Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Prison Industries program, or FPI, has been around since the 1930s. Under the law, Federal agencies are required to buy needed products from FPI if FPI can meet their order. The purpose of the program is to teach prisoners real work skills so that when they are released from prison, as they ultimately will be, they will be able to find and hold a job, they will be able to support themselves and their families, and they will be less likely to commit additional crimes. It is clear that the program works to do just that. Follow-up studies covering as much as 16 years of data have shown that inmates who participate in prison industries are 14 percent more likely to be employed and 24 percent less likely to commit crimes than others who did not participate in the program. While this certainly benefits offenders and their families, there is a more important public policy perspective, and that is that the real benefit for all of us is that as a result of the program, they will be less likely to commit crimes. We are prepared to spend billions of dollars in prison construction and prisoner upkeep in our efforts to reduce crime. This is a program that reduces crime while it pays for itself. Now, H.R. 1829 will result in fewer inmate jobs with increased taxpayer costs and an increase in crime. The CBO estimates that it will cost over a half a billion dollars with at least $177 million of that in additional security costs to guard the inmates who are made idle by this bill. The other part of the half billion dollars is attributable to the cost of vocational education and other alternatives to replace FPI when those jobs are lost. However, nothing guarantees that the half billion dollars will actually be funded, other than the phantom promise of an authorization in the bill. In addition to the half billion dollars of taxpayer funds for a program that now costs taxpayers nothing, there are other big losers in the bill. About 75 percent of the roughly $600 million that FPI takes in goes back into the purchase of raw materials, equipment, and services from the private sector businesses in order to purchase supplies for FPI products. There are thousands of these businesses and they hire thousands of workers. Over 60 percent of them are small, minority- and women-owned, disadvantaged businesses. For many of them, FPI is their only client. So a high number of these private sector jobs held by law-abiding citizens will be gone immediately with the elimination of mandatory source of FPI, since there will be no reliable FPI revenues or orders. And when these jobs are lost, they will not be made up by the business leaving FPI and going into other private businesses. The whole of the FPI revenues constitute less than one-quarter of 1 percent of Federal agency purchasing, about the same as it was in 1935. With the entire private sector market and 99.75 percent of the Federal market, spreading the remaining one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal market over all of the private sector businesses is not likely to create any jobs. It will simply be absorbed in the existing workforce with little effect on work levels. Less than 25 percent of Federal agency purchases go to small businesses, so the bulk of the business taken away from FPI will go to big business, be absorbed, and not create any businesses to offset those that are lost. Now, critics say that FPI has resulted in substantial job losses for law-abiding citizens. The furniture and apparel industries are two of the industries most often cited. But when asked, representatives of these industries conceded that FPI sales represent an insignificant or negligible portion of their industries, and if such industries are having problems, it is not due to the impact of FPI. I have been told that 600,000 jobs were lost over the last 10 years in the textile industry. There are roughly 7,000 prisoners working in textiles in FPI, and certainly we cannot blame a few thousand prisoners for the loss of 600,000 jobs. All able-bodied inmates in the Federal system are required by law to work. Few offenders enter prison with marketable work skills. The vast majority do not have credible work habits such as showing up for a job and working cooperatively and productively with others. Such habits are required to maintain an FPI job. These are the same requirements and same habits required to be productive in desirable workers anywhere, and that is why inmates with FPI experience have been found to be significantly more employable than those who do not. With the elimination of parole, with the elimination of good conduct credits, Pell grants, and the elimination of other incentives, the Federal Prison System has little to offer to a prisoner for self- development. One shining exception is FPI. Non-FPI inmate jobs pay about 12 cents an hour to about 30 cents an hour, while FPI jobs pay up to $1.25 an hour and are not paid for with any taxpayer money. To hold down an FPI job, an inmate must have completed high school or be making steady progress toward obtaining a GED, and maintain a record of good behavior. This is true not only for those already in an FPI job, but also for those on the waiting list, as well as those who are trying to establish eligibility to be placed on the waiting list. Some have suggested that vocational education is a good substitute for FPI work experience. While the vocational experience is important and ought to be available to all inmates who can benefit, not all inmates can benefit, and the timing is important for those who can. The average sentence for prisoners in the Federal system is 8 years. The average length of a vocational education program is about 2 years or less and is generally thought to be better delivered towards the end of the sentence, right before release. In any case, the question becomes what to do with the other 6 years of the sentence prior to or after completion of vocational education. And the next question, of course, is who is going to pay for the vocational education. The FPI program pays for itself. I am the first to concede that there are problems with FPI which should be fixed. When a small business making a single product already has a government contract and depends on the continuation of that contract for its viability, the FPI should not be able to take that business away through the use of mandatory source. But this bill should be fixing the problem, not gutting it by taking away all of FPI's primary business sources all at once. While the bill suggests that lack of competition is the problem, it takes away FPI's ability to provide services, even though services have to be provided on a competitive basis. There is no mandatory source provision for services; there is just for products. The bill prohibits FPI from providing services to businesses even when there is no business or labor in the United States interested in providing the service. We are already seeing the effects of the Department of Defense restrictions on FPI procurement that we passed last Congress. Information from the program indicates that it has already had to close 13 factories and eliminate over 1,700 inmate jobs. They expect to eliminate 500 additional jobs before the end of the year. Now, we should fix the problems, but we should do so in a way that assures the viability of a vital crime-reducing program. The GAO has been asked to study the impact of inmate employment, prison security, private and public employment, and public safety. The information will be available in April. With these issues at stake, we should not demolish a program with a record of contributing significantly to prison security, inmate and private job generation and public safety without first assessing the study information. Congress has the oversight responsibility for the safe and efficient operation of our prisons and for the protection of the public from crime. Real work opportunities in prison have been shown not only to provide for safer, more manageable prisons, but also for substantially less recidivism upon release among those inmates who participate in FPI. It costs the taxpayers nothing. If we are going to eliminate the program, we should put viable options in its place and wait for the results of the pending GAO study to determine what those options are. This program was created in the midst of the Great Depression when jobs were at their lowest point. We should not toss it aside just because it has a few problems. We should fix the problems. Now, we can do better than this bill, Mr. Chairman, and we certainly should. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. This bill makes DNA technology available to our criminal justice system in a way that effectively enhances the efficiency and certainty in exonerating the innocent, as well as identifying, prosecuting and convicting the guilty. In recent years, the advent of DNA evidence has shown us, unequivocally, we have been convicting and incarcerating innocent people, while allowing many guilty people to go free. As a result of DNA identifications, many offenders have been convicted. At the same time, 138 convicted and sentenced individuals have been exonerated by DNA evidence, including 12 who were on death row. The numbers of suspects who have been excluded as offenders at the outset of criminal investigations is even greater. The FBI reveals that 25 percent of suspects who are DNA tested are, in fact, exonerated. This bill includes the provisions of the Debbie Smith Act, which authorizes significant funding to process DNA analysis for evidence. Many evidence kits are not now analyzed simply because of lack of funding, which means that many offenders are evading justice just because of lack of funds. This bill will mean they will be tracked down and prosecuted. Virginia is a leader in solving crimes and DNA technology, and all States will benefit from the provisions of the Debbie Smith Act. The Debbie Smith Act is from Virginia. While DNA technology has provided uncontrovertible proof that innocent people have been convicted and sentenced, DNA evidence covers only a small portion of those who are ultimately found to be innocent. One frequent reason for innocent people being convicted and sentenced, even to death, is incompetent and ineffective counsel. This is also the reason why many convictions are overturned. So we are pleased that there are minimum standards assured in the bill for qualifications of attorneys who will represent potential death row inmates. Mr. Speaker, this will actually also mean that not only innocent people will not be convicted, but also many of the convictions will in fact be upheld on appeal. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Prison Industries program, or FPI, has been around since the 1930s. Under the law, the Federal agencies are required to buy needed products from FPI if they can meet the order. The purpose of the program is to teach prisoners real work skills so when they are released from prison, they will be able to find and hold jobs to support themselves and their families and be less likely to commit more crimes. And it is clear that the program works to do just that. Follow-up studies covering as much as 16 years of data have shown that inmates who participate in prison industries are more likely to be employed and less likely to commit crimes than others who do not participate in the program. And while this certainly benefits the offenders and their families, that is beside the point from a public policy perspective. The real benefit is that all of us, as a result of the program, are less likely to be victims of crimes. We are prepared to spend billions of dollars in prison construction and prison upkeep in our efforts to reduce crime. This program reduces crime and pays for itself. H.R. 1829 will result in fewer inmate jobs, with increased taxpayer costs and an increase in crime. The CBO, for example, estimates it will cost at least $177 million just in extra security costs to guard the inmates made idle by this bill. The total revenues of FPI represent a very small percent, approximately \1/4\ of 1 percent of Federal agency procurement dollars, about the same as it was when it started in 1934. Furniture and apparel industries are two industries in which FPI does most of its work; but when asked, a representative of these industries conceded that FPI sales represent ``insignificant'' and ``negligible'' portions of their industries. And if such industries have problems, it is not due to FPI. On textiles, for example, I was told that 600,000 jobs were lost over the last 10 years. Where there are approximately 7,000 prisoners working in textiles in FPI, we certainly cannot blame 7,000 prisoners for the loss of 600,000 jobs. The program generates almost as much business as it takes in by pumping three quarters of the roughly $600 million it takes in back into the economy to purchase supplies and whatnot, primarily from small minority and women-owned and disadvantaged businesses. The FPI has received awards for spending almost 60 percent of its expenditures in these small and disadvantaged businesses. I am the first to concede that there may be problems with FPI which should be fixed. When a small business making a single product such as an Army helmet is dependent on the Department of Defense for contracts for its operations, FPI should not be able to take away that business. But this bill should be fixing the problems not by gutting it by taking away all its primary source of contracts. And while the bill suggests that the lack of competition is a problem, the bill seeks to stranglehold FPI as a competitor not only by strengthening the prohibitions against activities in the commercial market but also in the government as well. We are already seeing the effects of a Department of Defense restriction in FPI passed last year. The information I have obtained from the program indicates that it has already had to close 13 factories and eliminate over 1,700 inmate jobs and expects to eliminate an additional 500 jobs before the end of the year. We should fix these problems, but we should do so in a way that assures the viability of the vital crime-reducing program. With additional prisons scheduled to come on line over the next few years, we can ill afford to diminish the successful crime-reduction program. But for their crimes and imprisonment, they are indistinguishable from the rest of us; and treating them as if they are a foreign competitor and viewing the work as private businesses, we should not be in a position where the policy of the committee with oversight responsibility for the safe and efficient operation of our prisons should be at risk. Mr. Speaker, these are important jobs. This program reduces crime. We can do better than just gut the entire program with a meat ax approach. We can improve the program without ending it. So I would hope that we would defeat the rule and, if the rule passes, defeat the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his leadership on this issue. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, we need to do much more to prevent dangerous firearms from falling into the hands of would-be terrorists and other violent criminals. We could start by renewing the current assault weapons ban. We could also strengthen criminal background checks and close the gun show loophole so that rogue gun dealers will not be able to evade the current spirit of the law and sell guns to criminals and suspected terrorists. Finally, we need to protect us from firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines. The bill before us today achieves the last of these objectives. It renews the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, also known as the Plastic Gun Law, which makes it illegal to manufacture, import, possess, or transfer a firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detectors or airport x-ray machines. Renewing the ban on plastic guns is vital. The gun industry clearly has the technology to manufacture firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines. As early as 1986, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment determined that the ``technology does exist to manufacture certain firearms which would be completely or almost completely nonmetallic'' and that ``plastic handguns may be available on the commercial market quite soon.'' Indeed, shortly thereafter, in 1986, an attempt was made by Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi to purchase more than 100 firearms produced in Austria and constructed almost entirely out of hardened plastic. With the ongoing war on terrorism, it is even more important than ever that we take an aggressive stance against dangerous weapons that make our society vulnerable to future terrorist-related attacks. H.R. 3348 was introduced with this in mind; and while I would strongly prefer to make this bill permanent and not just an extension, I think the extension is an important step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership in this budget issue. We have seen a lot of charts, and I would like to remind the public of this chart right here which shows the deficit from the Johnson administration, Nixon, Ford, Carter, the deficit created during the Reagan and Bush years. And then when President Clinton came in, as noted, we passed a budget without a single Republican vote that created the momentum carrying up towards an actual surplus. We got ourselves out of the ditch into a surplus. Some have suggested that since the Republicans used this vote and took over the House and the Senate, that they ought to get some credit for this improvement. Unfortunately, they should not get the credit because as soon as they took over, they passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts, and President Clinton vetoed those tax cuts. They threatened to shut the government down, he vetoed them again. They shut the government down, President Clinton stuck to his guns, vetoed it again, and as a result, this line continued up. Unfortunately, when President Bush came in, he signed those trillion dollar tax cuts, and we see what would have happened a long time ago had President Clinton not vetoed those budgets. Now, this goes down to an on-budget deficit of almost $700 billion. We have to put that into perspective and the fact of the line item individual income tax, how much revenue we get from individual income tax in the United States, less than $800 billion. In a couple of years, we are going to be almost $700 billion in on-budget deficit, spending almost $150-$200 billion in Social Security and Medicare, and then almost $700 billion in on-budget deficit. We cannot sustain this for very long. Let us see what this next chart shows, the height of fiscal irresponsibility, because this shows how much of their budget was paid for with borrowed money. Back in the depression in World War II, obviously, a substantial amount was paid for with borrowed money, but we are getting to numbers now, and this goes to 2010, we are getting to numbers now that we have not seen on a sustained basis since World War II. This year we are breaking the record. Since World War II, we have not seen almost a third of the budget being paid for with borrowed money. Of course, during the Clinton years, the amount paid for with borrowed money went down due to the fact that it was actually a surplus. And as soon as President Bush came in, we started paying for the budget with borrowed money, and we are up in a couple of years with almost a third of the budget being paid off in borrowed money, and it looks like it is not going to get any better in the future. How did we get there, we got there with tax cuts. And who got the tax cuts, the top 20 percent got most of the tax cuts. In fact, half of the tax cuts went to the upper 1 percent. Most people do not know how big the tax cut was because most people did not get very much. As we can see from the chart, the middle 20 percent did not get very much, and on down. By income, if the taxpayer made more than a million dollars, they would be off the chart, a $90,000 tax cut in 1 year. If all they made was $500,000 to $1 million, you got $13,000 in 2003. $200,000 to $500,000 on average got $2,000. And as we get down to $50,000 to $75,000 on average, the taxpayer hardly noticed what they got. Going down, we do not even need any red ink to show what they got. Most Americans do not know how big this tax cut was. But we were told we had to cut taxes to create jobs, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) told us how many jobs have been created. We, in fact, lost jobs. On a 4-year basis back to Truman, everybody is gaining jobs. Eisenhower in his two terms, almost two million jobs. Everybody is creating jobs until we get to this administration. We have lost 3.1, 3.2 million jobs already lost in this administration. We cannot blame this on 9/11 because going back to the Truman administration, and that includes the Korean War, coming forward it includes the Vietnam War, the hostages in Iran, Somalia, Grenada, the Cold War, everybody is still creating jobs, until we get to this administration. This is a complicated chart, but it shows what the Republican-led Joint Committee on Taxation thought about the tax cuts. Since they are done with borrowed money, there might be a short-term spike in jobs that we should expect, but depending on which model we use, we will be losing jobs, at best, and end up where we started in the fullness of time. So the Joint Committee on Taxation told us this was a job killer. When we run up deficits, we run up debt and interest on the national debt. This shows the interest on the national debt that has to be paid in cash. More actually has to be paid, because we have to pay interest on trust funds, but that is internal. This is what we need to come up with every year in terms of cash. By 2010, $300 billion every year just to pay interest on the national debt. This line here shows what we would have been paying had we not messed up the budget in 2001. The projection was that we would be paying no interest on the national debt by 2008, but instead because we messed up the budget, $300 billion a year. This is happening at a time when the Social Security trust fund becomes a challenge. We see in this chart the Social Security trust fund. The blue is the surplus that we are running now. We are bringing in more in Social Security than we are paying out. We ought to keep it in the lockbox which has been referenced because, obviously, we are going to need it shortly. But unfortunately, we are spending it all. This shows the deficit. By 2030, it is almost $900 billion a year in shortfall that we are going to have to come up with every year to pay Social Security as promised. Members may look at this chart and conclude maybe it was a lost cause, maybe we just could not pay Social Security, maybe it was just a matter of time before the thing went broke, but there is one little interesting fact. When we go back to this tax cut in 2001, this tax cut was so large that if we had taken what the top 1 percent got and instead of giving a tax cut to the upper 1 percent, if we put that money into the Social Security trust fund, just what the top 1 percent got, everybody else gets what they got, just the top 1 percent, put that into the Social Security trust fund, we would have built up the surplus enough to have paid benefits under Social Security without reducing benefits for 75 years. For 75 years, Social Security would have been secure, or tax cut for the upper 1 percent. Those are the kinds of choices we have been making and the reason we have been fighting for fiscal sanity. If we do not get this straight, we are going to lose Social Security. We cannot pay increasing interest on the national debt and this increasing deficit in Social Security without something having to go. By all likelihood, it is going to be the Social Security program unless we get things under control. So I would hope we can get the budget under control and people will follow the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) in maintaining fiscal discipline so we can have Social Security in the future for us and the next generation. This is a very challenging chart, but as I said, if we had allocated the same amount of money as we had for the upper 1 percent in tax cuts, just 2001, we could have had a secure Social Security program for 75 years. Those are not the kinds of decisions we ought to be making. We have to reverse that direction, and that is why I am delighted to participate with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) in this Special Order.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the entire Persian Gulf War 12 years ago cost the United States less than $8 billion. The total cost of the war was over $60 billion, but because allies were participating our share was only 12 percent of the cost. Now we have already spent $79 billion on the present war in Iraq. We are asked to spend $87 billion more for a total of $166 billion so far. To put the $166 billion in perspective, Mr. Speaker, the total appropriation for this fiscal year for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Labor and Department of State was less than $166 billion. On a per capita basis, $166 billion is more for each person in Iraq than the total annual government spending in the United States for each of our American citizens for everything other than Social Security and defense. Although this is a huge expenditure, the administration does not even give lip service to explain how the bill will be paid, no outline of spending cuts or increased taxes. The administration says we cannot lend the money to Iraq because they are too far in debt, and yet the national debt in Iraq is approximately $4,000 a person. The national debt of the United States, $20,000 per person. A vote on this bill represents the only opportunity Congress has to consider the President's policies in Iraq since October of last year, and the President's decision to invade unilaterally without allies has meant that we are paying 100 percent of the costs of the war in cash and in casualties, and a yes vote on this bill will mean that no significant attempt will be made to get international participation. Mr. Speaker, we have had widespread reports of contracting fraud, and a vote on this bill means that we will get more of the same. During the campaign, the President frequently insisted that no troops would ever be deployed without an exit strategy, and not only do we not have an exit strategy, we do not even have a good entry strategy. The President has acknowledged that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. Iraq was never an imminent threat to the United States, and so we cannot get an exit strategy, if we cannot explain why we are there in the first place. A yes vote on the bill forfeits any congressional opportunity to require a meaningful exit strategy. Now whatever, there are a lot of reasons to vote no, but if this passage of the bill would make us safer, we might want to vote yes. Unfortunately, even before the war, the CIA concluded that Iraq posed very little threat to the United States at that time, but would pose a threat if we attacked them. This policy, which includes the expenditure of $166 billion and the loss of many courageous lives, has failed to make us safer. Mr. Speaker, because this bill represents such a huge expenditure and validates failed policies, I would ask that we defeat the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the entire Persian Gulf war 12 years ago cost the United States much less than $8 billion. The total cost of that war was $61 billion, but because allies were participating, our share was only 12 percent of the total cost. We have already spent $79 billion on the present war on Iraq, and now we are asked to appropriate another $87 billion for a total of $166 billion, so far. To put the $166 billion into perspective, the total appropriation for this fiscal year (FY 2003) for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Department of State was less than $166 billion. And on a per person basis, $166 billion is more for each person in Iraq than the total annual U.S. Government spending for each American citizen for everything other than Social Security and Defense. Although this is a huge expenditure, the administration fails to even give lip service to explain how the bill will be paid. No outline of spending cuts or increased taxes has been presented. The Administration has opposed lending any portion of the funds to Iraq because the Administration claims that Iraq is too far in debt already, even though the national debt in Iraq is approximately $4,000 per person while the national debt in the United States is approximately $20,000 per person. It therefore has to be assumed that all of the money will be borrowed by the United States government. At 5-percent interest, the annual interest on this $166 billion of additional debt will be $8.3 billion or $160 million per week. A yes vote on the bill commits this country to additional annual interest payments that are more than the annual cost of the entire Head Start program. The vote on this bill represents the only opportunity Congress has had to consider the President's policies in Iraq since October of last year. The President's decision to invade unilaterally, without allies, has meant that we are paying 100 percent of the costs of the war, in cash and in casualties. In the Persian Gulf war, allies paid more than 85 percent of the costs; if they were paying only 50 percent of the costs of this war, we would save $80 billion and countless lives. Unfortunately, a yes cot on the bill will mean that no significant attempt will be made to engage the international community's participation. There have been widespread reports of financial waste in Iraq. A few weeks ago, ``60 Minutes'' chronicled the profitable no-bid contracts enjoyed by Halliburton and others and pointed out that there were firms who could do much of the work for half of the price paid to Halliburton under those contracts. Last week, National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition'' described sweetheart deals and corruption. Questions have also been raised about the extravagance of the reconstruction of Iraq and whether more modest construction might accomplish the same goals. A yes vote on this bill will mean that no change in contracting procedures will be made. During his campaign, President Bush frequently insisted that no troops should ever be deployed without an ``exit strategy''. Not only do we have no apparent exit strategy, we also have no apparent entry strategy: the President recently admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th; no weapons of mass destruction have been located; Iraq was never an imminent threat to the United States. We cannot develop an exit strategy, if we cannot articulate what the entry strategy was. A yes vote on the bill forfeits a Congressional opportunity to require the administration to clearly establish an exit strategy. Notwithstanding all of the reasons to vote ``no'', if the passage of the bill would result in a safer America, it would be worth the cost. Unfortunately, even before the war, the CIA concluded that Iraq posed very little threat to the United States at the time, but would pose an increased threat if we attacked them. A letter form CIA Director George Tenet to the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dated October 7, 2002, and printed in the Congressional Record stated that: ``Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States. Should Saddam conclude that a United States-led attack could no longer be deterred, he would probably become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.'' Certainly we cannot be any safer than the CIA said we were before we attacked; but, most recent reports describe more terrorists now gathering in Iraq than before the war. So, the policy which includes the expenditure of $166 billion and the loss of many courageous lives has failed to make us safer. Because the appropriations in the bill represent more than the United States last year for the United States Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Department of State; because there is no plan for paying the bill; because failed policies will be validated by the passage of the bill; and because we are in fact more at risk, not safer as result of those polices, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this request for nearly $87 billion to continue the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is money we do not have for a foreign welfare program. The burden on our already weakened economy could well be crippling. Those who argue that we must vote for this appropriation because ``we must succeed'' in Iraq are misguided. Those who say this, have yet to define what it means--in concrete terms--to have ``success'' in Iraq. What is success in Iraq? How will we achieve success in Iraq? How will we know when we have succeeded in Iraq? About how long will ``success'' take to achieve and about how much will it cost? These are reasonable questions to have when we are asked to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars, but thus far we have heard little more than nice- sounding platitudes. We have established a troubling precedent that no matter how ill- conceived an intervention, we must continue to become more deeply involved because ``we must succeed.'' That is one reason we see unrelated funding in this supplemental for places like Liberia and Sudan. Mr. Chairman this reconstruction of Iraq--that we are making but a down-payment on today--is at its core just another foreign policy boondoggle. The $20 billion plan to ``rebuild'' Iraq tilts heavily toward creating a statist economy and is filled with very liberal social-engineering programs. Much of the money in this reconstruction plan will be wasted--as foreign aid most often is. Much will be wasted as corporate welfare to politically-connected corporations; much will be thrown away at all the various ``non-government organizations'' that aim to teach the Iraqis everything from the latest American political correctness to the ``right'' way to vote. The bill includes $900 million to import petroleum products into Iraq (a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world); $793 million for healthcare in Iraq when we're in the midst of our own crisis and about to raise Medicare premiums of our seniors; $10 million for ``women's leadership programs'' (more social engineering); $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan (a military dictatorship that likely is the home of Osama bin Laden); $245 million for the ``U.S. share'' of U.N. peacekeeping in Liberia and Sudan; $95 million for education in Afghanistan; $600 million for repair and modernization of roads and bridges in Iraq (while our own infrastructure crumbles). There has been some discontent among conservatives about the $20 billion reconstruction price tag. They fail to realize that this is just the other side of the coin of military interventionism. It is the same coin, which is why I have consistently opposed foreign interventionism. There is a lesson here that those who call themselves fiscal conservatives seem to not have learned. There is no separation between the military intervention and the post-military intervention, otherwise known as ``nation-building.'' Fiscal conservatives are uneasy about nation-building and foreign aid. The president himself swore off nation-building as a candidate. But anyone concerned about sending American tax dollars to foreign countries must look directly at military interventionism abroad. If there is one thing the history of our interventionism teaches, it is that the best way for a foreign country to become a financial dependent of the United States is to first be attacked by the United States. This request--which was not the first and will not be the last-- demonstrates in the most concrete terms that there is a real and concrete cost of our policy of interventionism. The American taxpayer paid to bomb Baghdad and now will pay to rebuild Iraq--its schools, hospitals, prisons, roads, and more. Many Americans cannot afford to send their own children to college, but with the money in this bill they will be sending Iraqi kids to college. Is this really what the American people want? The real point is that the billions we are told we must spend to rebuild Iraq is indeed the natural outcome of our policy of pre-emptive military intervention. All those who voted for the resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq have really already voted for this supplemental. There is no military intervention without a ``Marshall Plan'' afterward, regardless of our ability to pay. And the American people will be expected to pay for far more. This current request is only perhaps step four in what will likely be a 10 or more step program to remake Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in the image of Washington, D.C. social engineers and ``global planners.'' What will be steps five, six, seven, eight? Long-term occupation, micro-managing Iraq's economy, organizing and managing elections, writing an Iraqi constitution. And so on. When will it end? There is also much said about how we must support this supplemental because to do otherwise would mean not supporting the troops. I resent this dishonest accusation. It is nothing but a red herring. I wonder if an American currently serving an open-ended occupation in Iraq would think that bringing him home next week would be a good show of support for our troops. Maintaining an increasingly deadly occupation of Iraq and bankrupting many of our reservists and national guard troops by unilaterally extending their contracts to serve in an active deployment is hardly ``supporting the troops.'' Perhaps that is why a Stars and Stripes newspaper survey of the troops in Iraq this week found that a majority had very low morale. And according to the same Stars and Stripes survey, an increasing number are not planning to re-enlist. Conservatives often proclaim that they are opposed to providing American welfare to the rest of the world. I agree. The only way to do that, however, is to stop supporting a policy of military interventionism. You cannot have one without the other. If a military intervention against Syria and Iran are next, it will be the same thing: we will pay to bomb the country and we will pay even more to rebuild it--and as we see with the plan for Iraq, this rebuilding will not be done on the cheap. The key fallacy in the argument of the militarists is that there is some way to fight a war without associated costs--the costs of occupation, reconstruction, ``institution- building,'' ``democracy programs.'' I opposed our action against Iraq for two main reasons. I sincerely believed that our national security was not threatened and I did not believe that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the attack on the United States on 9/11. I believe what we have learned since the intervention has supported my view. Meanwhile, while our troops are trying to police the border between Syria and Iraq our own borders remain as porous as ever. Terrorists who entered our country could easily do so again through our largely un-patrolled borders. While we expend American blood and treasure occupying a country that was not involved in the attack on the U.S., those were responsible for the attack most likely are hiding out in Pakistan--a military dictatorship we are now allied with and to which this supplemental sends some $200 million in loan guarantees. Our continued occupation of Iraq is not producing the promised results, despite efforts paint a brighter picture of the current situation. What once was a secular dictatorship appears to be moving toward being a fundamentalist Islamic regime--not the democracy we were promised. As repulsive as Saddam's regime was, the prospect of an Iraq run by Islamic clerics, aligned with Iranian radicals and hostile to the United States, is no more palatable. There are signs that this is the trend. The press reports regularly on attacks against Iraq's one million Christians. Those hand-picked by the United States to run Iraq have found themselves targets for assassination. Clerics are forming their own militias. The thousands of non-combatants killed in the U.S. intervention are seeking revenge against the unwanted American occupiers. Mr. Chairman, throwing billions of dollars after a failed policy will not produce favorable results. We are heading full-speed toward bankruptcy, yet we continue to spend like there is no tomorrow. There will be a tomorrow, however. The money we are spending today is real. The bill will be paid, whether through raising taxes or printing more money. Either way, the American people will become poorer in pursuit of a policy that cannot and will not work. We cannot re-make the world in our own image. The stated aim was to remove Saddam Hussein. That mission is accomplished. The best policy now for Iraq is to declare victory and bring our troops home. We should let the people of Iraq rebuild their own country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this supplemental request.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because it blocks amendments such as the one I would like to introduce which would increase the pay by $1,000 a month for anybody who is serving in excess of 6 months in Iraq. Extended deployment strains all families, especially Reservists and those in the National Guard who have seen their deployments extended to 12 months. USA Today recently reported that one-third of Reservists and National Guard members suffered a cut in pay when called to active duty, especially those called up on short notice, those who have made personal business arrangements for a 6-month leave only to be told later that it is going to be a full year. The cost of this amendment would be a drop in the bucket. If you figure that a third of those over there will be on extended deployment, that would cost about $50 million a month, $600 million a year, less than 1 percent of the cost of this bill. Moreover, the amendment will not cost anything if the deployments are limited to 6 months, and at the same time it discourages the 12-month deployment. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the rule be defeated so that amendments like this can be considered. Defeat the rule and allow other amendments.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. Let us make it clear, the conference report and the bill before us will not prohibit any abortions. Alternative bills which would have outlawed late-term abortions have been rejected by the majority. This bill will not prevent any abortions. The bill will prohibit a procedure. The abortion can still take place using another procedure, and I am not going to inflame the debate by describing in explicit detail the alternative procedures that may be used. But I will point out that Nebraska had a law banning the so-called partial-birth abortion procedure. Three years ago the United States Supreme Court held that that law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said five times in its majority opinion and other times in concurring opinions, that in order to make a partial-birth abortion ban constitutional, the law must contain a health exception to allow the procedure where it is necessary in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of life or health of the mother. That is what five Supreme Court Justices said is necessary to make the bill constitutional. All five are still on the Supreme Court. In that case the Court said, The question before us is whether Nebraska's statute making criminal the performance of a partial-birth abortion violates the Federal Constitution. We conclude it does for at least two independent reasons. They went on to say that the first reason was that it lacks the exception for the preservation of the health of the mother. The Court said, ``Subsequent to viability, the State may, if it chooses, regulate or even prescribe abortion,'' and then they put this in italics, ``except where as necessary in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of life or health of the mother.'' It goes on to say that the governing standard requires an exception, now listen up, because now they put it in quotes, ``where it is necessary in the appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' The Court continues talking about the health exception by saying that ``our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that in the process of regulating the methods of abortion impose significant health risks.'' They make it clear that risking a woman's health is the same, whether it happens to arise from regulating a particular method of abortion or from barring abortion entirely. Just in case we did not get it, the Court said again, ``By no means must the State grant physicians unfettered discretion in their selection of abortion methods. But where substantial medical authority supports the proposition that banning a particular abortion procedure could endanger a woman's health, Casey requires that the statute include a health exception where the procedure is `necessary in the appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of life or health of the mother.' '' Now, the record clearly reflects that there is substantial medical authority supporting the use in some cases of this procedure. Mr. Speaker, whatever our views are on the underlying issue of abortion, we ought to read the decision and apply the law. Mr. Speaker, whatever our views are on the underlying issue of abortion, we ought to read the decision and apply the law. The Supreme Court in one decision said at least five times that the health exception must be included for the statute to be constitutional. Furthermore, they put the exact phrase to be used, ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or the health of the mother,'' in plain text, in italics and in quotations. Here we have a bill without the health exception. It is clearly unconstitutional, and we ought to reject the rule and the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to put some of the numbers in perspective. I serve on the Committee on the Budget and have looked at these numbers from the perspective of the budget. To put these in perspective, let us begin with the first Persian Gulf war, Desert Storm. The total cost of that war, $61.1 billion. Because we had international cooperation, we paid 12 percent of that cost, $7.4 billion. 12 percent. The first supplemental that we have already spent in the current Iraqi conflict, $79 billion. We have been asked for $87 billion more, a total of $166 billion. If we had had international cooperation, 12 percent of $166 billion is $20 billion. Because of the administration's decision to go it alone and attack unilaterally, a $20 billion problem has become a $166 billion problem. And so I commend the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for asking what efforts will be made to develop the multilateral force that can share in this burden. In addition, because we are already into deficit spending, this administration should articulate how the costs of the war will be borne. If we are going to just borrow the money, then we have to recognize the context of borrowing additional money. In early 2001, budget projections were that within 10 years, we would run up a $5 trillion surplus, enough to pay off the entire national debt, meaning that we would have no interest on the national debt after about 2013. Because we have gone back to deficit spending instead of paying off the national debt, we have increased the national debt such that the interest on the national debt that we will be paying by 2013, instead of zero, will be about as much as we are spending for national defense. In that context, if we are going to borrow the money, let us recognize that we are going to have to pay interest on $166 billion at around 4 percent interest. That equals to over $6.5 billion a year, over $100 million every week, just in interest, without paying off the principal, just in interest for as far as the eye can see. Let us put some of these numbers also in perspective as to what we spend on other priorities. $166 billion between the supplemental we have spent and the request that is before us. $166 billion. The Department of Education every year, we appropriate less than $60 billion. Transportation, $51.5 billion. Homeland Security Department, $35.8 billion. Those three departments combined, Education, Transportation, Homeland Security, less than $166 billion. Let us put it into another perspective. In our budget, we expect this year to receive $790 billion in individual income tax. That is everybody's individual income tax, $790 billion. About 20 percent of the request and the supplemental, prior supplemental, amount to 20 percent of the entire individual income tax revenue. With these numbers in hand, the CBC's request for a coherent accounting of the funds is appropriate. It is especially appropriate when you consider the prior claims by this administration, such as the cost of the war will be paid by the oil revenues. Those projections turned out to be false. Therefore, this request needs to be supported by specific plans and documentation detailing how the prior supplemental was spent, exactly how this request will be spent, how it will be paid for, including the question of whether we will get multilateral help, what likelihood there will be for future supplemental appropriations to support the war effort. Those questions need to be answered before we can intelligently consider the request before us. I want to thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for bringing these questions to the forefront to make sure that we have this information before we vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to speak about what is not in this bill as well as what is in it. This bill is in stark contrast to the bill which passed 2 years ago in that it does not include the provision that would allow employment discrimination with Federal dollars. In fact, the bill preserves current civil rights protections. Faith-based organizations willing to comply with civil rights laws will be able to get funding under this bill just as they can today. And organizations which refuse to comply with the 60-year tradition of no discrimination with Federal funds will not be able to get funding under this bill. When we talk about discrimination, let us remember that there was a time in America when people of certain religions were routinely denied jobs solely because of their religious beliefs, but we passed laws to end that invidious discrimination. All of us can be supportive of the work of faith-based organizations and recognize that many can successfully sponsor federally funded programs, but we do not have to sabotage anti-discrimination laws to do that. And it is insulting to suggest that we can get investments in needy areas only if we turn back the clock on civil rights. This bill allows us to support the work of faith-based organizations without sacrificing our hard-won civil rights protections. The language in the original bill that will allow faith-based organizations to proselytize to beneficiaries in public services and use Federal money to convert people to their own religion has likewise been dropped from this bill as well. An individual in a homeless shelter should not be required to have to consider changing his religion in order to get a meal if that meal is paid for with Federal funds. The Constitution does not permit this and neither should we. I hope this bill can be a positive step in the right direction, but all of us should be cognizant that although the old H.R. 7 is gone, there are currently several bills, individual bills, that would allow faith-based organizations to discriminate in employment based on religion with Federal funds. We have already seen these provisions in the reauthorization of the Head Start bill that passed the House and the Workforce Investment Act, and I am sure that there will be others. Mr. Speaker, this bill shows that we can do better than that. We can support good community organizations that do good work without sacrificing either civil rights protections or the Constitution. We can accomplish this by providing them more money to do that work and providing guidance and navigating the Federal bureaucracy, and we do not have to undermine constitutional and anti-discrimination laws to do that.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to end with this chart that reminds people of the hole that we have dug ourselves into. And when people ask what is the Democratic plan, I just point to the green because that was done without any Republican assistance, and here we are right now. As we look at how dire this situation is, we have to look forward to the Social Security situation where we will not enjoy a nice surplus year after year. We are going to have a challenge of deficits in the Social Security plan that we could have covered with just what the 1 percent got in the 2001, not the 2003, not what everybody got, but the top 1 percent got in 2001 would have been more than enough to cover all of this deficit. But we have a challenge with Social Security, and we are going in the wrong direction. I thank all Members that participated tonight because we have to remind people how bad a situation it is. We can change directions as we did in 1993 and go back to fiscal sanity, go back and do a surplus, pay off the national debt, or we can continue in the direction we are going now. We will make those decisions in the upcoming weeks. I thank the gentlemen for participating.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question since the gentleman brought up the issue of the $87 billion for Iraq. I remember back in the Persian Gulf War where the total cost of the war was about $60 billion, but because we had international cooperation, we only had to spend less than $10 billion, $7.4 billion out of that. We have already had one supplemental already that was supposed to cover the cost of the war. Now, we are coming back with $87 billion. If we had had the international cooperation, instead of 87 would we not be talking closer to 10, and that is a direct result of this foreign policy?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the projection was by 2011 and 2013, we would have paid off the entire national debt and had no interest on the national debt to pay year after year.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. When you fund the tax cuts with borrowed money, you have to pay interest on the national debt which is a drag to the economy.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for fighting for fiscal sanity. At this point, I would yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) who has been a stalwart, helping other Members every Wednesday morning, helps us with the seminar on budgeting and other important issues. The gentleman from North Carolina has been working diligently on fiscal sanity, helping us to learn about the budget, bringing in speakers from the outside and I am delight to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, what did you say about stimulating the economy by reducing the tax on dividends?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would ask the gentleman if he noticed that there is a problem, is the gentleman concerned that this administration does not even recognize that there is a problem?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, by that the gentleman means for every dollar in lost revenue, what effect does that have on the GDP, and whether or not you actually stimulated the economy, and what did you say for, if you extend unemployment compensation, for those that lost their jobs, as we usually do in a recession, end of 26 weeks, we extend it another 13 weeks just routinely, how much of a stimulus is that to the economy?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. For every dollar in lost revenue, you stimulate the economy about a dollar seventy?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin on something we can all agree on and that is what President Bush said in August at an August fund-raiser. He said, ``I ran for office to solve problems, not to pass them on to future Presidents and future generations.'' We can all agree on that, but, unfortunately, the reality is that instead of paying off the public debt by 2011, as we had projected in 2001, this administration will leave the future generations with a debt of almost $7 trillion as of 2011. Now, rather than get into rhetoric and everything, let us just use a chart so we know exactly what numbers we are talking about. This shows the deficit year by year from the Johnson administration, Nixon, Ford, Carter, the deficits that were run up in the Reagan and Bush years, and also shows the surplus that was generated by the time President Clinton left office. Mr. Speaker, in 1993 we passed a budget without any Republican votes. The Republicans, after those votes were cast, campaigned against that budget that was passed, and picked up 50 seats in the House and control of the Senate as a result. In 1995 after the 1994 election, the Republicans, with control of Congress, passed a budget with trillions of dollars in tax cuts. President Clinton vetoed that budget. They threatened to close down the government. He vetoed the next budget. They closed down the government, and he vetoed the budget again. Because he vetoed those budgets, this trend went up until we had a surplus of almost $100 billion projected for 2001. And that is on budget. That is without touching the Social Security or Medicare surplus. As soon as President Bush came in, he signed the trillion dollar tax cuts. And, wait a minute, this has $500 billion in deficits. This is the February projection. This has been updated. It is no longer $500 billion. The latest figure is almost $700 billion in deficit that we will be running up. Now, it is important to put $700 billion in perspective because if you look at the Federal budget and look on the line item revenue, individual income tax, what we get from the individual income tax in the Federal budget, it is less than $800 billion. We are running deficits now of almost $700 billion. Now, when we run up deficits like this as far as the eye can see, one can understand how we got from where we were in 2001 to where we are now. In January 2001, we expected by 2011 to have run up a surplus of $5.6 trillion, enough to have paid off the national debt. By August of 2001, we had lost over $2 trillion of that surplus, and the surplus was projected to be $3.4 trillion. Now, most of this is Social Security and Medicare, because in August of 2001, we had actually spent all of the cash surplus and most of the Medicare surplus, and were headed into Social Security by August of 2001, before September 11; by January of 2002, the projected surplus, $1.6 trillion, almost all Social Security and Medicare surplus, or what was left of it, after we have dipped into it significantly. By August of 2002, there is almost no surplus at all, that is, we have spent the entire Social Security, the entire Medicare surplus for the entire 10 years. By March of 2003, we are down to an actual deficit where we have spent all of the Social Security, all of the Medicare, and then $377 billion. By August of this year, we have gotten into so much deficit spending that the projected deficit, not surplus, deficit is over $2 trillion in that same 10-year period. And what is the solution? The Republican agenda will run this up to $3.3 trillion unless that agenda is stopped. Mr. Speaker, a $5.6 trillion surplus projected when this administration came in. If their policies are followed in the next couple of months, $3.3 trillion in deficit, an almost $9 trillion difference. That $9 trillion, remember, less than $800 billion a year comes in under individual income tax; $9 trillion is $900 billion a year on average that we have deteriorated in our budget situation. Now, as bad as that is, it is actually going to get worse, because those projections do not include some things that we expect to happen, like the tax cuts have been sunsetted; the President is expecting us to remove the sunset so that those tax cuts can continue. Protecting the middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax, that is the tax where if you have tax preference, tax cuts for the upper, very high income, high income, about a couple of percent, about 3 percent of the public pays the alternative minimum tax. That is, you cannot reduce your tax that you need to pay but by so much before you have to pay an alternative minimum tax. The effect of not protecting middle-class families from this alternative minimum tax will mean that they will lose the benefit of their child tax credit and many other tax benefits that they enjoy now. So if we protect them from that, that will cost even more, going right to the bottom line. Providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit, all of those numbers, as bad as they look, do not include the prescription drug benefit that everybody is promising. It also assumes that we are not going to have any hurricanes or disasters or floods or earthquakes in the next few years. So it is going to get worse before it gets better. When we run up all of those deficits, we run up debt, and we have to pay interest on that national debt. Here is the interest on the national debt that we have projected to pay going down towards zero by 2011 or 2013, because there would be no debt; it would be paid off. Instead, this is the interest on the national debt that we are projected to pay. And if we look at the difference between what we have to pay and what we are going to end up paying, by 2010, that will be $1.6 trillion of additional interest on the national debt that we are going to have to spend because we have messed up the budget. Put another way, these green bars represent the interest on the national debt that we were going to pay going down towards zero. These red bars, interest on the national debt that we are going to have to pay because we have messed up the budget and we have been running up deficits. This blue bar puts it in perspective. This is the defense budget. We are going to be spending by 2013 almost as much money in interest on the national debt as we are going to be paying for national defense. We get nothing for interest on the national debt. We do not get a single school book, we do not get a rifle for the military, we get nothing for interest on the national debt. And instead of zero, we are going to be spending almost as much on interest on the national debt as we do for national defense. Now, to show how the interest on the national debt is affected, right now, if we take the entire interest on the national debt, divide it by the population and multiply by 4, we will see that the family of four's proportional share of interest on the national debt is now about $4,400. As the interest on the national debt goes up, by 2013, almost $8,500, a family of four's proportional share of interest on the national debt. Now, how did we get there? We got there with tax cuts. And who got the tax cuts? This is divided up by quintiles, the bottom 20 percent and what they got out of the tax cuts. The next 20 percent, the middle 20 percent, what they got. The share of the fourth percentile, the top 20 percent, this is what they got. Half of the tax cuts went to the upper 1 percent. To put it another way, if you are a millionaire, you got about $89,000 out of the 2003 tax cut. If you made $500,000 to $1 million, you get a little less than $20,000, and you can see what you got. Half the people get less than $100 a year out of the 2003 tax cut. Now, we were told that we needed to cut taxes to create jobs. The millionaires got their tax cut; we ran the budget into a deficit in order to create jobs. And here is the job creation math. Mr. Speaker, $374 billion in tax cuts through 2003 only, and we are expected, if the plan works, to create 1.5 million maximum new jobs. That is the Treasury Department's estimates. We pass all of this stuff, give $374 billion in tax cuts, we can create 1.5 million jobs. That divides out to almost $250,000 for every job that they are trying to create. Mr. Speaker, $250,000 they have to work with to create jobs, if it works. This chart shows the jobs created by administrations going back to the Truman administration, and it shows that it did not work. This actually needs to be updated because it says 2.5 million jobs lost. It is actually closer to 3 million now. If we go back to the Truman administration, every President is creating jobs. Eisenhower lost 200,000 jobs in his second administration, but he gained 1.9 million in his first administration. So every President since Truman, more jobs when they leave office after each administration than when they came in, except after this administration's budget was adopted. Now, as we talk about 9-11, let us remember that back to the Truman administration includes the Korean War, it includes the Vietnam War, jobs are being created; hostages in Iran, jobs are being created; Somalia, the entire Cold War, Kosovo, everybody is creating jobs until this tax plan is adopted. Now, actually, we should have known, because the Joint Committee on Taxation evaluated the 2003 tax cut and showed that if you cut those taxes, now some taxes stimulate the economy better than others. Some tax cuts stimulate the economy better than others. According to their analysis, the taxes cut in 2003 would show a short-term spike in jobs; but depending on which economic model we use, at best, we are going to end up right back where we started. You will probably end up with fewer jobs than you started off with. This analysis was presented by the Joint Committee on Taxation. It has a Republican majority. And so we knew when we voted for the 2003 and 2001 tax cuts that we were killing jobs. Now, when you have all of these deficits and you look at this chart, and the deficits that are going by, the deficits are the worst that we have had in American history. Now, there is one thing that the Social Security crisis is in front of us, and we need to make sure that we have money for the baby boomers when they retire for Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who has been a stalwart on fighting for fiscal sanity.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). This is the chart he was referring to. We are enjoying surpluses in Social Security and Medicare, $165 billion projected next year in surpluses. But by 2017, 2018, that surplus is going to end. The baby boomers are going to retire, and instead of enjoying a big fat surplus, in a few years, just a couple of decades, we will have $300 billion deficit in the Social Security Trust Fund. We will be having to pay out $300 billion more than we are bringing in.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. They borrow the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus. And depending on which projections are used, they are spending substantially more money than that every year, creating huge deficits and a $9 trillion turnaround, paying off the entire national deficit, to massive deficits and new debt and new interest on the national debt for years to come.