David Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about this for a moment. First of all, let me just address the gentleman from Alabama's amendment, who's a very honorable person and a very, very good and highly thought-of colleague. But it's very important that we recognize that his amendment is designed to do one and one thing only, and that is to gut this bill. And that's what the design is. So no matter which way you talk, whatever the arguments you use, it's designed to gut the bill. Now, for the last year and a half, 2 years in our Committee on Financial Services, we've talked about the affordable housing trust fund. It has been moved out in many respects as a bipartisan measure. Now, this is tailored. It's tailored specifically. I want to put into the Record a letter. It comes from the Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio, who is the Bishop of Brooklyn, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Here is what he says. He says, ``As Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I write in strong support of a provision in H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Financial Reform Act of 2007, that provides some $500 million a year from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a dedicated source of funding for an affordable housing trust fund. ``As you know, the Catholic community serves tens of thousands of men and women and children who struggle to avoid homelessness and maintain adequate housing. Besides sheltering homeless people who turn to us for help, our Catholic Charities, agencies, dioceses and parishes have built and continue to maintain thousands of affordable units. But despite our efforts and the efforts of so many others, there is just not enough affordable housing available. And we believe that a trust fund will be a stable source of money for building and rehabilitating affordable housing for very low income people. ``Our experience demonstrates to us how homelessness and inadequate, substandard housing destroys lives, undermines families, hurts communities and weakens the very social fabric of our Nation. By setting aside money for a National Housing Trust Fund, Congress acts to make the shelter needs of low income families a national priority.'' This brings us to the crux of this matter. And the crux of this matter, gentleman from Alabama, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is that we have a pressing need. We have a pressing need for affordable housing. And nowhere is that pressing need more pressing than in Louisiana and Mississippi, where this is targeted to. How those people have suffered; how much they've begged and pleaded for help. And yes, we have passed Katrina funds, but not for this. And in committee, time and time again, we've raised these issues, and your very amendment, my distinguished friend from Alabama, was defeated in committee. Now, it's very clear that 75 percent of the affordable housing funds available in the first year will go to Louisiana. 25 percent of such funds will go to Mississippi for affordable housing arising out of the costs and out of the terrible agonies of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It's about time that we responded to these needs. And there's no better way of dealing with it than through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But I do want to set the record straight so we understand, from the point from the gentleman from New Jersey and others, and the public who's listening to this debate and watching this debate, to make sure that you understand exactly what this housing fund is based upon. It is funds and where the funds are derived from. They're derived through contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in amounts equal to 1.2 basic points on each GSE's total outstanding mortgages, including both those held in the portfolio and those that have been securitized each year, from 2007 through 2011. And the program sunsets in 5 years. This is not a permanency. This is an emergency situation where affordable housing is needed. We're infusing this in. We're targeting it to the area in this country where the greatest need is, and then we're sunsetting it in 5 years. That's the responsible way of doing it. And I submit that the gentleman's amendment should be defeated.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Ross. I will try to sum up what we have done this evening. It is very important, as the American people have followed this process, have seen us with the legislative process at work, not only in terms of debating the issue, but they have also witnessed how we are putting this, hopefully, this final piece together that the President will sign. First of all, just to wrap up, we have made concessions with the President on the issues that he was concerned about. The timelines, have, indeed, been removed. Those were his major objections on it. So we have compromised on that point. But we also had, then, accountability, and that's what the American people want. They want to make sure that we have accountability in this. Mr. Thompson from California has played a very leading role in this, and it was so good to have him on the floor talking about it. Mr. Ike Skelton, who is the chairman of our Armed Services Committee, has incorporated all of the major points of financial accountability to get out fraud and waste, to bring in the Defense Department's investigators to report to us on each of these areas, on a 6-month basis, to show us how the money is being spent. All of those things are now in this package, and the benchmarks are in, the benchmarks. So we can hold the Iraqi people to, and say, these are things that must be accomplished, as we go forward. If you don't hold their feet to the fire, if you don't put pressure there, there is no accountability. So we are going to have them on security. We are going to have them where they are going to reach the deal of how, which is at the bottom of the whole situation, is oil, and how they are to divide the oil revenue between the Kurds, between the Sunnis and between the Shias. We have got this in there for benchmarks. The other thing we have in there is funds for the troops, the Humvee protection, the body armor production. Never again will they go in Humvees and have to write back to mom and dad to give them the metals. They are over there fighting for the United States of America. It is our constitutional responsibility as the Congress of the United States to raise and support the military. That's in article 1, section 6 of the Constitution for our duty. This Congress is able to do that in this. Finally, what is so important, we are having in this measure true emergency measures like the children's health program, in which we have $349 million now for that shortfall to help with the SCHIP program, for that lower-income program. Many of those children, incidentally, Mr. Ross, are children of some of these servicemen who are serving in Iraq, because their income level falls too low for Medicaid, yet not high enough to be able to afford the regular practice. The money is in here for the veterans to make sure the Walter Reed situation doesn't happen again. That's what's so important. That's what the American people want. In this measure we have got that, and then plus $2.4 billion more than what the President asks for the troops. But we have got the accountability in, and it's geared to moving us in a way to get us out of the crosshairs of this civil war and in this occupation in Iraq so that we can strengthen our military and put the resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan where we know al Qaeda is and allow the Iraqi people to manifest themselves and solve this civil war among themselves. Thank you. It has been wonderful being with you and being a part of our Blue Dog coalition this evening.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. Ross. As always, it is indeed a pleasure to be with you on this occasion. I want to talk about two areas, the debt, and, of course the big elephant in the room which all of America is concerned about, the situation in Iraq and Iraq accountability. I happen to serve on the Financial Services Committee and on the Foreign Affairs Committee, so in terms of foreign policy and in terms of our finances, those are the two major critical cross-sections we are in at this point. Concerning the debt, it is very important that we point out, Mr. Ross, that the fastest growing area in our budget is the interest that we are paying on this debt, which is more than what we are spending combined for education, the environment and for veterans affairs. As we segue that into our international situation, when you look at the debt that we have gotten into as a result of the carelessness and the ineffective, inefficient foreign policy as it relates to our debt; for example, under this President and under this previous Republican- controlled Congress, this country has borrowed more money from foreign governments than all of the preceding past Presidents have done since 1789, since the foundation of this country. It has placed us in a very perilous position. And we are fighting this war in Iraq and Afghanistan on borrowed money that our children will have to pay back and the children of our soldiers will have to pay back. Mr. Ross, what is on the minds of the American people is accountability in Iraq. It is very important that we mention two major bills that we are moving in that direction. First is our own troop readiness and Iraqi accountability bill that passed this House, the basic framework of which after the President vetoed the first go around is now in the bill we passed last week, and it is in the conference report that we hope we will be sending back. It is important that the American people understand what the Democrats have put forward in this measure. Our other bill is the Accountability Act, in terms of financial accountability, that we in the Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats have put forward to bring some fiscal responsibility and soundness and transparency to the moneys that we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. We know about the Halliburtons, we know about all the war profiteering. We hear about that in the news accounts. It is our bill that we are pushing forward that will give some transparency and accountability. Two important facts that I think the American people need to know about that bill is that, one, it will require that the Inspector General from both the Defense Department over at the Pentagon, will have to come before this Congress quarterly to explain and to account for the moneys that are spent on that basis, as well as the Inspector General from the rebuilding program in Iraq, where so much loss of funds, unaccountability, outright stealing and theft is going on of the taxpayers' money. So we are bringing accountability to that. But we also have got to do more, and that is what is contained in the conference report that we are sending to the President. Not only do we have benchmarks, but there must be accountability to the Iraqi people. They have this opportunity and they must step up to the plate to assume their end of the bargain. There is a government in place, and the benchmarks we have put in, there is no better way to do that. Now, Mr. Ross, I think much has been said about Congress and the role that we have to play in foreign policy. Unfortunately, this President has said time and time again that he is in control of foreign policy; that he is the Commander in Chief, and that the Congress is just here to do pretty much as he wants us to do. And for 5 years, for the first 5 years, that happened, where this Congress just rolled over and gave the President everything that he wants. When we had that change in November and the people went to the polls to put Democrats in charge, they wanted to see a change in direction, and the Democrats are giving the change in direction in the bills that we have sent forward to the President. You talk about fiscal accountability. Yes, indeed, we have that in there. We have put more money in this budget for our troops, $4 billion more, than the President has asked for. But it is so important also that we have accountability when the money gets over, to make sure that the Iraqi people understand, we don't have an endless supply of money to go down over into Iraq, and most certainly we do not have an endless supply of the precious blood and the lives of our soldiers to continually be going down the pike in the Iraqi situation. The American people are saying this situation has to end. We must get our men and women in uniform out of the middle of the crosshairs of what is a civil war. Madam Speaker, we realize that we are in this because of mistakes. More importantly, Mr. Ross, when you talk about accountability, it is important that we realize now that not only have mistakes been made, but we got into Iraq based on not just bad intelligence, but warped intelligence, and we got in there on deceit and lies. All of that is there now. It is very important for us if we want to effectively be able to determine how to get out of Iraq, we must be honest about how we got into Iraq. So it is very important that we do that. The American patience is running out on those two measures of Iraqi accountability, in terms of the money we are spending, in terms of the benchmarks we have put into this effort, and for the transparency that we put in our bill. We, as Democrats, are being very responsive. We do have security in that region. We are not going to abandon our troops, but we are going to get them out of the crosshairs of this civil war and get into a position of containment. That is the direction that we have to go in as we formulate a new, much more effective foreign policy in the Middle East.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank very much Chairman Conyers. This is indeed a great moment. It is a great time, and I appreciate the leadership that you provide as chairman of the committee and all of our colleagues. This is definitely a bipartisan effort to really deal with one of the most pressing issues facing our country today, Madam Speaker. I cannot think of a more significant thing we can do to make the essence of this country a reality for all. For at the cornerstone of America are these words: wisdom and justice and fairness and moderation. That is what makes this country great. And at the cornerstone of that is to be able to have, when you come before the bar of justice, that justice is indeed blind and that everyone will be able to receive justice in a fair way. Regardless of whether or not you are a wealthy person or if you are a poor person, one thing is important: you are an American citizen and you deserve to make sure that you have fairness and justice and integrity when you come before the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, now, Madam Speaker, that is not the case. For in all too many cases, when it comes down to public defenders and prosecutors, that is not the case because of the strains and the interplay of our economic system and the pressures that the marketplace has on that. But what I am talking about is this, that right now the cost of living has gone up 28 percent, but the costs of tuition for 3 years in law school has gone up 167 percent. So that the average cost now per year for a student to go to law school is $50,000 a year. For 3 years, that's $150,000. So, Madam Speaker, what I am saying is when that individual gets out of school he has to go into a marketplace where the private economy is willing to pay him an average now of $110,000, and in some markets in this country, such as New York or California and even in my home State of Georgia in Atlanta, beginning law school students going into the private sector can earn as much as $160,000 a year. But if you're a public defender, if you're a prosecutor, the average starting salary is just $43,000. That is the crux of the problem, and that's why we have this bill, Madam Speaker, so that we can bring some equity to the playing field; so that we will be able to provide law students with the opportunity to help them with their loan repayment; so that we can have a partial loan forgiveness, not total. This package that we're offering would give an individual up to $10,000 from the Federal Government to help offset his loans, and he must serve in the public sector for 3 years. But there's also contingent in our bill that with agreement with the employer if he wants to extend that after priority has been given to those that come in at 3 years first, that he will be able to extend it for 3 more years. So the maximum they can get is $60,000. No, this will not solve the problem, Madam Speaker, but this is a very complex problem. But there are young people that understand the virtues and the need of this country to serve in the public arena, and we need those bright and talented individuals to be able to come into this arena, and this is a small incentive package for which we give. As my colleague pointed out, this amounts to $25 million a year up to 6 years. It is a small gesture, but it is a meaningful investment because otherwise what we have is today where many innocent people are languishing in jails because we are not addressing this issue and many who are criminals are going free. And that's why for the last 2 years, Madam Speaker, I have been pushing and working on this bill because, at the crux of it all, as I said, America is great because of many things, but paramount is justice, it is wisdom and it is moderation. That's in our flag, that's in our motto, and that's what is in this bill. This bill is a companion bill. We have the Senate who has already moved on this in a bipartisan way under the leadership of Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, their distinguished majority whip, and we're very proud. So I am very proud for this moment at this time in this House of Representatives for us to move forthright and to be able to bring some help to our college law students and especially into the private sector and to those individuals who cannot afford a high-priced attorney but have to rely on a public defender. Madam Speaker, don't these individuals deserve to be able to have the best legal representation? Yes, they do, and that's why this bill is important and that's why I commend this to the full House of Representatives, and I am sure we will have a strong bipartisan vote for it. I thank the chairman and thank my colleagues, and I urge your passage of this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, you know, it's hard for me to even sit here and hear the other side talk about this, because they are missing the point. This is about our soldiers. If you care about our soldiers, you say you care about our soldiers, you will vote for this supplemental. This supplemental has over $4 billion more than what the President asked for in everything. I'll tell you what this supplemental is about. It's about those soldiers that I visited in Landstuhl, Germany. On three different occasions, every time we went over to Iraq and over to Afghanistan we'd make a stop to come back. You want to know what this supplemental is about? It's about those sons and daughters, 19 and 20 years old, who will never walk again with their legs because they have been cut off. You talk about the President wants to veto this. Let's send it to him. Let him veto it. If he vetoes this bill that's got the money in it for the body armor that he sent troops into battlefield without, let him veto this. If he vetoes this bill, it will be like sending a dagger right in the heart of our soldiers.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this is indeed a solemn occasion, but it is also an occasion to celebrate. On each of our obituaries at that time, there are three things that are mentioned: the year you were born, the year you died, and then there is the dash. It is what you do with the dash, what you do with your life. And the life that we are here to celebrate, Juanita Millender-McDonald's life, was one of greatness and sacrifice and commitment, serving on the city council, serving in the State legislature of California, and then in the Congress of the United States. Traveling around the world wherever the need was, whether it was in Africa, Middle East, in the Caribbean, she cared. Juanita Millender-McDonald fought the good fight, she kept the faith, and there is indeed put up for her an outstanding crown of righteousness, and we all thank God for having Ms. Juanita Millender- McDonald pass our way.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize, Private Lewis C. Dowdy for his distinct and honorable service to our Country during the period July 10, 1943 through November 15, 1945. Private Dowdy, service number 34756030, served as a Rifleman while assigned to the 370th Regimental Combat Team of the famed 92nd Infantry Division of the United States Army. The 92nd Infantry Division (colored) was a unit of the United States Army in World War I and World War II and was nicknamed the ``Buffalo Soldiers Division.'' This Segregated unit was the only African American infantry division to see combat in Europe during World War II, as part of the 5th Army. Lewis C. Dowdy's unique service to our Nation is something that we should all be proud of, and reflects great honor upon himself, his family and the United States Army. Therefore, I am extremely honored to enter his accomplishment into the Congressional Record for all to see and cherish.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 106.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me first start by commending our chairman for taking on this very important and timely issue. This is an issue that speaks to the issue of confidence in the American enterprise system. There is no more greater issue that we need to deal with, and I think what the major point that we need to emphasize here is that there is a problem, and obviously there is a terrific problem. There is a terrific problem on several layers. Let me start with the first layer. First of all, we have a problem where we have a stretch of the differences between what the average worker is making in the American economy and this huge leap by multibillions of dollars by what CEOs are making. This is not an aberration. This is a fact in case after case. Plus, on top of that, none of these performances for these huge CEO packages are done based upon performance. As a matter of fact, some of the most outrageous demonstrations of this have been corporate CEO packages that have rewarded companies with hundreds of millions of dollars in their packages for a lack of performance, even while their company has been going down, even while their company has been laying off people, even as they have turned their backs on their pension obligations to employees. No, this is not an aberration, and there is a hue and a cry from the American people across the American landscape that is saying something must be done. Now, we are the people's representatives, and what the chairman has put forward, and I certainly appreciate the chairman for allowing me to have an opportunity to work with him on this, what we are putting forward here is basically a fair and moderate response, no overreaction. We have taken the marketplace with its basic components. What is the most important attribute of our system? It is the free marketplace. And what is the most important part of that? It is the exchange of stock ownership. And who plays that most important role there? It is the investor. Once that investor begins to lose confidence, we are all in a world of trouble. There is nothing in our bill that mandates a certain salary level, none of that. Our bill simply says: Let us let the system work. What is wrong with ending these egregious characteristics of what is happening in the marketplace as far as CEO packages is concerned? It begs for the shareholders who own the company to at least have a say, a nonbinding say. We understand the fragility of what we are doing. We are doing this in a gingerly manner. But let me just state to you in closing that all of the studies, and there will be some amendments which will come forward, some wanting to study this issue, some saying let the SEC rules work out, but what the American people and what the investor and what the situation cries out for are two things: transparency and accountability. That is the hallmark of what we are doing. We are bringing accountability, and we are bringing transparency to what is clearly, from all of the media accounts, from all of the evidence presented to us is clear, and it is dangerous, and it is present. What we have and what we are responding to is something that is clearly a clear and present danger to the future and the heart of our free economic system.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important for us to just take a look, very briefly, at what some of the executives, some of the companies are saying and are doing about this now, because I think it goes right to your argument. Let us, first of all, let me just call to your attention, one such company, AFLAC, in Georgia. Now, AFLAC announced that it would give shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation. As a matter of fact, AFLAC CEO Dan Amos said these words, which I want you to pay very important attention to. He said this. He said, as the owners of the company, the shareholders should know how executive compensation works. Now, I think Mr. Amos is right on the money. He simply stated what I think a lot of other companies do in order to maintain integrity.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to oppose the amendment from my good friend from New Jersey. I certainly can appreciate and value his thought and his effort. He presented this amendment in committee. It was voted down at that time. The chairman has seen fit for us to explore it here. I think it is very, very important to, first of all, take a very good look at this amendment because I think the American people have certainly tuned into this debate, and on the surface of it, it sounds very nice and good. You recognize that there is a problem; you are just saying that it ought to be, let us just deal with that that is above 10 percent. But let us look at the wording of this amendment for a moment just to show the difficulty of it. It would allow shareholder votes on executive compensation packages but only if executive compensation at the company exceeds 10 percent or more the average compensation at companies within the same industry and among companies with comparable total market capitalization. A very complicated procedure at best. One of the first and most fundamental reasons why we oppose this amendment is because it is cleverly designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that is basically to gut this bill because it is totally unenforceable. The gentleman from North Carolina raises a very important point that I raise. You know, how can you determine this? Who determines this? And when you say, the Securities and Exchange Commission, they are not in power to do this. What sanction do you have? And is it ``and'' or is it ``or'' market capitalization of 10 percent? Let me get my point out a little further. As you go in and you talk about the Securities and Exchange Commission and their rules and what they are doing, it is clear to understand that there is nothing within what the SEC is proposing that ensures the bottom line of what we are after, and that is investor confidence in the transparency and accountability. This is a very different time within the history of American enterprise. We have ballooned into a stratosphere of CEO compensation. That is also compounded by a new culture within corporate America. You no longer have the sole cases of the man coming up, working his way up through the company, works his way up and spends 20, 30 years with the company, 25, 40 years with the company and becomes CEO. No, what you have now is a series of hired guns who move from company to company, with a battery of lawyers, with packages and sort of like free agents here at this corporation, one at another, one the next, different industries. So what we have here is a response to that situation that has resulted in these very personalized compensation packages that are made among two or three interested parties and a board of directors member perhaps of a compensation team and this individual without any input from the legitimate owners of the company that invest in it. Now, let me make one other point very clear of what we are doing. All the companies, we should not single out any companies say if it is 10 percent of this or that, even if you could define the rather complicated formula that you have. What we are saying is every stockholder, every company with shareholders publicly traded, should have that opportunity to weigh in and have a say on the compensation packages. I might add that, in the point that was spoken before, when you said, well, these companies will fold up and they will come off and not be public anymore and be private, that in and of itself points out the need for this bill. For if a company, based upon just wanting to keep secret or keep within the domain what one CEO, one employee, that desire would force them to go private, that lets you know right there if that happens, but as the information is flowed to us, every company that has had a say-so on this, you name it, I mentioned AFLAC, the Coca-Cola company and Home Depot, which just had a little hit here, but even they are moving.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. This has been a very lively debate and a very good debate. And I think it points out the need for us to examine this issue within the context of a very pressing concern the American people have. We are not up here because we have sat in a room someplace and decided this is what we ought to do. There is a great demand to bring some integrity, to bring some transparency and accountability to this whole issue of executive pay compensation that has gotten out of bounds. And our answer is simply to look at the system as it is there, as it is situated, and extend to the shareholders, to the board to make available to the shareholders on their proxy statement, a block that says, do you approve or you disapprove of the compensation packages. What happens after that we have nothing to do with. That is their decision to make. And I think we have to also look at the whole issue of what is happening in America today, this whole issue of a war on the middle class; this great divide that is happening. I am telling you, it is dangerous to the future of this country. This is simply an effort to respond, to give some confidence, and to give another tool, an effective tool that works within the system, that is very fair, that is very moderate, as an example of trying to correct a situation that clearly, clearly has gotten out of hand. Now, you all have offered amendments. You have offered them in the committee. Now, in all deference to our chairman, our chairman has been very fair in the committee and on this floor and on the pension issue. He has clearly stated, as he did in committee, and again on the floor, we will have a hearing on this, where it should be. But by the very nature of this issue even exploding into the area of pensions and other fiduciaries, it shows the great need for us to examine our compensation structure in the system. Gentlemen on the other side, we owe it to the American people. We owe it to our system to protect it. Throughout history we have had to make adjustments. Go all the way back to the fall of the stock market, 1929. There are reasons that that happened. The SEC itself was born as a result of a need to do some things. And we continue to muscle right along. I think it is very important that we put in the Record also, before we conclude tonight, because we have had some of our companies names bandied around here, one of which was Home Depot. And I certainly want to recognize Home Depot for moving and taking this issue on and understanding, even to them, the surprise and the concern and the tone that they want to correct for what happened with their predecessor, the CEO, Mr. Darnelli. They are now moving very aggressively to look at this issue itself. And let me just read, for the Record here, Mr. Chairman, where it says that other companies have already begun a process of allowing their shareholders to decide on implementing say on pay. This week Citigroup, no class warfare here, Wachovia. No class war here. Coca- Cola are holding annual meetings at which time their shareholders will vote on say on your pay proposals. Every company that has had a chance to weigh in on this issue is moving ahead because they know it is the right thing to do, because they know, at the end of the day, what is needed is for us to make sure that the confidence of that investor is strong. That is what makes this country great. Our free enterprise system, our move here is to protect it. I commend the chairman, and I thank our committee for pushing this forward.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Black Caucus is offering a budget to help us get out of the financial mess that we're in. We have seen this chart before, it shows the deficit over the years, how in 1993 we started to eliminate the deficit, ran the budget up to a surplus, creating a 10-year budget of over $5.5 trillion. The policies that have now gotten us into a mess have changed that $5.5 trillion surplus into an almost $3 trillion deficit, a swing of $8.5 trillion. The first thing the Black Congressional Caucus budget does is to repeal the policies that got us into this mess by rolling back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for that portion of a person's household income over $200,000. By rolling back the brackets for the first two brackets and eliminating the tax cuts for capital gains and dividends, primarily for that portion of the household income over $200,000. People will say it is a big tax cut. So what. Those policies got us in the ditch. We are repealing those policies to get out of the ditch. Now what does that do to the budget? The Congressional Black Caucus deficit is better every year than the President's budget. The President's budget is in red, the Democratic alternative is in blue. The Congressional Black Caucus beats both of them every year, except the last year, we only had a $141 billion surplus in the last year, the Democratic budget has $153 billion, but of course, the President's budget is still in the ditch. We have significantly reduced the deficit $339 billion better bottom line cumulatively than the President. We also save interest. By reducing the deficit, we save interest. Every year, we have saved more and more interest. $27 billion less interest paid over 5 years than the President's budget. In fact, $18 billion more than the Democratic alternative. We have also addressed our priorities with the money left over. After we have reduced the deficit and reduced the amount of interest, we have also made important investments. SCHIP, $66 billion more in health care than the Democratic budget, over $100 billion more than the President. We can fund health care for each and every child in America. No Child Left Behind. We are funding over $158 billion more in education and training than the President. We have honored our veterans by spending $42 billion more than the President's budget. We have attacked fraud, waste and abuse in the Democratic budget. We have made communities more secure with investments in juvenile justice, gang prevention, prison re-entry. We have provided community support through community development block grants in nutrition and housing. We have contributed to diplomacy by fighting global AIDS, child survival. We have spent significantly more in these priorities, Mr. Speaker, than both the Democratic alternative and certainly the President's budget. The Congressional Black Caucus repeals the policy that put us into a mess. We address important priorities that are so important, and we have a much more fiscally responsible budget. We would ask the House to adopt the Congressional Black Caucus budget that gets us out of the mess and puts on the right track.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the other side about what we are doing. And based upon what they are doing, it is very important for us to set the record straight, that they have had control of this place; and for the last 5 years, since 2001, under this Congress and this administration, they have borrowed more money just from foreign governments alone, from foreign nations, more money than all of the previous 42 Presidents and administrations. And I know that is shocking to the American people. But it is important. That alone is a glaring example of the outright mismanagement and the lack of fiscal responsibility that they put us in debt to that tune. Again, since 1789, the foundation of this country, all the way up to 2001, they borrowed more money in the last 5 years, $1.6 trillion. We only borrowed $1.3 trillion from 1789 from foreign countries to 2001. That is why we have to move with a responsible measure like this. On top of that, Mr. Chairman, finally, I want to say that, in addition to borrowing that money, they inherited a surplus of $5.6 trillion that was squandered in addition to the debt that was acquired.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I stand here tonight as probably the only Member of this House of Representatives that is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Blue Dogs, as well as the New Dems. That is a broad cross-section of diversity within our party that is not shared by this party, and I make that observation only because the American people are watching this tonight. The truth must come out and be said properly. That is why all three of these groups, moderate, conservative to the liberal are behind this budget. Let me state very quickly, because there is one fact I want understood tonight, and that is that this budget is not a tax increase, does not raise taxes one penny. Let me quote, for example, and this is not Democrats who are just saying this, this is what economists from the Concord Coalition, moderate conservative economists say. ``Thus to be clear, the Democratic budget resolution does not call for or require a tax increase.'' That is not just us saying it. From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this is what they say: ``The House plan does not include a tax increase.'' The Alexander Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institute says this: ``This Democratic budget does not raise taxes.'' Now, that is so important for us to get across tonight. They have run the polls. They did their surveys. Stick it to the Democrats, just say they are raising taxes. That will stick with them. But not tonight, Mr. Chairman, not tonight. These are other people who are speaking and saying that the Democrats' budget does not raise taxes.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Well, Mr. Chairman, my point was simply to try to respond to the accusations that were made to our side. I will respect that. But my point, if I may continue, is that it really gets on your nerves a bit when the other side makes these accusations which are totally bald-faced wrong. When it says, for example, the previous speaker said, for example, that we did not support the President's tax cuts. Not only did we, as they said, on the Democratic side, some of us did, but we have very seriously kept, the tax cuts of the President from 2001 and 2003 are secured in this budget. That is a fact. And they are consistent with our House pay-as-you-go rule. The alternative minimum tax, which otherwise would hit tens of millions of families, these families are protected in this. And the area where it presses us so and in previous budgets, the President's previous budgets have cut veterans. We increase the funding for veterans by over $2 billion in this budget. It is a good budget.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. The Republicans are plain wrong; and, worse than that, they are not telling the truth when they stand over there and say that our budget raises taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Democratic budget does not raise taxes one single penny. In fact, section 203 of the Democratic budget explicitly provides for tax cuts. One, middle-income tax cuts, including the marriage penalty. That is in this budget. That is a tax cut. Including child tax credits. That is in this budget. That is a tax cut. And the 10 percent tax bracket. And on top of that, you talk about the President's tax cuts, the President's tax cuts in 2001-- Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007. There is no doubt that the conflict in Iraq is now a civil war marked primarily by sectarian violence, pitting Sunnis against Shias, with our troops caught in between. This bill is in fact the most responsible means to get our men and women out of this quagmire. This legislation does not call for an immediate withdrawal. Instead, the legislation gives Iraq's government a timeline to achieve political and military progress, a timeline already set by President Bush and Iraqi leaders. If Iraq's government fails to meet the benchmarks outlined in the legislation, U.S. forces must be redeployed by March 2008. If the benchmarks are met by the deadlines established in the legislation, U.S. forces must be redeployed by September 2008. In doing this, the legislation creates leverage that the U.S. can use to hold Iraq's government accountable and make it ultimately responsible for creating a political solution to this conflict that will result in American troops coming home. I acknowledge that Congress should generally avoid trying to micro- manage a war. When decisions need to be made, there is no time for committee hearings or floor votes; the Commander-in-Chief may need to act immediately. However, this Administration, contrary to the facts of the situation on the ground, continues to claim that success is around the corner. The then-Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee stated that ``in two or three months if this thing hasn't come to fruition and this level of violence is not under control'' then we would need to rethink our policy--he made that statement six months ago. Some have suggested that any deadline is problematic. However, the Administration's original time estimate for the war was `six days, six weeks, no more than six months,' so a firm deadline 18 months from now, after four years of this open ended conflict, cannot create any more problems than we already have and in fact sets a date that we can begin to bring our troops home. Mr. Speaker, today's legislation, for the first time in the four year history of this conflict, finally puts real pressure on the President and Iraq's leaders to bring this war to an end. This bill will begin a responsible process to remove our forces from Iraq. Foreign Policy Experts Support H.R. 1591. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has stated that ``only a political solution will end this war,'' and that the plan approved by the House today provides ``a means to hold the Iraqi government accountable for its performance by conditioning U.S. support to the meeting of benchmarks already endorsed by President Bush and Iraqi leaders.'' Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright recently stated, ``the bottom line is that there must be a political settlement in Iraq that will end the civil war and reduce the level of insecurity to something that can be managed. With a settlement, we could withdraw gradually, with mission accomplished. Without a settlement, our troops can do little good and might as well come home sooner rather than later.'' In a letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, former Congressman, 9/11 Commissioner and co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, Lee Hamilton said that ``a strategy of sustained pressure on the Iraqi government to meet benchmarks on national reconciliation, security, and improving the lives of the Iraqi people--backed by clear conditionality of U.S. support--has the best chance of advancing stability in Iraq.'' Congressman Hamilton added under the House proposal, ``the President retains his flexibility and authority as commander-in-chief.'' High Ranking Military Officials have questioned our current policy in Iraq. Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), former President of the National Defense University Lt Gen. Robert G. Gard, Jr. (Ret.), former Deputy Commander of Multinational Force Iraq Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, current Deputy Commander of Multinational Force Iraq Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, and First Head of Training of Troops in Iraq Maj. Gen Paul Eaton (Ret.), have all pointed out that the solution in Iraq is primarily political, diplomatic and economic. In an open letter to Congress, several retired generals and other high ranking military officials stated that the situation in Iraq is ``grave and deteriorating'' and that top military officials have ``consistently acknowledged that the repeated and lengthy deployments are straining'' the U.S. military. General David Petraeus, the new Commander of Multinational Force Iraq, recently declared that ``there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq.'' I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, so much has been said, and I think we are very clear on the purpose of this bill and the importance of it as far as the war in Iraq is concerned. But there is another aspect to this bill. There are literally 2 million children who are without health care. I want to at this point recognize and give due thanks and appreciation to Congressman John Murtha. No State has suffered because of the CHIP program as the children of Georgia's 273,000 children who would be without their health insurance if it were not for this war supplemental. When the issue was taken to the White House, he said no. All hope was gone. I went to John Murtha, and John Murtha said, we will help you, and we will attach it to the Iraqi war supplemental. And he took it to Mr. Obey and to the Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I make this plea to you, as the Scripture says clearly, suffer not the little children. This is the only hope for getting our insurance for our children in the SCHIP program. I urge you to not let the children of the United States of America go down the drain. Vote for the children of this Nation and for this bill. Thank you, Mr. Murtha.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Ladies and gentlemen, let me just say this: the American people are waiting on this Congress to finally stand up and be Congress. This is one of the reasons why we are in the position that we are in right now is because Congress has not done its job. One of the most sterling moments of that was 2 years ago when it came to attention on this floor that our young men and women were over in Iraq without body armor. Every news cast had it where they were going into dung heaps, into landfills, trying to get body armor. It was Democrats, at that time, that stepped forward and put the amendment in the resolution to make sure that our troops have body armor. And that is the genesis of this legislation. This is a big ball game, and you have got to get to first base first. And what we are saying is, when we move out with this resolution, paramount is taking care of our troops, making sure that they have the body armor. I am here to tell you the American people know that this war has had a tremendous drain on our American economy. The importance of this measure, ladies and gentlemen in this House, is that we cannot go forward without the confidence of the American people. Passage of this bill gives us that confidence.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about our supplemental, the bill that will be before us on this Thursday for a vote. It is very important that the American people understand what it is we are doing. We have no choice in the matter. Yes, we are Democrats. We are in the leadership, and we must move an appropriations bill that will, in fact, first and foremost support our troops. There is a lot that has been said on the other side of the aisle about the motivations about all that is here. But there is another factor to this, Mr. Speaker, and that is the American people. The American people went to the polls in November, and they put Democrats in charge. They are the bosses. The bosses made a change of leadership. It is incumbent upon us as Democrats to lead. I want to make sure that the American people understand what is in this bill and why it is important. First of all, this bill fully supports our troops and especially our veterans in the need of health care. It ensures that U.S. forces in the field have all of the funds and resources they require. There is no cutting of funds in this bill. It directs more resources to the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the terrorists are, where the person is hiding who attacked this country on 9/11. I might add, Mr. Speaker, the people of Iraq did not attack us. The people who attacked us are on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is where this bill is putting more funds. It improves the health care for returning service members and veterans that is woefully neglected and has been woefully neglected under this administration. There is no question about it. The news items come out daily. All we need to look at is the situation at Walter Reed. This legislation stops the closure of Walter Reed Hospital and pours $2.8 billion into veterans programs, more than has been done in recent times. And, yes, it does what the majority of the American people want and begins to set a reasonable redeployment deadline schedule for us to come out of the civil war in Iraq so that we can better position ourselves to have a new Middle Eastern policy that reflects containment in that region and in a way that gets our young men and women out of the cross hairs of a civil war. Let me just be specific, if I may, Mr. Speaker, on the health care. As I said, there is $2.8 billion for defense health care, which is $1.7 billion above what the President requested. It doesn't look like a cut to me. Additional funds supporting new initiatives to enhance Medicaid services for Active Duty forces, to mobilized personnel and their family members, who have been woefully neglected. This includes $450 million for post-traumatic stress disorder counseling. The psychiatrists have said on more than one occasion that there is a policy of sending our young men and women back into harm's way before they are mentally healed. There is a different way to determine whether you are mentally healed. It is more difficult than a physical wound that you can see. Four hundred fifty million dollars for traumatic brain injury care and research. Mr. Speaker, I just left Landstuhl Medical Center near Ramstein Air Base 4 weeks ago, and I saw firsthand the injuries to our soldiers. I was there. I talked with them. It was my third trip into that base. When you go to Landstuhl, you are seeing the injuries right as they come from downrange in Afghanistan and Iraq. So you are right there where it is, and I saw the need. That is why we put $730 million to prevent health care fee increases for our troops, $20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed, and $14 million in burn care. Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up. I just want to make sure the American people know the Democrats are putting forward a plan that is truly responsive to our troops and to our veterans.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the distinguished lady from California and our chairman, Mr. Frank, for doing an excellent job in leading us. This amendment represents the ugly side of this Nation. This amendment is cruel, it is cold, it is calculating, and it is pandering to the schizophrenic dichotomy that has plagued this Nation since they first brought Africans on these shores from Africa, and that is the issue of race and poverty. Let me tell you something, gentleman. Where were you? Where was your amendment when the Twin Towers were hit and people of New York suffered that catastrophe? There was no cry before we give them help, they have got to go get a job. Everybody was there and poured in help, as they should, the American way. Where was your amendment down in Florida when the hurricanes hit down there? Nobody said, make them work before we help them. Where were you last month when the hurricanes hit in Arkansas and then south Georgia, when the President went down and declared a disaster area? We helped those people. My friend, let me remind you of something. I am going to tell you this story. It's a story about some folks that went down the road to Jericho, and this gentleman fell among thieves. He had disaster. He was hurting, and he was pained. Somebody walked by him and said nothing and did nothing. Another person walked by him and did nothing. Your amendment is worse. You want to kick them and say get up and get a job. But that third man had compassion on him, and in his hour of need, picked him up, put him on his horse, took him to an inn and paid him to take care of him and house him. That is what this amendment is doing. It is a Good Samaritan amendment. Yours is the Ugly American amendment, and it needs to be defeated. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. You hit upon a point here that the American people need to be aware of as to exactly why we need to pass our bill. I have before me what I would like to share with you, this report from today's Washington Post. It is a story by Ms. Ann Scott Tyson. It is a disheartening story, but it points right to the core of why we need to be doing something very urgent to bring accountability and the total lack of accountability that this administration has had. And this is about our veterans, those who are right off the battlefield. And, Mr. Ross, just like you, we both just came from Germany where we went into Landstuhl and we went into the military hospital near the Ramstein Air Base. And our hearts were broken as we saw 19- and 18- and 20-year-old kids, these are young kids, folks, who are out there at the point of the spear, sacrificing their lives in the middle of a civil war. And when they come back to get treated, here is the report. She says: ``Thousands of soldiers wounded in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have overwhelmed the Army system for evaluating their eligibility for disability benefits, leading to a near total failure to complete such reviews in a timely manner.'' And this is what the services Inspector General concluded in a report released yesterday. The report found this, Mr. Ross, it found that medical hold facilities lack critical staff, formalized training for personnel caring for wounded soldiers, with more than half of unit commanders reporting inadequate, our commanders on the ground are reporting inadequate for our soldiers. This is no way to treat our warriors. It also cited inadequate and unreliable databases for tracking the wounded, not even able to keep track of them. This is why we need our accountability act. This is why we need to have oversight and strong oversight on this administration. We are not talking about something here that doesn't exist. This is a serious problem that goes at the core and the soul of America, and that is our young men and women. Their lives are too precious, their blood is too precious to be sacrificed. Then when they do the sacrifice, they are not taken care of. Just listen to this: some facilities lack wheelchair access, which is directly in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, is going on right now under this administration. That meant that wounded soldiers even had difficulty reaching the restroom. This is the same administration, my friends, this is no wonder why we have this. If you recall, they were sent into war without body armor. Our soldiers, 2 years ago, were going through dung heaps and land mines out in the desert trying to find metal to protect themselves. I said to you, and you and I both agreed when we were over there in Germany, we were going to do everything we could when we got back here to make sure we passed this bill and give the proper attention to our wounded and our veterans. You know, the Lord moves in strange and mysterious ways, and I am convinced that is why the exposure of that terrible situation at Walter Reed was made real at this very time to show the Congress and the American people we need this accountability law.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. You mentioned Halliburton, and there is no greater poster child for the abuse, for the very need for this legislation. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted. The reports have been there, in the news. They have covered it left and right, and, meanwhile, our soldiers don't even have wheelchair access. This administration has a day of atonement on this, and history is not going to smile kindly on the abuse that was heaped upon our military and the strain and the drain that it is causing. You mentioned earlier, Mr. Ross, about Halliburton, and in just yesterday's news Halliburton's reward to us for all of the billions of dollars that they have gotten in taxpayers' money was to move their headquarters from the United States over into Dubai in the Middle East so that they could get out from under paying certain levels of taxes in this country. No wonder the American people are crying out. No wonder the American people went to the polls in November and declared in a loud voice, enough of this, we want change, and they put Democrats in charge of this Congress. They, indeed, as I said earlier in my remarks, wanted Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to smile kindly, because finally we are standing up and performing the constitutional duties of oversight, of legislation and controlling the purse that they fought hard to put into the Constitution over two centuries ago. Now I would like to yield time to my distinguished friend from Ohio, from Steubenville, Ohio, the home of one of my most favorite singers, Dean Martin, and I would like to present Representative Charlie Wilson.