What Do We Have To Lose: $54 Billion In Domestic Spending
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings) for conducting this Special Order this evening. I appreciate it. Yes, I am a graduate of South Carolina State University, but I also…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings) for conducting this Special Order this evening. I appreciate it.
Yes, I am a graduate of South Carolina State University, but I also represent the University of South Carolina here in this body. And I just want to note that--with all that is going on around us, I want to say congratulations to the men of the University of South Carolina's basketball team for getting into the Final Four, and I am looking forward to, a few moments from now, watching the women do the same.
I met, along with other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, last week with President Trump, and we had an opportunity to share with him some of the fears that we have of his budget and what it would do to Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
As both the gentleman and gentlewoman have mentioned, I represent seven of these institutions. I said to the President that there is something that most people miss about the value of these colleges and universities; and I shared with him a little experience I had last December.
While kicking off the annual Christmas festivities, I was having a conversation with a very good friend, who I have known for a long time, who is an outstanding cardiologist, recently retired from Charlotte, North Carolina, and we were talking about all the discussions that were taking place during last year's campaign about HBCUs.
Of course, I said to him that I thought that there was significant misunderstanding about the value of these institutions. In fact, I wrote an op-ed piece a few days ago, published in the Charleston, South Carolina newspapers. I talked about a State official, an elected official in my State who made the comment that those students who went to South Carolina State, like yours truly, did so because they were not qualified to go anywhere else.
Well, this gentleman, David Dowdy--I hope he doesn't mind me calling his name--David Dowdy said to me, as we talked: You know, when I left that little, rural, underfunded high school in Eastover, North Carolina, and got up to North Carolina A&T, I had to take remedial everything--simply because he went to an underfunded rural school.
In South Carolina, of course, these schools have been underfunded for generations, and the State has been fighting a lawsuit for some 24 years to keep from funding these schools properly and adequately.
He said, when he got up to North Carolina A&T, he had to take these remedial courses, but he went on to become a very successful heart doctor.
Now, I said to the President, after telling him this story: That is not an unusual case.
All of us have heard of the astronaut, Ronald McNair. Ronald McNair is also a South Carolinian. He graduated from a little high school in Lake City, South Carolina, a town most people never heard of.
Everybody talks about how successful he was as an astronaut, having lost his life in the accident, the Challenger. And when people refer to him, they always talk about him being a physicist from MIT. They never talk about the fact that, before he ever went to MIT for his master's degree, he went to North Carolina A&T for his bachelor's. It was there at North Carolina A&T where he was nurtured, and how he developed in those small classes, the remediation that he needed in order to unlock all that was within him.
So I shared with the President, and he assured me that he had no intentions of cutting funding to these Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I applaud him for that, and I thank him for that.
But I also said to him that I think it is important for us not to just maintain level funding but to make the kind of investments in these colleges and universities that are needed for them to get these young minds that have been disadvantaged, because of State action, and help turn them into productive citizens who will make significant contributions to our society.
Now, I want to talk, just a moment though, about another part of the President's budget. You know, I served on three budget committees recently. In fact, I was on Vice President Joseph Biden's bipartisan group for deficit reduction. I also served on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that everybody called the supercommittee.
And then I served on the budget committees that negotiated the Budget Control Act of 2011, an enactment I am not all that proud of, because we put in this thing we now call sequestration, which has wreaked havoc on military installations and military spending, as well as discretionary programs of the government.
Now, the hallmark of each successful budget agreement has been to increase defense spending by the same amount as spending for nondefense discretionary agencies. President Trump's proposed budget ignores this principle and would destroy many critical programs throughout all of the nondefense Federal agencies.
In 2016, the bipartisan budget agreement added $25 billion in defense spending above the sequester levels. Importantly though, it paid for this increase with responsible revenue-raising provisions and also increased the nondefense side of the budget by $25 billion as well.
For 2017, it is a similar story, where defense and nondefense are increased by $15 billion, both paid for responsibly. President Trump proposes to go far beyond these agreements, proposing for 2018, $54 billion in increased defense spending, and he pays for it by cutting the nondefense side of the budget by a corresponding $54 billion next year.
Mr. Speaker, there is a responsible way to provide our military relief from sequestration. I support doing so, as do my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus. This is not the way to do it.
Much of the proposed investments will go to draconian immigration enforcement and an ineffective border wall. The President even has the audacity to propose ignoring the budget agreement for 2017, that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama over 2 years ago.
What exactly does proposing $54 billion below sequester level caps for the nondefense side of the budget mean? What effect would it have on our constituents? The President's budget decimates funding for critical infrastructure in low-income communities, I dare say, rural communities.
For example, the President proposes to eliminate $500 million in funding for the rural water and wastewater program in the Department of Agriculture. In my congressional district alone, this agency has funded drinking water infrastructure in poor, rural communities like Turbeville, Bowman, and Brittons Neck, that had previously limited access to clean water.
The President also proposes to eliminate the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER grants, which invest in road, rail, transit, and port projects on a competitive basis all around the country.
In South Carolina, TIGER grants have funded the I-95/301 interchange in rural Santee, Main Street revitalization in Columbia, and upgrades at the Port of Charleston to the tune of more than $32 million. The resulting economic and community development have proved to be well worth the Federal investment.
The President's proposal would also eliminate the Legal Services Corporation and LIHEAP. That is the program for low income home energy assistance that allows homes to be weatherized, and Meals on Wheels. This can only be seen as an attack on the poor and the elderly.
These cuts would leave thousands of poor senior citizens unable to heat their homes in the winter and deny thousands more legal aid they need to seek relief from domestic violence and avoid homelessness by staying in their homes.
The notion that Meals on Wheels doesn't produce results is totally ridiculous. In my district, Senior Resources in Columbia currently serves more than 500 seniors.
Mr. Speaker, Federal funding accounts for 37 percent of their budget. Cutting those funds would callously kick 180 homebound seniors to the curb, forcing them to join the already 130 people who are on the waiting list. These are unconscionable cuts made with no regard for the most vulnerable in our society.
The Congressional Black Caucus budget will take the opposite approach. By repealing sequestration, making the Tax Code fairer to increase the level of investment in critical programs, and targeting Federal funds to communities mired in persistent poverty through the 10-20-30 formula, the CBC's budget responsibly funds our military, while also lifting millions out of poverty.
I want to close by thanking the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Bobby Scott, my friend and classmate, for pulling that budget together, and doing so showing the kind of compassion that ought to exist in every public servant.