[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 35 (Monday, March 27, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 23, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the concurrent resolution 
     (House Concurrent Resolution 290) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2005:

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this 
resolution, for two reasons. It fails to do what should be done, for 
our country and for all Americans. And, it would insist on doing what 
should not be done for our economy and for future generations.
  It does not extend the solvency of either Social Security or 
Medicare, which we need to do as the first step toward preparing those 
vital programs to meet the challenges of the years ahead when the 
``baby boom'' generation retires in large numbers.
  It does not properly provide for measures to make affordable 
prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries and other senior 
citizens.
  It doesn't adequately fund essential education programs including 
Head Start, Pell grants for college students, and special education--in 
fact, it cuts their purchasing power.
  It does not protect programs that are vital for many working 
families--such as child care subsidies, emergency heating and cooling 
assistance, or affordable housing--or to improve their access to health 
insurance. It also does not adequately assist our communities to 
respond to the problems of growth and sprawl and fails to provide 
enough funds for saving open space. And it does not provide enough for 
veterans' programs.
  And it does not give the proper priority to reducing the public debt.
  But what it does do is to mortgage the future to pay for excessive, 
unfocused tax cuts that would wipe out almost all of the expected 
surplus outside of Social Security.
  It does cut funding for energy research and conservation programs, 
even as increased prices for gasoline and heating oil are again showing 
the importance of reducing our dependence on petroleum, while allowing 
dangerous erosion of funding for many other important scientific 
research activities.
  And it does lay down a blueprint for going back to budget deficits.
  For all these reasons--and more--we should not make the mistake of 
passing this budget plan. We can do better, and we should.
  That's why I voted for the alternative plan proposed by 
Representative John Spratt and other Democratic members of the Budget 
Committee.
  The Democratic alternative would have extended the solvency of Social 
Security and Medicare, while making a downpayment on a plan to let the 
parents of children who are eligible for Medicaid or the State 
Children's Health Insurance program gain health-care coverage under 
these programs. It also would have provided for Medicare prescription 
drug coverage, beginning next year, while maintaining the funds needed 
to crack down on Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. It also would have 
provided more funds for veterans programs, and would have assisted 
retirees and people who lose their jobs to keep health insurance.
  The Democratic alternative would have increased funding for energy 
research and development, including energy conservation and the 
development of alternatives to petroleum. And it would have provided 
more for science, space, and technology programs.
  It also would have provided fund to continue assisting local school 
districts to hire more teachers for overcrowded schools, would have 
provided nearly $5 billion more for special education funding, would 
have provided for tax credits and funding for better school buildings. 
It would have provided for increases in Pell grants, Head Start, 
special education, and other educational programs.
  The Democratic alternative would fully fund the Lands Legacy 
Initiative, to save endangered open space and to assist our States and 
local communities in acquiring parks, conserving wildlife habitat, and 
protecting sensitive areas.
  And while the Democratic alternative would have provided for cutting 
taxes by some $200 billion over the next decade, it still would have 
dedicated $364 billion over the next decade for paying down the 
publicly held debt, more than could be done under the flawed plan put 
forward by the Republican leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, after I compared the Republican leadership's budget and 
the Democrat alternative, my choice was clear. I think that when the 
American people make the same comparison, they will agree that the 
Republican leadership's plan is a collection of wrong choices for the 
House and for our country.

                          ____________________