Congressional Black Caucus

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to rise this evening and once again stand as an anchor for the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order, this hour of power, where, for the next 60 minutes, members of the Congressional Black Caucus will have an opportunity to speak to the American people about building a budget to create progress and prosperity for all Americans in this great country of ours.

Now, earlier today, myself and several other Members of Congress, including the distinguished Representative from the Ninth Congressional District of New York, Yvette Clarke, and the legendary Congressman John Lewis, had an opportunity to attend the homegoing service of Congressman Major Owens, who so proudly served in this institution for 24 years, first elected in 1982, having retired in 2006.

As I listened to speaker after speaker reflect on Congressman Owens' time in this great institution, it seemed to me that one of the things that became increasingly clear was his steadfast commitment to making sure that the funding priorities that emanated from this Congress were decent, were humane, were humanitarian, and were designed to stand up for and protect the least of those in American society.

Congressman Owens, during his 24 years in this Congress, consistently stood up for funding as it relates to early childhood education. He consistently stood up for funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. He consistently stood up for social safety net programs. He consistently stood up to open up the doors of the American Dream for the greatest number of people possible.

And so, in that regard, on the day of his homegoing service, I think it appropriate that we just dedicate the pathway toward prosperity that we are endeavoring to put forth today in the great spirit of Congressman Major Owens, who, for more than two decades labored in the vineyards of this Congress, fighting for budgets that stood up for the least of those amongst us.

I want to yield first to the distinguished chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, who so ably and passionately and intelligently led the CBC forward in this 113th Congress. Let me now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Chairwoman Marcia Fudge.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Texas for her very powerful, strong, thoughtful, and comprehensive remarks.

Hopefully, as we move forward in this Congress with the conference committee that Representative Lee just discussed, they will take heed to her plea that you keep in mind those in America and the middle class and working families, those who aspire to be part of the middle class, and be compassionate as we move forward to address the issues that confront this Nation.

Earlier this month, as a result of the reckless behavior of some in this House of Representatives, we experienced 16 days of a government shutdown. It was a legislative joyride that was doomed to end in a crash-and-burn scenario, as it did. Unfortunately, as a result, the American people have been left with the damage of a $24 billion hit to the economy in terms of lost economic productivity.

Thankfully, as a result of the agreement that reopened the government, both sides agreed to finally move forward with the appointment of negotiators to try and resolve differences in the House Republican budget and the Senate Democratic budget and move forward with a plan for America that both re-energizes our economy and deals with the long-term deficit problems that we will have to confront.

We believe the CBC budget that has been discussed here on the floor of the House of Representatives provides insight into the type of things that should be considered by the negotiators in the House and the Senate as they move forward.

I would note, parenthetically, that though the conference committee is just at the early stages of beginning, at this point in time, this process really should have occurred months and months ago. This House passed its budget in March. The Senate passed its budget shortly thereafter, and Democrats in the House and the Senate have been calling for the appointment of conferees since the early spring.

For some reason, there was a refusal amongst our friends on the other side of the aisle to move forward, but we are thankful that at this point there is an agreement finally to sit down. The American people have demanded that we attempt to find common ground to resolve the issues of concern for this great Nation.

Now there are two different approaches that have been put forth. Our approach is designed to deal with the deficit problems that we have in a balanced fashion.

The other approach, I believe, is designed to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in other society: children, working families, the poor, the disabled, middle class folks, senior citizens.

Now some may say that is just hyperbole. Well, what does the budget on the other side of the aisle actually do? It cuts assistance pursuant to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by $135 billion. That is not hyperbole. That is in the budget. In a country, at this moment, where 50 million people are hungry, 18 million of them are children.

The budget put forth by the other side of the aisle also cuts spending on higher education by $168 billion. That is not hyperbole. That is in the budget. It makes it more difficult for young people in this great country to access the American Dream--young people who are already in a debt crisis. Student loan debt in this country exceeds $1 trillion. We should be doing more to help people get a higher education, not less, in this country.

The document that was presented by the other side that will be subject to negotiation at the conference committee also cuts assistance and spending on Medicaid by the amount of $810 billion. That is not hyperbole. That is in the House Republican budget. That is notwithstanding the fact that the majority of people who benefit from Medicaid assistance in this country are actually children and the disabled and senior citizens.

So we have got very different priorities, blueprints, road maps as it relates to dealing with the problems that we confront here in America.

The balanced approach that we advocate for essentially has four different elements.

First, we believe it is important to invest in the American economy. It is time to invest in America, invest in job training and education, transportation and infrastructure, research and development, and technology and innovation.

Let's invest in America so we can create increased economic activity. We are in the midst of a very schizophrenic economic recovery. It is a recovery that has disproportionately benefited the wealthy in America.

Let's just look at the facts that have been laid before us.

We have got corporate profits that are way up. The stock market is way up. CEO compensation is way up. Productivity of the American worker is way up. Yet wages have remained stagnant, and unemployment is still stubbornly high.

Working families and middle class folks have been left behind in the context of this recovery. That is why we believe the first element of any budget has to invest in America. Because if you invest in America, you increase economic activity. If you increase economic activity, you raise consumer demand. If you raise consumer demand, the economy grows. If the economy grows, by definition, the deficit will be reduced.

Parenthetically, let me also note that despite all the rhetoric from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, under this administration, Barack Obama, the deficit has actually been reduced by half during his 5 years in office. In fact, I think as a percentage of GDP, the deficit has been reduced to a degree that has not been
seen since the drawdown in the aftermath of World War II. So we hear a lot about fiscal irresponsibility directed at the White House, notwithstanding the fact that this White House has presided over a near historic level of deficit reduction.

Invest in the economy.

The second thing that is important is that we should get rid of some wasteful corporate loopholes that have outlived their usefulness. We can just close or change or modify some of the benefits that oil and gas companies have received. They are making record profits. There is no reason for the loopholes and the benefits and the subsidies that exist right now. If we just were to address them, we could save the American people $25 billion over the next 10 years. If we were to change some of the loopholes that actually incentivize companies to move jobs overseas, we could save the American people $168 billion over the next 10 years.

If there is such a moral imperative not to saddle our children with the debt burden that we have in America, if that is such a moral imperative, can't we not agree upon a single loophole that can be closed in the name of the children and the grandchildren of America? Not one?

That is what we believe is the right thing to do here in the CBC.

The third thing that, I think, is part of a balanced approach to dealing with the budget and a reduction in the deficit has to do with making some spending cuts where appropriate, but we have got to do it in a manner that is sensitive to the fragile nature of the economy. I think all of us on this side of the aisle are willing to concede that there are probably some areas in which efficiencies can be found in the name of fiscal responsibility for the American people. Spending reduction sensitive to the fragile nature of our recovery should be part of any balanced approach in dealing with the problems that we face in America.

Lastly, we in the CBC certainly believe that any budget agreement has to stand up for important social safety net programs in America, like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid--programs that have been phenomenally successful, particularly in reducing poverty amongst older Americans. It is unfortunate because there are times when these programs--Social Security and Medicare--are unfairly demonized and are made part of deficit reduction talks even if the facts suggest they don't necessarily have a place in that regard. Social Security, for instance, remains a solvent program at this moment and into the foreseeable future. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. That, in fact, was a statement that Ronald Reagan made in 1984 in a debate with Walter Mondale. It was true then, and it is true almost 30 years later.

Now, when you think about the attack on our social safety net programs and on the obsessive desire to change--decimate--so-called entitlement programs, often this discussion is raised in the context of the enormous debt problem that we have in America--$16.7 trillion. Certainly it is a problem that we have got to confront in this country, but what also is often not clear is the fact that spending on so-called entitlement programs really does not account for the debt problem that we confront in America. This is what this poster board and the chart so clearly illustrate.

In fact, much of the debt that we currently confront in this America can be tied directly to policies emanating from the 8 years that George W. Bush was at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. More than half of our debt can be traced to the failed war in Iraq--totally unjustified in search of weapons of mass destruction that still haven't been found and never will be found. The debt can be tied to the war in Afghanistan and to the fact that it was mis-prosecuted as a result of being distracted by the joyride that took place in Iraq, costing lives and American treasure. The debt problem can be traced to the Bush tax cuts passed in this Congress in 2001 and 2003 without being paid for.

Then, of course, was the laissez-faire attitude toward Wall Street, resulting in reckless behavior by some that collapsed the economy, robbed millions and millions of Americans of the little wealth that they had tied into homeownership, and the resulting bailout that took place and the need for an economic stimulus package through the Recovery Act. All of that accounts for a significant amount of the debt that we now confront.

So when both sides sit down at the negotiating table in the context of the Budget Committee, we should do so with the facts objectively established as opposed to putting a bull's-eye on the back of important social safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare just because some folks in this Capitol don't like those programs from their very inceptions.

The last observation that I will make is that the budget that has been set forth by the CBC and by Democrats in the House and the Senate, as compared to the budget that has been put forth by the House GOP, is very different in the context of how we review and evaluate tax fairness in America.

I think some would be surprised to know that, in the House GOP budget, it cuts taxes by lowering the top tax rate for high-income Americans from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. This is not the Reagan budget, supply-side economics. This is not George Herbert Walker Bush or George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003. This is the current budget on which we are going to have to negotiate and find common ground. It cuts the tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent in order to slash all of the social safety net programs that we reviewed earlier.

Why is that a wrong-headed policy?

As I close, and as this chart illustrates, the top tax rate was at 39.6 percent notwithstanding the fact that so many people on the other side of the aisle, in good faith, constantly say, that type of tax rate is the type of rate that hurts the economy. Under the 8 years of the Clinton administration, with a 39.6 percent top tax rate, 20-plus million jobs were created; 8 years later, when the top tax rate was cut by this Congress from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, we lost 580,000 jobs. That is an apples-to-apples comparison that discredits the notion that lowering the tax rate somehow stimulates growth in the economy when the 8 years of the Clinton administration as compared to the 8 years of the Bush administration clearly discredit that theory in the manner that a former President referred to as voodoo economics.

So I am just hopeful that, as we move forward with this conference committee--we have got big differences--we can sit down and endeavor to find common ground and do the business of the American people: keep government open, invest in our economy, protect our social safety net programs, and help create prosperity for the greatest number of Americans possible.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Source