Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Well, you need to make tough choices; and, fundamentally, the strategy ought to be the green. In 1993 when President Clinton came in, we made tough choices. He vetoed bills that were inconsistent with his tough choices and we went into surplus. These are tough choices. This was the strategy that created fiscal responsibility and 20 million jobs in 8 years. Fiscal irresponsibility is when you start passing massive tax cuts without paying for them, just borrow the money for the tax cuts. Some say we are giving you your money back. No, no, no, no, no. We have spent your money. We are sending back money we have borrowed from overseas and giving it back because we spent your money. We spend your money and everybody else's money and Social Security and everything else, a deterioration in the budget, $750 billion, almost the same as the total amount that we received from the individual income tax.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. For veterans. The President's budget does not include enough money to maintain just the little present benefits for veterans. They want some veterans to pay more fees for health services, some not to be eligible, less services, while the war is being fought. So the veterans themselves will have to come back and pay the interest on the debt on the war that they fought in. That is not right. We are not able to fund the kind of things like Cops on the Beat. Now remember, in just 5 years we will be spending approximately $300 billion more in interest on the national debt than we should have had to pay. You can hire at $30,000 a piece, 10 million people for that amount of money or 5 million at $60,000. We are trying to find a little money to hire 100,000 police officers, to hire teachers, health care workers; and we cannot find the money because it is all being used up in interest on the national debt that is run up because you have to pay interest on the national debt since you are obviously not paying off any debt while you are in the hole. You only pay off debt when you are above the line. When you are in the hole, you are running up more debt, you have to pay more interest on the national debt. We cannot pay for our transportation projects. There are so many things that we cannot do because we are running up so much interest on the national debt. And remember that we have the exploding Social Security problem in just a few years. We ought to be preparing for that, not wake up in 2014 and wonder why the Social Security surplus is no longer there. It is not going to be there after 2014. We are going to have to come up with more money. We will not have the gravy train of 100-some billion dollars or go up to $275 billion in Social Security surplus to run through. It is a growing deficit, and there is no provision in the President's budget or the Committee on the Budget's budget that we are about to, that they will probably adopt; there is nothing in there to prepare us for the Social Security shortfall and the interest on the national debt. The GAO just issued a report in the last few days that shows if we keep going in the direction we are going, in just a couple of decades the Social Security shortfall and interest on the national debt will absorb all Federal revenues. That means no Medicaid, no Medicare, no Federal spending on anything including defense. You spend all your money just in Social Security and interest on the national debt unless there is a profound change in direction.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The money we get from the individual income tax totals less than $800 billion. We have a $750 billion deterioration in this budget in just 3 years. And so whatever you call it, whatever label you put on it, look at the chart. This is called tax cuts are working, deficit is manageable, whatever you want to call it. Look at what this administration's policy resulted in. Now, you talked about who is paying for it. Part of the war is being paid for by veterans benefits. We are debating now as to whether or not we are going to at least maintain present services.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The idea that if we do nothing, that that is a tax increase. The important thing is not to worry about what the label is. The important thing is to look at this chart. The policies of this administration which have been pretty much adopted in total have resulted in a deterioration in the budget almost equivalent to the total amount of money that we get from the individual income taxes.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. If you are going to spend $166 billion and we would be willing to spend whatever it takes to make the United States safe. We are now debating whether we are safer or not as a result of spending as a result of spending $166 billion. It looks to me that there are a lot of other things you could have done with a $166 billion budget that would have made America a lot safer than we are today. But look at the red ink. I mean, when you start adding it up, there was not a peep mentioned about how we were going to pay it. No sacrifice. And, in fact, when you look at some of the things that the House passed right after 9/11 with most of the votes coming from the Republican side of the aisle, we passed one provision which was a repeal of the alternative minimum tax for corporations. That is kind of technical, but what we found about 15, 20 years ago was that a lot of corporations were paying out dividends year after year after year. They were profitable companies; but because they had so many loopholes and deductions, they were paying no income tax. And so they passed a provision many years ago called the alternative minimum tax for corporations. In the alternative for no tax, at least pay a minimum tax. And that has been a law right after 9/11 when everyone was supposed to be sacrificing. The House passed a provision to eliminate the alternative minimum tax for corporations. They took that opportunity when everyone is supposed to be sacrificing to eliminate the alternative minimum tax for corporations. And while they were at it, they have made the repeal retroactive for 15 years. So if you had paid the alternative minimum tax in the last 15 years, you would get your money back. Several corporations would be getting a billion dollars back. Enron would get $250 million. Now, if you had a company and you got a billion dollars retroactive tax relief, an employee of that corporation would be no more likely to have a job the next day than the day before. That is not stimulating the economy. There is no more demand for your product. Now the uppity- ups in the corporation would be more likely to get their bonuses, the stockholders more likely to get their dividends. But an employee for the company, because there is no more demand for the product, is no more likely to have a job the next day than the day before. That is the kind of provision that this House passed. Thankfully, there was a Democratic majority in the Senate at that time and that was defeated in the Senate. But when you talk about sacrifice and how do you pay for a $166 billion war, well, you do not worry about it; you just let the next generation pay for it. You pay for it out of the next generation's Social Security. You borrow the money and worry about it later. That is not the fiscally responsible thing to do. It is not how you stimulate the economy. It is not how you produce jobs, and it is not what you ought to be doing to the next generations.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Combined. Homeland Security, Education, Transportation, Department of Labor, Department of State, add them all up, it does not come to $166 billion; 7.4, 166. How much do you have to spend before someone suggests that the spending is out of control?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When you lose jobs, there are things that, first of all, I do not know how you can spend that kind of money. Right after 9/11, we appropriated $40 billion. At $40,000 each you could have hired a million people. I do not know how you end up losing jobs; 9/11 actually should have stimulated jobs, not lost jobs. The problem is that this administration does not look at money, financial responsibility, with anyone. They decided to do something. It does not matter how much it costs. Just look at the war in Iraq. The Persian Gulf War 12 years ago cost the United States $7.4 billion, 7.4. Now, the 60, 70, $80 billion was the total cost; but because we had allies, total cost was $7.4 billion. When we appropriated $87 billion a few months ago, we had already spent $79 billion on the war. Total $166 billion; 7.4, 166, just to implement the my-way-or-the-highway, go-it-alone strategy. Had we developed some allies so that someone else could help pay the money and absorb some of the causalities, it is not all our money and all our causalities, it would have been closer to the 7.4 than the 166. Now, we are going, the estimates are about $50 billion. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget has estimated about $50 billion will be coming next year for Iraq, so that is another 50, 7.4, 166, 50 and who knows what after that. Let us put the 166 in perspective. That is more money than we spent in a year on the Department of Homeland Security for the security of the United States; and the Department of Education, the entire Department of Education budget. Plus, it is still more than the Department of Transportation, all road-building we are supposed to be doing. And it is more than the Department of Labor and Department of State. Add them all up, combined.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, when people talk about 9/11, they have to take into consideration that this chart goes back to Truman and Eisenhower, that includes the Korean War, it includes Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, it included the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the hostages in Iran, Grenada, Somalia, Kosovo, the Persian Gulf War. All of those are on this chart. Everyone created jobs during their four-year administration. President Clinton, 10 million jobs the first term, over 10 million both the first term and over 10 million jobs over the second term. Everyone has had problems. There have been recessions all the way up and down here. Everyone has been able to deal with adversity and create jobs. Until you get here. Now, if the President had offered an economic plan that had been rejected, he might say that because you rejected my plan, if you had only adopted my plan, things would have been better. We adopted his plan. We passed, I did not vote for them, but Congress passed his plan. And it resulted in a massive deficit and job loss.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on the budget issues. Mr. Speaker, before we discuss what we cannot fund, we have to discuss a little bit about where we are in the budget. One cannot discuss these numbers without charts, because we hear rhetoric, and it is confusing. But when we see the numbers on the chart, we get an idea of where we are and how deep a hole we are in. This is the on-budget deficit for years beginning with the Johnson administration through Nixon and Ford and Carter, Reagan and Bush, larger deficits; the green is the Clinton administration where we passed a budget in 1993 without a single Republican vote in the House, without a single Republican vote in the Senate, and were able to exercise fiscal responsibility, digging ourselves out of the deep hole and into a surplus. And this is an on-budget surplus, so that the Social Security and Medicare are temporary surpluses and are in a lockbox to be used for Social Security and Medicare in the future. We had a surplus. When the Republicans came in after the 1994 elections, they passed significant tax cuts that President Clinton vetoed. They threatened to close down the government, as my colleagues will remember; and he vetoed them again. They closed down the government, and he still refused to sign those massive tax cuts because they were fiscally irresponsible. When President Bush came in after the 2000 elections, they passed those same tax cuts again, and we see how much damage has been done to the budget. Now, this is a net surplus in the budget, going down to almost $700 billion, a total swing of approximately $750 billion deterioration in our budget situation. Let us put that into context: the entire revenue from the individual income tax, everybody's individual income tax, less than $800 billion. We have seen a deterioration in the deficit, $750 billion. Now, this chart shows it another way: the percentage of the budget paid for with borrowed money. You see, this is World War II, you come through the years. The Clinton years, we went into significant surplus; and when this President Bush came in, we started spending, paying for more and more of our budget with borrowed money. We are up now to over 30 percent, well over 30 percent of the budget, the Federal budget is paid for with borrowed money. And you will notice that that is a level we have not seen since World War II. Now, we got there with tax cuts. It is interesting to know who got the tax cuts. This chart shows what the upper 20 percent, the next 20 percent, the middle 20 percent and the other 20 percentiles, how much of the tax cut they got. If you look at the top 20 percent and just look at the top 1 percent, about half of the tax cuts have gone to the upper 1 percent of the taxpayers. To put it another way, you can look and see approximately what you got if you made more than a $1 million on average you get about $89,000 tax cuts. $500,000 to $1 million, you got about $13,000. And on average as you get down to $50,000 to $75,000, you are getting about $132. And below $50,000 you hardly need any ink to draw the bar. Off the chart for millionaires, do not need ink to draw the bar for ordinary Americans. Now, we were told we had to do that to create jobs. Let us see how many jobs have been created because we went so far in debt. We were willing to go so far in debt and give tax cuts to the wealthy, how many jobs were created? Well, we have lost, have not gained, we have lost almost 3 million jobs during this administration. Now, we hear the great excuse: ``9/11.'' Everything that goes wrong is because of 9/11. Because of 9/11 we lost jobs. But wait. Every 4 years back to Harry Truman, everybody has been gaining jobs, everybody has been able to end their term of office with more jobs than they came in with. President Eisenhower, in his second administration he lost about 200,000 jobs but he gained 1,900,000 in his first term to his net plus 1,700,000 jobs. Everybody else, every 4 years gained jobs. If you want to blame 9/11, you ought to notice that this chart includes not just 9/11, but it also includes the Korean War and the Vietnam War, hostages in Iran, the Persian Gulf War from 12 years ago, the Cold War, Kosovo, Grenada, everything else, everybody is gaining jobs until the result of this fiscal irresponsibility has actually cost us jobs. Now, when you run up this kind of debt, you have to pay interest on the national debt. This chart shows the interest on the national debt we expected to pay after President Clinton left office going down to zero because we were on target to paying off the entire national debt. This red line is the interest on the national debt we are going to end up having to pay because of our fiscal irresponsibility. By 2009, the difference is almost $300 billion. Now, let us put $300 billion into perspective. At $30,000 a piece, you can hire 10 million people with $300 billion. 10 million. And it gets wider and wider as you go out. This is an opportunity that we are going to lose because we are going to be $300 billion less than we thought we were going to have when President Clinton left office. We also have to recognize that the Social Security program will be a challenge. These red bars represent the fact that we are bringing in more Social Security funds than we are paying out. That is because we recognize that when the baby boomers retire, we will be paying out more than we are bringing in. And we need to build up the trust fund so that hopefully we can pay this as much as we can. 2017 it goes into deficit. We are now spending all of this Social Security surplus on the present budget. We are in deficit even after we have spent the Social Security and Medicare. The Medicare chart looks similar to this. We are spending the Social Security surplus. Now, when you cross the 300 line, 2025, somewhere in there, when you cross the 300 line that is $1,000 for every man, woman, and child including those on Social Security. Every man, woman, and child $1,000. When you cross the 600 line, that is $2,000 for every man, woman, and child just to make this, just to pay the Social Security shortfall. Now, you may look at this and decide, well that is too challenging, we never could have paid it. It is just too much of a problem. But when you look back at this chart, we have been told that if you just look at what this administration wants to give to the top 1 percent, top 1 percent, that would have been enough to pay Social Security benefits without reducing benefits, without increasing the age for 75 years, or you can give the top 1 percent a tax cut. Now, Mr. Greenspan told us that if you extend the tax cuts like it looks like this administration will propose, it has proposed, if we extend the tax cuts we should cut Social Security. Now, I think he used the word ``adjust'' Social Security. He is talking about increasing the age, reducing the COLA. I think most people, including the Republican officials, have categorized that as a cut. And I think most people would view that as a cut; they are going to be getting less than they would have if you had not made that adjustment. I would certainly call that a cut. But he said if you extend the tax cuts, you have to cut Social Security. The GAO issued a report recently that showed that we are on track to disaster. A great political philosopher once said, ``If you do not change directions, you may end up where you are headed.'' Well, the GAO says that we are headed towards a situation in a few years, a couple of decades where the Social Security deficit and interest on the national debt alone will absorb all of the projected Federal revenues for those years. In other words, all of the revenues will be insufficient to pay just the Social Security shortfall and interest on the national debt. That is without Medicare, and Medicaid, and that is without any other Federal spending. Just the Social Security shortfall and interest on the national debt will absorb all of the Federal revenues. Obviously, that is a direction we should not be going in. We need to change directions. And the reason we cannot fund many of the things that you mentioned that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the chairman of the Black Caucus, mentioned is because we are using up the money in interest in the national debt. We are having trouble funding police officers, 100,000 police officers. And we said we could with the $300 billion additional interest on the national debt that we will be paying in just a few years, we could have hired 10 million people at $30,000 apiece, 5 million at $60,000 a piece, and we are having trouble trying to find funds to hire 100,000 police officers. We cannot properly fund veterans benefits, education, health care. There are a lot of things we cannot do because it is all being absorbed by the interest on the national debt necessitated because we have put our budget in unprecedented deficit. Now, the idea that we are going to get a promise that the deficit will be cut in half in 5 years is really insulting. We should be talking about how we get back up into surplus where we were when this administration came in. Instead of running up debt, we ought to be running up surpluses so we will be prepared to meet the challenges of Social Security. At this rate, with all this red ink, we will be so far in debt that we will not have anything for Social Security. We will not have anything for Medicare. We will not have anything for jobs because we are paying interest on the red ink that we are running up. That is the problem that we have. And the additional problem that we have is that the tough choices that created this green ink, were tough choices, politically tough choices. And you can not make those tough choices until you have at least acknowledged a problem. This administration refers to this graph and the deficit as ``manageable.'' That is why we need a graph to show the people what we are talking about. This administration refers to this job graph by saying that the tax cuts are working. The tax cuts are not working. We have lost 3 million jobs. And so you need the graph to show specifically what we are talking about in this budget and how bad it is. And, so, I would say to the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, I thank him for the opportunity to present the problem so that we can, as others participate, can talk about the things that we cannot fund because we have this situation where we are so far in the hole with a graph such as this. You cannot create a graph like this by accident. We are far in the hole, and we need to dig ourselves out so that we can make the important investments in education, in health care, in veterans benefits and the other important challenges that we have before us. And I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Fifty to $75,000: $132. Now there are a lot of different variations in that, depending on the child tax credit. If you have a lot of children, you may get more tax credit. If you are single, you may not get anything at all. On average, 50 to $75,000, you are getting $132 a year.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. This is if you are making 50 to $75,000, you are on average, the average income group, $132. Below that you hardly need any ink to draw the bar. However, if you are making more than $1 million, you explode way off the chart.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. This?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reads simply: ``Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in this Act, this Act does not apply to an action brought by a State agency to enforce a State consumer protection law concerning mislabeling or other unfair and deceptive trade practices.'' Mr. Chairman, if the House is going to decide that we will try some cases instead of letting them be tried in court, we ought to at least limit that to the fast food rhetoric that we have heard on the floor. This bill, in fact, covers not only fast food lawsuits, but also litigation involving consumer protection when obesity may be one of the elements of the case. Every single State has laws in the books to protect its consumers. Each State has laws to protect its consumers from misleading practices. As written, the bill will prevent States' Attorneys General from enforcing these laws. It will not just stop the fast food suits that my colleagues have discussed, but because a person is defined in section 4(3) of the bill to include governmental entities, it will prevent States from getting injunctions, cease and desist orders, or imposing fines against those who endanger consumers. The exception for a willful and knowing violation is not just enough. State deceptive practices are just like the Federal Trade Commission Act. They allow civil enforcement actions whether or not the defendant knowingly or willfully violated the law. In fact, food labeling and deceptive practices often have exacted strict liability, that is, that the government can get an injunction whether or not the person was intentionally or knowingly in violation. Mr. Chairman, my State of Virginia has a Consumer Protection Act which prohibits, and I quote, representing that goods and services have characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or qualities that they do not have or any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. A court may order an injunction or restitution to injured parties, even if the violation was unintentional. The fact is Virginia is not alone. Twelve States have adopted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act section 3 which says intentional deception is not necessary to get injunctive relief, and at least 23 other States have similar standards. So, Mr. Chairman, the amendment I present today will fix the problem. It will ensure that States can still put an end to mislabeling, deceptive practices and false advertising within their borders. Whatever we think of the fast food suits, please do not prevent States Attorneys General from protecting their citizens.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, just because we made something retroactive in the past does not make it a good idea. It is a bad idea to pass legislation that retroactively affects pending lawsuits.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Whatever the merits of the lawsuits which provoke this legislation are, we ought to focus on the fact that lawsuits ought to be tried in court, where evidence can be heard and objective law applied. Today, we are allowing one industry to have the privilege of trying its lawsuit with politicians who will take politics and polls into consideration instead of being treated the same as other citizens who have to try their cases in court. If the case on behalf of the food industry is strong, then courts will know what to do; they can dismiss the cases. Furthermore, if based on the evidence and the law the court finds that the law suit is frivolous, the court may assess sanctions against the plaintiffs and lawyers who file the suits. In fact, it is my understanding that all of the lawsuits have in fact been dismissed. So what is wrong with the food industry being treated the same as other industries when it comes to courts deciding whether or not there is responsibility for injuries to others? And what is wrong with trying cases in court with unbiased judges and juries hearing both sides of the case according to rules which allow both sides to produce all relevant witnesses who will be heard and cross-examined? This process is in stark contrast to the congressional procedure where committee chairmen invite the witnesses they want and cross- examination of witnesses is severely constrained both in time and by the fact that the interested parties are not able to cross-examine anyone. Mr. Chairman, in a democracy it is fundamentally wrong for some industries to have the privilege of trying their cases in a forum where their political allies will decide the merits of the case while everyone else is relegated to the court system where evidence is heard and the law applied by judges and juries without political considerations. This bill sets a bad precedent. I therefore hope my colleagues will oppose this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to review what the amendment actually is. In section 4.3, they define person who can bring these lawsuits as individuals, corporations, companies, but it includes any governmental entity. The lawsuits we are talking about are lawsuits arising out of, related to, or resulting in injury or potential injury resulting from person's consumption of a qualified product and weight gain, obesity or any health condition that is associated with a person's weight gain or obesity, including, and it goes on. This is overly broad. Let us just read what the amendment says. It says that the Act does not apply to an action brought by a State agency to enforce a State consumer protection law concerning mislabeling or other unfair or deceptive trade practice. We do not need protection from State attorneys general enforcing our consumer protection laws. I would hope that we adopt the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a former mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, who worked very closely with the DEA.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the motion.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for the courtesy of yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it. House Resolution 412 commemorates the 30th anniversary of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and recognizes the contributions and achievements of its current 8,800 employees working in 173 domestic offices and 78 foreign offices worldwide. The resolution also specifically recognizes the sacrifices of those employees who have given their lives in the line of duty and those who have been wounded or injured. So I am pleased to join my colleagues in recognizing the dedicated hard work and sacrifice of the men and women of the DEA on this occasion commemorating the 30th anniversary of this agency. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Extended Deployment Pay Increase Act of 2004.'' I believe this legislation provides critical financial support to our men and women in uniform. All of us are familiar with the change in policy that is requiring tens of thousands of National Guard, Reservists, and active duty troops in Iraq and surrounding countries to extend their active duty to 12 months. These longer deployments cause additional financial and emotional stresses on our military, and their families. For example, it has been reported that more than one-third of the Reservists and National Guard members suffer cuts in pay when called to active duty. So while it may be reasonable to expect members of the National Guard and Reserves to forgo peacetime salaries for six months to serve on active duty thousands of miles away from home, or to expect private employers to continue to pay part of their salaries for a few months, these stopgap measures are limited. The financial strain is especially acute for those who are self-employed--especially those who are called up on short notice and those who have made business arrangements for a six month absence, only to be notified later that their deployment will be extended for a full year. There are similar stresses on career military personnel that are required to serve extended deployments of 12 months on active duty. While 6 months may be more manageable for a family to make temporary arrangements regarding covering day care and usual family responsibilities, deployments of 12 months require a more permanent solution. At a minimum, the normal family life is disrupted. Parents are forced to be away from their children for prolonged periods of time, and the parent that is left behind must fill the role of both parents. As a result, additional social services, or additional day care services, are often needed--at additional financial expense. This bill would increase individual pay by $1000 per month for active duty military, Reservists, and National Guard members who are deployed away from home for more than 6 months. The increase would apply to each month of active duty in excess of 6 months. Many of these individuals and their families will be suffering hardship well in excess of $1000 per month. The least we can do is attempt to offset the financial hardship imposed on these families. If one third of 150,000 troops in Iraq are eligible for extended deployment pay in any month; the cost would be $50 million a month or $600 million per year. This amounts to less than one-half of one percent of the total cost of the war to date. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this effort to aid the military men and women who are honorably serving our country.