Wall Street reaches new highs almost daily. Yet, many minority populations suffer more and more as the days past. Economic growth in these communities is either stagnated or decreasing. Economic restructuring is desperately needed as both physical and emotional decay has never been greater in our communities.

The American government has continuously called on its citizens to pay higher taxes in order to balance the budget, provide for Medicaid, Medicare and rescue Social Security, yet, we have committed millions of dollars to fight foreign wars.

We cannot wait for the government to recognize the priority of our needs. Money spent on foreign interest can not be used to strengthen the inner-city economies. It is time to change our economic behavior. We have sufficient income to increase our income and wealth simply by changing what we buy, when we buy, and how we buy it. We must circulate money within our own communities.

If we pledge to spend at least 75% of our dollars within our communities, we will create more jobs, more businesses and will create greater economic growth than any government policy can ever deliver.

Urban and rural America has been deteriorating for decades. Nearly 33 percent of all African Americans and Hispanic Americans living in poor urban and rural areas have incomes below the poverty line. The unemployment rate for African American teenagers approaches 42 percent.

Despite periods of economic growth, many urban and rural communities have never experienced the economic upturns felt in many parts of the country. Poverty engulfs one in every five of America’s children.

Budget cuts have devastated federal urban and rural programs across the board. These cuts included programs dealing with housing, job-training, education, transportation and hunger.

By the year 2015, it is projected that all African American farms will vanish. With them, economic independence, jobs and tradition will also disappear.

Hispanic American business innovations must be fostered in the modern economy, innovation remains largely the work of smaller firms. For this reason, the federal government must maintain its support of research and development efforts by Hispanic American small businesses.

During FY97 minority and disadvantaged-owned firms received 5,520 Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) awards, representing 12% of all SBIR awards. With the rise in the number of Hispanic American technology firms, this percentage should increase as more Hispanic American businesses become aware of the SBIR program and other R & D assistance.

Discourage the bundling of contracts, which harm small business owners. Streamlining actions by agencies in government purchasing since 1994 have had harmful effects on small firms through bundled contracts. This practice has placed many procurements out of the reach of small firms.

The intention of SBREFA was to minimize the adverse impact of regulations on small businesses without jeopardizing the legitimate regulatory goals that they are required to purse. SBREFA must be expanded to ease the regulatory burden on small businesses.

Reduce the Tax Burden on Small Businesses.

We must relieve the burden of taxes on small businesses, in particular those businesses that are owned and operated by minority groups that historically, have been economically disenfranchised.

Trade

Exporting can mean big profits for a small business. In light of the broadening market in Latin America, Hispanic American businesses are uniquely positioned to take advantage this new arena of business.

Expand Exports for Global Small Business

For lenders seeking to reach a high-growth market, increase profits, reduce risks, respond to clients’ needs and invest in their community.

Access to Capital

Hispanic American-owned businesses must have the tools to succeed and compete. This means providing better access to capital and credit. It also means ensuring that federal programs assisting small businesses are responsive to the Hispanic American community. Programs of significance include the 504 Certified Development Company (CDC) Program, the 7(a) Loan Program, and the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program.

New Market Initiatives (NMI)

In his State of the Union address, the president announced that the New Market Initiative is a broad public-private partnership designed to increase business opportunities in underserved urban and rural communities. By creating tax credits, loan guarantee incentives, a network of private venture capital companies, and technical assistance and mentoring programs, the New Market Initiative is designed to make it attractive to businesses to invest in our untapped rural and inner city communities. The initiative will stimulate job-growth, neighborhood revitalization and economic development in the communities that are being left behind.

The telecommunications industry should be more family-friendly. In other words, telecommunications goods, services and profile should not only deliver high-quality at reasonable rates, but also should enhance the transfer of information and equal opportunities for employment, investment and entrepreneurial uplift for families.

The Million Family March supports public policy that advocates independent and alternative ownership of telecommunications systems such as Nation One Communications, a newly established Chicago-based national alternative minority-owned telecommunications company.

The nation’s capital is in financial crisis. Limited by a restricted tax base and by Congressional oversight, the city is faced with unique obstacles to solving its problems.

Background

The District of Columbia faces a structural crisis similar to other older American cities. Over 125,000 people have left the city since 1970, drastically reducing its tax base. Firms also have created jobs in the suburbs rather than in the city. In addition, federal support for public assistance to low-income families has declined since 1970, while health care and public safety costs have risen dramatically.

The Home Rule Act of 1974, which the CBC supports, also transferred to the district, responsibilities traditionally handled by states including excessive pension liabilities. However, unlike states, the district faces a restricted tax base that prevents it from increasing its revenue sources. In 1995, this resulted in a debt crisis that caused the district to lose its ability to borrow from Wall Street. Following this loss, Congress created a financial control board, similar to boards in other troubled cities, to exercise certain oversight and management functions of the city.

Affirmative action is being attacked in the courts, Congress, our states and our schools. If successful, women and minorities will lose many of the gains in employment, education and business opportunities they have earned over the past 30 years.

Background

Several recent Supreme Court and other federal court rulings have opened the door to the dismantling of affirmative action programs. In Adarand v. Pena in 1995, the Supreme Court made it harder to justify using federal affirmative action contracting programs. Following Adarand, legislation was introduced in Congress to end federal affirmative action programs altogether. While the CBC successfully led the effort to block the legislation in 1998, similar legislation was introduced last year.

Similarly, a federal court ruled in Hopwood v. State of Texas, that racial diversity used to remedy past discrimination was not enough of a compelling governmental interest to justify a law school affirmative action program. The universities of California, Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia either have dismantled, or are considering dismantling their affirmative action programs.

Also, in November 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, the so-called California Civil Rights Initiative. This measure eliminates state affirmative action in education, contraction and employment. The initiative is currently being challenged. Similar ballot initiatives were attempted in Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Florida. Virtually identical bills were introduced in 15 state legislatures.

Americans for a Fair Chance (AFC) has been organized as a consortium of six legal rights groups to mobilize public and legal opinion in support of the issue of Affirmative Action.

It is time to redefine our notion of national security. This country now spends as much on its military budget as all the other countries of the world combined. We have the military power to defend our national interests, but we must figure out how to apply our resources and capabilities to meet our domestic national security needs and to create a more stable world.

Background

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the break up of the Soviet Union, the implications for U.S. national security have changed fundamentally. A reassessment by Congress of our national security needs in light of these changes is long overdue. The military can no longer be seen as the only national security expenditure and the only critical element of any comprehensive national security strategy.

Foreign assistance programs that create international stability also must be seen as central to our total national security requirements. We must also make military spending decisions in light of the impact those decisions have on our ability to solve pressing domestic problems that undermine our national security. Only in this context can the federal budget finally advance the national security needs of our people.