost-of-living increases, most people would consider those as cuts; but we will use ``adjust.'' If we make the tax cuts permanent, we must adjust Social Security. This chart shows that we are bringing in more Social Security than we are paying out now, and in 2017 we are going to start paying out more than we are bringing in. This chart shows that in just a few years we will be paying out $300 billion more in Social Security than we are bringing in. If we add the Social Security deficit with the additional interest on the national debt, the GAO just recently produced a chart that showed that the projected Federal revenues in just a couple of decades will be insufficient to pay the Social Security deficit and interest on the national debt. It will be insufficient to pay that. Before we get to Medicaid and Medicare and before we get to all other government spending, just the deficit and Social Security and interest on the national debt will absorb all Federal revenues. There is one thing about this chart that is interesting, and that is as challenging as this chart is, if the President, instead of giving a tax cut to that upper 1 percent, had allocated what he has got in store for the upper 1 percent into the Social Security trust fund, we would have been able to pay Social Security without reducing benefits or adjusting benefits for 75 years. Or we can look out for the upper 1 percent and give them the tax cuts that the President has proposed. We had a choice. We had a choice in education, tax cuts for the millionaires or Pell grants and fully fund No Child Left Behind. We have talked about veterans benefits. We do not pay enough in the budget proposed by the Republican majority, not enough to maintain present services for veterans health care. Homeland Security, underfunded. The troops are not properly equipped. And this administration has shown no indication that they care about the budget. I mean, just the way that the war has been fought, we appropriated $87 billion a couple of months ago. We had already spent $79 billion. That is $166 billion on the war with more coming. The meter is still ticking. $166 billion is more than we spent in a year in the Department of Homeland Security plus the Department of Education plus the Department of Transportation plus the Department of Labor plus the Department of State, combined, not up to $166 billion. What has this administration talked about as to how to pay for it? Tax cuts and no cuts in spending? It all goes to the bottom line. Now, $166 billion compared to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago, how much did we spend on the Persian Gulf War? How much did the Persian Gulf War cost the United States of America? $7.4 billion, 7.4. We have spent 166 billion already and counting. It cost 7.4 billion because we had allies. It was not ``my way or the highway.'' We had allies, and they paid most of the expenses. This time it is all on our dime. We are spending $166 billion and more. It goes right to the bottom line on the deficit chart. So I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina, we can do better than this. We do not create a chart like this by accident. We do not create this green shaded area by accident. Tough choices were involved. And we can make those tough choices. We can fund our priorities, the ones that the gentleman from Illinois talked about: the health care, the transportation, the housing, all of those needs. We can address those. But we have to do it in a fiscally responsible way. During this period of time when we were exercising fiscal responsibility, making the tough choices, we were creating millions of jobs. When we resorted to fiscal irresponsibility, none of the tough choices, we noticed that not only have we wrecked the budget, but we have also lost jobs in the process. So these are the kinds of things that are going on. General Leave

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) Special Order.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I notice some of the gentleman's numbers are slightly different than the numbers I was using. I think we need to explain that these numbers are with the unified budget. The ones I was using were what are called on-budget, which means that you save the $150 billion in Social Security and Medicare surpluses. That $521 billion assumes that you have spent through that already, before you start counting the deficit.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Unless they were paid for.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Then what happened to PAYGO in recent years?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When we had PAYGO with the fiscal discipline, wherein if you increased the spending, you had to pay for it, or if you cut a tax, you had to pay for that, what color is that on the chart?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would also ask the gentleman, who was here leading the charge during the time when we eliminated the deficit and went to surplus, if he could explain what PAYGO means.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the problem with using rhetoric without using charts to show what we are talking about. You have indicated that some have looked at this chart and said we are in a recovery. Others have said the tax cuts are working. One looks at the chart, this is a miserable failure. We have lost 3 million jobs. I do not call that a recovery. Now, if you go back 50 to 75 years, they blame a recession. The experts will say that this administration did not inherit a recession. The recession began on this administration's watch. Whenever it started, it has been over by all accounts since the end of 2001. Since then, we have had all of 2002, and 2003 and we are into 2004. No recession from the beginning of any recession in the last 50 years, we have always within about 30 months recovered all of the jobs that were lost during the recession within about 30 months. Here we are almost 40 months after the beginning, whenever they say it started, it has been at least 40 months, we have not recovered the jobs yet. This is the worst recovery we have had in modern history. That is not a recovery.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the problem is that unless you recognize that there is a problem you are not going to come make the tough choices to fix it. Most people would glance at this chart and say we have a problem. This administration says that this is manageable, and on the job chart where he looks like he will be the first one to leave office with fewer jobs than he started off with, the tax cuts are working. No, the tax cuts are not working. We are losing jobs. If we passed the transportation bill, millions of jobs would be created. This will go above the line. Pass the transportation bill. There are a lot of things we can do to stimulate jobs. Tax cuts to the wealthy have not worked. Transportation jobs will work. Tax cuts to those in the lower end, who will actually spend it and buy stuff with it, will work. A millionaire, if he wants a television, he would have already bought a television. If he wants a car, he would have already bought a car. Someone in the lower brackets, if they get a couple hundred extra dollars, they are going to spend the money. So there are a lot of things. Repealing the alternative minimum tax for corporations, we discussed, will not create any jobs; but that is how we were trying to spend the money, and that is why, as a result of all that spending, it still ended up no jobs. If you look at the study of the Republican-dominated Joint Committee on Taxation, when they looked at the 2003 and looked at tax cuts and looked at the taxes that were cut, they concluded you might have a little short-term spike in jobs. As a direct result of passing that bill, you will have fewer jobs in the fullness of time than you started off with, and that is because you did it with borrowed money. There was limited stimulus, and because you have got to pay interest on it, on the debt that you ran up in the fullness of time and just a few years as a direct result of passing the bill, you will have fewer jobs than you started off with. We should not be surprised because of the taxes we cut that we are below the line. Had we used the money for transportation, for targeted tax cuts where they would have made a difference to help fund States or other programs, where we actually use the money in such a way that people will be hired, with all the spending, this thing ought to be off the chart. The budget has deteriorated $750 billion, almost the same as what we get from the entire individual income tax. With that kind of spending, it should have been able to create some jobs.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. On those transportation jobs, is there not something unique about those jobs? We keep talking about transferring jobs overseas. When you have a transportation-created job, where does that work take place?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think they have been revising that number back and forth, but whatever the projections are, let us look at the results. No President has left office in over 50 years with fewer jobs than they started off with until this administration. We are down 3 million jobs; and if you are interested in jobs, remember that in just a few years we will be spending $300 billion on additional interest on the national debt that had not been anticipated when President Clinton left office, $300 billion dollar. At $30,000 each, you can hire 10 million people. There are only 9 million people unemployed and receiving unemployment in America today. Instead of an unemployment check, you have enough money there in additional interest on the national debt that we should not have to pay to hire everybody that is drawing an unemployment check.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget eliminates funding for the juvenile justice programs, the prevention programs, the early intervention programs, the kinds of things that you can pay now and pay less later. He had to cut those out because having spent all the money in tax cuts and having gone so far in debt, there is nothing left over for those important programs; and you are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. This is hundreds of billions of dollars that we are in deficit, and we cannot make the little kinds of payments. My colleague talked about jobs. The small business program which is just less than $100 million, that is one-tenth of $1 billion. Here we are almost $700 billion in the hole, one-tenth of $1 billion, and that program creates jobs. The only thing the government has to pay out is when the loan defaults because it is a loan guarantee program. So just for every now and then there is a default we have to pay. For every 2 or $3,000 we pay out, we are creating a job because tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars has been borrowed, guaranteed, paid back. So we do not have to pay anything. For every 2 or $3,000 we actually have to pay out, we have created a job. When you start going in the hole hundreds of billions of dollars and have a program that can create jobs for 2 or $3,000 a piece, why did that get cut out? Because you just ran so far in debt that you did not have any money left over.