[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 20, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1053-H1072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2003
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).
(Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work that the
gentleman from Iowa has done as our chairman on the Committee on the
Budget. I left Congress in 1990, and one of the things that always
bothered me was the fact that it seemed like when I sat on the other
side, we could never come close to balancing the budget. I would like
to say that it is great that we have not only balanced the budget since
I have returned, but with the economy growing, we have reduced over
$450 billion in debt that was on the backs of our children. I would
like to think that has done a great deal to help us in the future.
Yesterday Chairman Alan Greenspan and the Feds decided not to
increase interest rates. They realized that there is still some
softness out in the economy. I am thankful that we passed the tax
relief package nearly a year ago, and also just last week, the job
creation and work protection bill in a bipartisan vote. That vote was
417-3. Yes, even with the economic indicators that were soft and
started downward in September, the last quarter of 2000 before the Bush
administration took office, but really took a downward spiral after
September 11, creating a loss of about a million jobs. Let me say, with
this job creation work protection bill, not only are we allowing the
uninsured to have 13 extra weeks of unemployment insurance, we want to
make sure that those who are unemployed have a check and are meeting
their obligations.
Also we have done some things with 30 percent expensing which is
accelerating activity. Tractor implement dealers in my area, they are
out buying. Farmers and ranchers are buying equipment. That is going to
help us a great deal more, not only in just the facts, but in the
spirit of things in moving this economy forward.
This budget is a compassionate budget because in it we have dealt
with unemployment insurance. Yes, we have helped business, and we have
helped a lot of individuals. There are work tax credits for welfare to
work. It also deals with Native Americans, trying to work with them
with accelerated depreciation, and letting them have jobs instead of
relying on just gaming and some of the other interests. Native
Americans have the worst economic conditions of any group in the United
States.
We have a budget here that gives us an opportunity to move this
country forward. I encourage a bipartisan vote on it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 9 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) for purposes of control.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, we will not find a Member on this
side of the aisle who is not 100 percent supportive of winning this war
against terrorism and bolstering our homeland security. However, we
cannot forget our domestic priorities. Over the next 5 years, we will
cut over $96 billion below what it costs to maintain these programs at
their current level.
For the next few minutes what I would like to do is put a human face
on some of these funding cuts, and maybe people watching this debate
back home will have a better understanding of what this budget does.
For example, everybody knows that health care costs are skyrocketing on
an annual basis. As a result, 40 million Americans cannot afford health
insurance. That includes 9 million children. This budget pretends that
these people do not exist.
Compounding that situation is the fact that there are some programs
that provide some minimal health care. For example, the rural health
care program, it is cut by 41 percent. Telehealth programs are cut by
84 percent. Another problem is the freezing of funding for the Healthy
Start program. It is for expectant mothers for prenatal care. I cannot
think of any Member here who thinks that depriving mothers of prenatal
care is something that we should be doing.
Then there is the matter of our homeland security. The people on the
front line are police officers. Yet this budget completely eliminates,
not cuts, eliminates the Department of Justice local law enforcement
block grant, which is designed to put more cops on our streets. As a
result, hundreds of communities across the United States, large and
small, will see less cops on the street, meaning we can expect an
increase in crime because this budget, as I just stated, eliminates
this program.
{time} 1730
Then there are our public schools. Every State is having problems
with revenues and high enrollments. Just a little over 2 months ago, we
had the No Child Left Behind Act signed into law. Most people voted for
it. If Members will recall, President Bush made this a pillar of his
State of the Union address and rightly so, ensuring that every child
has a right to a first-rate education. So what happened to this
program? You can see that is what is authorized, that is what we
enacted last year, and this is what we are proposing, a $100 million
cut just from last year.
As a former teacher, I have also talked to educators in Oregon. One
of the things they begged me not to do was pass another Federal program
and another Federal mandate without the funds. We are not giving them
the funds. Then there is special education.
[[Page H1054]]
We are funding that at 18 percent. What did the Federal Government
promise to do? Twenty-seven years ago we said we would fund it at 40
percent. Are we doing that? No.
We are now starting down the same path with the No Child Left Behind
Act. Again we make a promise we are not going to keep.
Mr. Chairman, to talk further about education, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), a former teacher and
principal.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, as a former teacher and principal, I rise in
opposition to the Republican budget, a budget that claims to leave no
child behind, but in reality leaves many children behind.
Just a few months ago, the President and the Congress heralded the
enactment of H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act. Yet as we all know,
a bill is meaningless without the necessary funding and many of us
wondered if the White House and the House Republicans would put our
Nation's money where their mouths were for H.R. 1 when it came time to
pass the budget. After looking at the House Republican budget offered
today, it has become clear to me that the Republicans have no intention
of making good on their promise to improve educational opportunities
for our Nation's young people.
The Republican budget cuts funding for H.R. 1 by $90 million. It cuts
education programs by $1.8 billion, including programs for teacher
quality and after-school centers. The Republican budget also eliminates
28 education programs, including dropout prevention and technology
training.
The Republicans say we on the other side of the aisle have no right
to voice our beliefs on their plan because we have none to offer. Let
me remind my colleagues that last week I offered an amendment in the
Budget Committee that would have increased funding for professional
development and teacher quality by $325 million, title I funding for
disadvantaged students by $2.15 billion, and after-school programs by
$250 million from levels proposed in today's Republican budget. Every
Republican on the committee voted it down.
Mr. Chairman, I support the President when it comes to the war. I,
like all of us in this body, am confident that we will win the global
war against terrorism. But I fear this budget may cause us to lose the
battle at home to protect and educate future generations of Americans.
As a former educator, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
resolution that leaves so many of our children behind.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely concerned
whether this education budget is adequate. It is true that there are
some program increases; but at a time of increased need and urgency,
this increase is the smallest in a decade.
In the end, this education budget leaves me wondering whether we are
truly keeping our commitment to our children and our teachers. I know
my spirits were up when just 2 months ago the President signed into law
the new education bill promising to leave no child behind. I am afraid
to say that we are leaving more than a few children behind.
The budget we are debating today actually cuts funding for these
programs by $90 million. In fact, this budget funds the No Child Left
Behind Act at $4.2 billion below the authorized level. One cannot help
but ask if we are keeping our promise. In fact, I fear this budget
falls far short of that promise.
Looking at the details, this plan cuts or freezes many elementary and
secondary education programs. It cuts programs to improve teacher
quality at a time when we need them the most, down by $105 million. It
cuts the safe and drug-free schools program, down $102 million. By the
way, these programs are working in our communities. And it freezes
funding for after-school programs when we need after-school programs
more than ever.
However, the truth is that it did not have to be this way. During the
Budget Committee markup, we offered amendments to strengthen education,
to stand with the President on what he wanted in his education bill.
But amendment after amendment to keep the President's promise to leave
no child behind were rejected. Republicans rejected an amendment to
provide $3 billion more for elementary ed programs. They rejected
raising the maximum Pell Grant award for our college students. They
rejected an amendment to allow Head Start to serve 1 million more
children.
While I could argue that education should always be a top priority,
properly investing in education is more critical than ever. A strong
commitment to education is good for the economy, and it is good for
national security. We support the President on the war and homeland
defense. We should be doing more for our children in education.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, there is much in this budget that is not as
it appears. We have just now heard the fact that this actually cuts $90
million from the President's much touted Leave No Child Behind Act. It
cuts back on educational funding. In the area of the environment, the
authors of the budget claim to fully fund the Land and Water
Conservation Fund; but in fact if you remove from this the account that
funds open space and parkland and preserving critical natural
resources, if you remove the items that do not belong in there, that
are added, that are not really new spending, budget accounting
gimmicks, it actually is a reduction. It does not fully fund the Land
and Water Conservation Fund.
With regard to research and development in science, the authors here
have claimed that there is an 11 percent increase. Actually if you do
their math correctly, it is really closer to 8 percent. But then if you
remove the accounting gimmicks, the things that have been added in
there that are not new spending in the National Science Foundation, for
example, the sea grant program and EPA education programs, you find out
that there is really a growth of perhaps 1 percent. This is not enough.
If we shortchange research and development in the United States, we
cannot hope to have the kind of economic growth that the authors of
this budget resolution are counting on in some magic wand way to get us
out of deficit spending. As a Nation we underinvest in research and
development. This budget resolution not only fails to balance, it fails
to fund our Nation's critical needs.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
urge my colleagues to vote against this budget so we can go back to
work and put together a genuine bipartisan plan that truly addresses
the ever-growing needs of our country.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a very distinguished gentleman, who has some
concerns with our budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 3
minutes.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this is the toughest vote
that I have made in my 16 years in Congress, because I campaigned for
this President and made 200 speeches on his behalf in 25 States and
raised a significant amount of money. I do not like to stand up here
and announce that I am going to vote against the budget resolution. I
have the highest respect for the budget chairman. But, Mr. Chairman, my
job in this Congress has been to work on defense issues for our
country. I take it seriously like all of my colleagues do.
I took the President at his word when he announced in his State of
the Union that he would increase defense spending by $48 billion to
make up for the shortfalls of the past decade. But when you analyze
that $48 billion, you end up with a potential increase of $38 billion
because $10 billion is being set aside for some future uncertain time
and need. Of that $38 billion, you end up with about $10 billion to be
used for the shortfalls that we have. The other money is going for
health care costs; it
[[Page H1055]]
is going to make up for the unfair budgeting or the unfair accounting
process that was used during the Clinton administration where they did
not properly account for the cost of the ships and the airplanes that
we ordered but did not pay for. The Rumsfeld leadership is trying to
correct that and make it right, but the bottom line is $10 billion does
not come anywhere near the $25.4 billion shortfall that the service
chiefs have testified this year they need beyond the President's budget
request. My colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services know that.
Mr. Chairman, the shipbuilding accounts, which I heavily criticized
the Clinton administration for over the past 6 years, decrease under
this budget by $1.3 billion. We built 19 ships a year under Ronald
Reagan. We go down to five ships next year. We just heard in a hearing
I chaired, 15,000 more shipbuilders and workers are being laid off.
Tactical aviation, our aircraft, the need is 180 aircraft a year. We
bought 90 last year. This budget has us buying 87 aircraft.
I realize there are other pressures. I realize you have to fund all
the priorities. I am an educator. I want to fund education. I want to
fund the environment and other issues. But we have $10 billion that the
President said was for defense in that $48 billion that all Americans
agree should be spent on the military, and you know as well as I do we
will give the President whatever amount of money he needs for a
supplemental to pay for the war. This Congress voted 420 to one. The
Senate voted 99 to zero. We are not going to deny him whatever he needs
to pay for the war. But this $10 billion needs to go for the shortfall
we have.
I cannot intellectually and honestly stand up here in spite of the
aggressive and successful effort of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Stump) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and my colleagues
who fought this good fight and did get some movement. The President has
now said he will come to us and that $10 billion may have a partial
request for modernization. We do not know how much, and we do not know
when.
Mr. Chairman, because of these reasons, I cannot in good conscience
vote for this budget. President Bush is my President. I support him. It
pains me unbelievably to stand up here and have to say what I am
saying. But my job and the job that you have given me as my colleagues
is to tell you honestly what we need to provide for our military and
this year more than any other our military is being tested. Our
soldiers, sailors and Marines are flying aircraft and working on ships
that we are not properly replacing.
Unfortunately, I tell my colleagues, and I have not lobbied anyone on
my position, that I just cannot in good conscience vote for this bill
and I will vote ``no'' on the budget resolution. I thank the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) for yielding time to me.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the budget
resolution. I wish to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and
the House Committee on the Budget. Just think of it: as a conservative,
I believe we must keep careful watch of the public resources that we
are given. Balancing the Federal budget must be a priority. Because of
the work of the House Committee on the Budget and Chairman Nussle, but
for our recent effort to help hurting families with an unemployment
benefits package, this is a balanced budget. During war and recession,
that is an astonishing accomplishment. We do fund our national defense
and our homeland security as America's priorities.
And this budget demonstrates fiscal discipline. We just heard from
the gentlewoman from Oregon some of what our friends on the other side
of the aisle would like us to be spending more in this budget. The
truth is, of the 17 amendments that the Democrats offered, it totaled
$205 billion in new spending and $175 billion in tax increases to pay
for it. Funding national defense, helping hurting families, cutting
spending rather than raising taxes, are all good reasons to support
this budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve the balance of the
majority's time. We would be prepared then to move to the Joint
Economic Committee's time under the rule.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill).
(Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1745
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I
have a special appreciation for the work our military does in defending
our great country. There should be no doubt, absolutely none, that my
colleagues and I stand behind the President as he prosecutes the war on
terrorism.
However, in a genuine attempt to work with both parties and the
President, I join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Moore) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) in offering a budget
substitute that was denied fair consideration by the Committee on
Rules, even though it included the President's own priorities and
spending levels and simply adjusted them to reflects the CBO's
nonpartisan numbers; fully funded the war on terrorism and homeland
security initiatives; held the line on spending; provided for a clean
debt limit increase; and required the administration to provide a plan
to get our budget back into balance and put Social Security surpluses
off limits.
It is mind-boggling to think that the House leadership could have
opposed these aims. But they did. I am disappointed that our good faith
attempt at cooperation was dismissed, and I urge my colleagues to vote
no on the budget resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) each will control 30 minutes on
the subject of economic goals and policies.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by commending the members of the
Committee on the Budget for the very commendable job they did in
bringing forward this budget proposal, and particularly the hard work
of the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who has worked
untiringly throughout the last 6 months, under difficult circumstances,
I might add, and often without thanks, for bringing this budget
proposal to us. It has been a great job, and I am pleased to stand here
and say that I fully support the bill.
Let me also say that, aside from being the chairman of the Committee
on Joint Economics, I am also one of the senior members of the
Committee on Armed Services, and it is true that the members of the
Committee on Armed Services had some reservations about the budget
because of the way certain monies were being set aside.
I must say that I have a different read of the current situation than
the gentleman who just spoke, however. Throughout the last 48 hours or
so, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) has led us in the
direction of defining what will ultimately happen with that seemingly
elusive $10 billion, and I am perfectly satisfied, after having sat in
the Oval Office with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) and
most of the senior members of the Republican side of the Committee on
Armed Services, to talk with President Bush this morning about what his
intentions are, and his intentions are to recommend that those monies
be spent this year on measures yet to be defined.
I think it is important to point out that the Committee on Armed
Services, upon which I and the just-completed speaker serve, will help
define those needs. That is our job.
I am particularly thankful to the President for taking time to
explain his position to us this morning, and I
[[Page H1056]]
am perfectly well satisfied that those monies can be well spent and
invested in our national security through this mechanism.
So let me turn now to my real reason for being here today, and that
is to try to put into the context what is going on currently with the
economy and how this budget proposal fits into that scenario. The
budget policies under debate today should be considered, I believe, in
the context of the current economic situation and the recent economic
history. In that spirit, I would like to say a few words about where
the economy has been and where it is going.
My remarks will center on five or six areas. First, where we have
been; second, why we got in trouble; third, how the stage was set for
recovery; fourth, how the events of September 11 affected our economy
in the context of setting the stage for recovery; fifth, where I
believe we are now; and, finally, what policies do we need to address
to provide for healthy economic growth in the future, and all that in
the context of this budget.
Where we have been. In the eighties and nineties we had a phenomenon
that many people did not recognize early on in the eighties. We had
almost two complete decades of continuous economic growth.
Beginning in 1984, the economy started to grow, and it grew right on
through 2000, the first half of 2000, and did not begin to slow until
the latter half of 2000. What I said is almost precisely true. There
was a very short and mild recession in the second half of 1990 and the
first half of 1991. It was 8 months long. But aside from that very
short period of interruption in economic growth, that is, and that is
very unusual, the longest period of economic growth in our history, the
most robust period of economic growth in our history, and we ought to
recognize it as being so.
In the middle of 2000 we began to experience a significant slowdown
in economic growth. More specifically, the growth of real Gross
Domestic Product, consumption, investment, manufacturing activity and
employment all began to slow down substantially around mid-2000.
There were several reasons to explain this sharp slowdown. First, the
Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times, 175 basis points in
total. That put a drag on the economy, and it was intended to slow the
economy, because there were certain members of the Federal Reserve
Board who believed that the economy was going to overheat, and so a
conscious effort was made to increase interest rates.
Second, substantial energy costs, particularly oil prices, increased
from early 1999 through 2000, and that additionally created a drag on
the economy.
Third, higher interest rates and higher energy prices worked together
to produce enough drag on the economy that it weakened the somewhat
overvalued stock market, and in turn the downturn in the stock market
had a broad effect on the economy.
Finally, fourth, the tax burden or fiscal drag which was present in
1999 and 2000 also had its weakening effect on the economy.
These factors were all influencing the economy by mid-2000, thus the
seeds for the slowdown were sown prior to mid-2000. Because of long
lags, these factors continued to influence the economy for quite a long
time.
I would also like to talk for a minute about how the stage then in
2001 was set for recovery. As the economy remained sluggish or
continued to weaken, however, these casual factors moderated or unwound
themselves during much of 2001.
For example, the Federal Reserve began to lower interest rates, and,
over the next period of time, lowered short-term interest rates by 475
basis points, a very significant thing in terms of our monetary policy.
Second, energy prices retreated. Happily, as people watched the pump
price, when they went to the gas station prices dropped dramatically,
having a positive effect on the economy or setting the stage for a
recovery.
Then stock prices stopped falling and the stock market stabilized,
again unwinding one of the factors that produced a drag on the economy
the year before.
Finally, the Bush tax cut plan was passed and signed into law in
June, setting the stage for a rejuvenation of consumer and business
rebound. As a consequence, by late summer of 2001, many economists were
expecting a near-term rebound in activity, which began to occur.
The economic impact, however, of the terrorist attacks of September
11 changed this economic outlook in a number of ways. This is very
important. We were set to begin a recovery by the end of the summer of
2001, and had it not been, I believe, for the terrorist attacks, that
recovery would have proceeded forward.
In the short term, after the attacks, the attacks increased
apprehension in the financial markets and adversely affected
consumption and investment as confidence waned. So, over the long term,
as people looked at the decision process of what they were going to do
over the long term, uncertainty created a pessimistic attitude on the
part of business people and others which affected our economy.
Consumption was down, investment was down, and that acted as a new drag
on the economy.
Second, the attacks had a direct adverse impact on certain
industries, most notably the airlines, the travel industry, insurance,
hotels, and, of course, activities that are related to those
businesses.
Also in the long term, increased security costs, it became clear,
would raise the cost of running a business and adversely affect
productivity and earnings.
If you believe, as I do, that an economy has just so much value, and
if, as was true during the eighties and nineties, we were making
investments to increase productivity which in turn helped to build our
economy, and if we now have to divert some of those investment dollars
for security purposes, obviously those purposes, while necessary, do
not create the productivity that investment in technology does. So,
this was a factor which we believe was very important.
Similarly, spending on unnecessary military and security buildup to
some extent crowds out more productive private investment.
Consequently, the terrorist attacks may adversely impact productivity
growth and the economy's long-term potential for growth.
In sum, as a consequence of the terrorist attack the economy was
tipped into recession, as certified by the National Bureau of Economic
Research, which now the recession is said to have begun in March.
Where are we now? Currently the preponderance of evidence suggests
that the economy is finally coming out of the recession. If so, this
recession will be one of the mildest on record. There are reasons for
the rebound, which include the Federal Reserve's lower interest rates
policies, lower energy prices and tax cuts which were put in place.
Recently, for example, most data are being reported as stronger than
expected. For example, real GDP for the fourth quarter was up 1.4
percent, due to particularly strong consumption.
Second, leading indicators are up for the fourth month in a row,
another positive sign.
Third, monthly consumption in retail, in auto sales and personal
income are improving and holding up extremely well.
Fifth, housing continues to hold up very well.
Sixth, payroll employment gains were registered in February for the
first time since last summer. That is right, we gained 66,000 jobs in
payroll gains in the month of February.
Finally, there are even some signs of improvement in manufacturing
activity, which has been the hardest hit sector. The purchasing
managers survey is above 50 and durable goods orders are up, all
positive signs.
Further, prices remain behaved and inflation is currently not a
problem.
The most likely outcome for the economy is to continue to rebound for
at least several more quarters, due in part to inventory rebuilding and
continued low interest rates.
{time} 1800
Let me move now to the future and why this budget and the policies
surrounding it are important.
We should have learned some things from the last 20 years in the
economic growth that we saw, and we should have learned some things
based on what went wrong in 1999 and the first half of 2000.
[[Page H1057]]
Policies. The policies that we need to keep the economy moving are
important, particularly important now, as we consider this budget.
Given these developments, the question is, what types of economic
policies are appropriate to keep the economy moving forward at a
healthy pace without inflation?
I believe there are several policies that foster the favorable set of
circumstances that we need to create.
First of all, we need to recognize that not all of this has to do
with the Congress of the United States; not directly, anyway. The
Federal Reserve, as I noted earlier, had a lot to do with both the
period of economic growth that we had and something to do with the
recession that began or the slowdown that began in 2000.
The Federal Reserve policy of gradually pursuing price stability can
foster growth in a number of ways. Such policy lowers interest rates,
reduces unnecessary uncertainty in the economy, enables the price
system to work better, and acts like a tax cut because it provides for
less cost in doing business.
The second factor that I would point out is that, just as was pointed
out by John Kennedy in 1963 and just as was pointed out by Ronald
Reagan in 1980, low marginal tax rates promote incentives to work,
save, and invest, and to innovate. Entrepreneurial activity is
fostered, and individuals are encouraged to enter market activity. All
this promotes growth without inflation.
So the policies that we saw put in place early in the Bush
administration are extremely important, and that is why we have
advocated for additional stimulus packages by using tax cuts.
Third, and of particular interest in the context of this budget,
government spending constraint had a lot to do with where we were
during particularly the last decade. Keeping government spending
shrinking as a share of GDP enables more economic resources to be
allotted and utilized more efficiently and with productivity in the
private sector, so tax policy remains an extremely important factor, as
well as restraint in government spending.
Fourth, investment in technological innovations, which I alluded to a
few minutes ago, is also extremely important. I will not go into a long
explanation of this, but there is something that economists used to
refer to which is called the Phillips curve, which says that
essentially we cannot have long-term economic growth without inflation.
That is because when the economy reaches full employment, because there
is a continued demand for labor and a very limited supply, it produces
upward wage pressures. Those upward wage pressures are inflationary.
We proved that not to be true in the 1980s and 1990s. It is not true,
it did not happen, and the reason we believe it did not happen is
because we were successful, as entrepreneurs and as members of society,
with introducing new forms of technology that helped productivity,
which relieved the pressure on labor costs.
So investment in technology and promoting investment in these things,
and innovation, can add productive capacity, thereby allowing for
sustained economic expansion without inflation.
Finally, foreign markets play a continuing important role in our
understanding of how to promote growth in our economy. Reducing tariff
barriers and promoting open markets increases the size of the
international sector, and all this helps with economic growth while
fostering lower prices.
Increased international integration enables the economy to take
advantage of larger markets and become more specialized and more
efficient, productive, and competitive. This allows the economy to
produce more goods with the same or less input, and to grow faster
without inflation; the remarkable strategies that were used by the
government, by the private sector, and by the Fed during the eighties
and nineties.
Finally, the economic data released in recent weeks suggests the
recession appears to be over and the recovery is now under way. In
terms of budgetary policy, this means that we can expect the same kinds
of things to happen in the future growth period that happened during
the last growth period in terms of Federal revenue.
The economic outlook looks positive, and with sound policies in
place, longer term prospects for an extended, sustained expansion look
promising. The budget resolution sustains the Bush tax cuts and
provides for restraint in Federal domestic spending.
Policies that will enhance the prospect for economic growth are
present in this budget. I hope in the future we can also agree to make
the tax incentives enacted in 2001 permanent, and maximize their
positive effect on economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle) be permitted to control the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Joint Economic Committee has been granted the
debate on the budget message since the passage of the Full Employment
and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 authored by Senator Hubert Humphrey and
Congressman Gus Hawkins, and it is our duty to present the views on the
current state of the U.S. economy and provide input into the budget
debate before us.
Members have just heard the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Saxton) give us a tremendous amount of economic data and explain
very succinctly his opinion of what it will take to get the country
growing again.
I am proud to be here today to continue the tradition begun by
Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins. However, the budget before us
is not one of which either of those gentlemen would be proud.
Rather than leading us down an economic path of balanced growth and
full employment, the budget before us today is nothing more than a
political document seeking to hide the fact that the House Republicans'
fiscal irresponsibility has led us into deficit spending for years to
come, and endangers the future of Medicare, Social Security, and our
children's education because the trust funds for the two programs for
the elderly are used to finance the misplaced priorities of the
Republican Party and their fat cat contributors, and the Leave No Child
Behind Act has not been left with enough money for a bus ticket to
bring the children along.
What this budget is is a document that outlines the Republicans'
philosophy, and that is to reduce government and pay no attention to
the poor or the disadvantaged among us.
It is interesting that the louder they talk about free enterprise,
the more we find that very few of my Republican colleagues have ever
had a job in a company they did not inherit, except at the public
trough. And the louder they scream about free enterprise, the more we
will find they probably earned their money at the expense of taxpayers,
and probably we will benefit very little from these $1.5 trillion tax
cuts they passed out but it will go to their rich contributors, for
whom they seem to spend all their time working in the House to protect,
because they certainly are not doing anything to help the people who
depend on Social Security or Medicare.
Last year, for example, the House passed the Social Security Lockbox
Act by a vote of 407 to 2. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) voted
for the bill, and said on the House floor, ``This legislation prevents
Congress from using the Social Security and Medicare surpluses to cut
taxes or increase spending.'' My goodness.
And the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) during last
year's budget debate on the floor said, ``The bottom line is that the
HI trust fund is part of the larger fund, and it can be only used for
Medicare. And it can be used for Medicare reform, but the Democrats
voted for a lockbox, as did we, by a vote of 407 to 2. Everybody voted
for it, and the money will stay in the trust fund and it will only be
used for Medicare and Medicare reform, so that is just that,'' said the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Apparently the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) were wrong about the effects of that
legislation, and apparently they no longer care about protecting Social
Security and the Medicare trust funds.
I hope the voters in their districts in Connecticut and Florida will
ask them,
[[Page H1058]]
because I am sure that they will both support this Republican budget
today; I challenge them not to. And the budget today will decimate the
Medicare and Social Security trust funds.
So here we have the Republicans talking about the lockbox, and they
are voting and they are going to vote tonight, Mr. Chairman, to destroy
Medicare and Social Security.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) opposed amendments to the economic
stimulus bill recently.
We had an amendment to extend an increase of employment benefits for
displaced workers. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) voted no and
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) voted no.
We had a bill or an amendment to extend COBRA coverage with a 75
percent subsidy. Both of these stalwart Republicans voted no on that.
We had an amendment to make tax cuts contingent upon not breaking
into the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. The gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)
both voted no.
So, as I say, Mr. Chairman, the budget here tonight is a farce; it is
a sham; it is a joke. The Republicans are here to undermine critical
Federal programs so they can give tax cuts to their rich fat cat
friends. Who are the losers? Seniors, children, women, working
families, poor people, immigrants, the homeless, the environment. The
list goes on.
Last year we added we had a $5.6 trillion surplus, and now, after a
faltering economy and an enormous tax cut, the surplus is gone. This
budget eats up 86 percent of the Social Security surplus over the next
5 years, the entire Medicare trust fund is obliterated for the next
decade, and just last year, the Republicans were passing Social
Security and Medicare lockboxes to protect these trust funds.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the lockboxes are gone. They not only threw away
the key, they gave a duplicate to every one of the rich fat cats who
have been supporting their campaigns. There is no drug benefit, there
is no education benefit. We are leaving a lot of children behind.
Do Members know what they are going to do? They are going to say, let
us have everybody get married. That will resolve the problem of poverty
among the poor. What I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, is that poor
people, having them get married just gives us a poor couple.
Mr. Chairman, we have education gone, special education funds gone,
TANF money increases gone.
Housing? The Republicans think that the homeless, when the weather is
nice, are campers, so they would offer them youth hostels, not money
for housing. We have here an example of the arrogance of the people who
care only for a few rich people in this country turning their backs on
the people that the Democrats are trying to help and protect.
Would I raise taxes? In a New York minute. Would I do away with the
inheritance tax repeal that the Republicans made to give a few thousand
people $40 billion while they will not give the rest of the people drug
benefits? You bet.
It is time we start seeing what the American people want. Do they
want a few rich fat cats helped, or do they want to continue to see
Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security as some of the safety nets
for the seniors?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Joint Economic Committee.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I wish to lift this debate above the
grotesque ad hominem quality we have been hearing too much on the floor
today and focus instead on the real direction this budget takes us in.
I have to say, Mr. Chairman, it is important that people understand
that I came here in 1994 with the first conservative and the first
fiscally responsible Republican majority in my lifetime. At the time we
inherited the House, we discovered that we had deficits as far as the
eye could see.
In those 8 years, we have seen a radical change in the landscape
because we have had a fiscally conservative Congress not spending on
impulse, like the previous Congress had. We have trimmed the deficit,
we have cut taxes, we have encouraged economic growth.
What is particularly important, Mr. Chairman, we have made a
commitment to stay within a range of fiscal responsibility and activity
that has allowed us to balance two budgets, and now this year we face
the acid test: Can we maintain fiscal discipline under very adverse
circumstances.
As this budget evidences, we can do that. Our answer is yes. This is
a budget that will meet America's needs while keeping us on a path to
balancing the budget as we come out of the recession.
As the Treasury Secretary testified before our Committee on Ways and
Means, it is important to understand, the United States has never run a
surplus during a recession. The last time someone tried that was
Herbert Hoover, and it did not work very well.
{time} 1815
And we have never run a surplus during war time. Well, Mr. Chairman,
we are in the midst of a serious conflict, and we are trying to work
our way out of a recession. And in that context this budget keeps us on
a path to a balanced budget. The projected deficit is less than 1
percent of GDP. For most of the other industrialized nations that
deficit would be a marvel. And it proves that this budget maintains
sensible funding levels. It is a fiscally responsible budget.
Contrary to what we have heard here today, despite the over-heated
partisan rhetoric, this takes care of our social needs by funding
Medicare with a prescription drug benefit and funding highway projects
while adequately funding our national defense. It keeps outside a
growth path by preserving tax cuts. We have heard them abominated here
today, but the fact is that we need to have a continuing commitment to
tax relief in order to provide economic opportunities for millions of
Americans. As this country entered into the recession, American working
families were suffering under the largest tax burden in history. And I
do not doubt that some on the other side would raise taxes in a New
York minute.
According to the Joint Economic Committee study: ``Delaying, reducing
or rescinding the tax cuts for working families would only reduce
economic growth.'' This budget spends money responsibly while not
punishing working Americans with back-door tax hikes.
Now today we have heard a lot of very unrealistic figures being
thrown around by the other side, but that does not change the fact that
this budget reflects the priorities of America and the priorities of
the Bush administration. It is virtually unprecedented, Mr. Chairman,
that the minority lacks the unit and focus and leadership to offer its
own budget blueprint. The majority had the courage and leadership to
stand up and offer a workable budget blueprint. We met the needs of
working families and workers facing the challenge of finding good-
paying jobs.
By contrast, the other party finds itself unable to be all things to
all people, and accordingly, has recoiled from offering its own budget.
We must support critical homeland security initiatives, fully fund
highway and highway safety programs, and provide for the needs of our
military. This budget does it, and I hope all of my colleagues will
join us in supporting this difficult, but important, compromise.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, it is March madness like I have never seen
it before. But I am not talking about college basketball. I am talking
about the budget free-fall off the deficit deep end that the
Republicans are creating for our country. This creates a $46 billion 1-
year deficit. President Bush still has an $800 billion tax break,
mostly for the wealthy, still pending in his budget. What is
sacrificed? Well, the Social Security trust fund is sacrificed. It is
not put in a lock box. It is allowed to be looted. Prescription drugs,
it underfunds the promise the Republicans made to seniors on
prescription drugs. Education, it undercuts by 60 percent the money
that was supposed to have been spent on the poor children in our
country.
[[Page H1059]]
And where did the March madness begin? It began a year ago when the
Republicans said we can have a $1.7 trillion tax cut and it will not
effect the Social Security trust fund; it will not effect the Medicare
trust fund. But what is happening now? They are both hemorrhaging. This
is Enron-onomics. It takes from the poor, from their pension funds,
from their health care funds while the wealthy walk off with the vast
bulk of the wealth that was being created by everyone.
The greatest generation in nursing homes, the greatest generation
with health care bills. And what are we telling them? We are going to
loot their social security trust funds, their Medicare trust fund.
March madness. I will tell you who will be mad. The seniors will be
mad, they will be angry, they will be outraged when they find out that
the Republicans rather than shoring up Medicare, Medicaid. Medicare,
half of all the seniors in nursing homes are on Medicaid because they
have Alzheimer's. Where is the money 10 years from now for those
seniors with Alzheimer's, for those seniors with Parkinsons? Where is
the money? Where is the budgeting?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself half a minute.
Where is your plan? Where is the plan? This is a terrible crisis, it
sounds like the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) just laid
out, and you would think the great Democratic Party would come forward
with a plan to take us out of this crisis. What do they do? They run to
the floor and play politics, they run to the floor and scare seniors,
they run to the floor and what do they propose? Absolutely nothing. If
we are in a crisis, where is your plan? If we need solutions, where is
your budget? If Americans want answers, where are your answers? You
have none.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, and I came back to the floor when my friend, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), was talking about seniors;
and he made me very concerned because he was not talking about our
budget. There is nothing in this budget that reduces funding for
Medicaid. In fact, Medicaid increases. There is nothing in this budget
that reduces funding for Social Security. In fact, the trust fund is
totally protected. All that has happened since I have been in Congress
in the last years with regard to Social Security is two things: one,
the Republican-led Congress increased the earnings limit to let people
who want to work who are seniors keep their Social Security money. So
it increased benefits. The second is in 1993 Bill Clinton proposed
reducing benefits by increasing taxes on Social Security beneficiaries.
That is all we have done. Otherwise, we have retained the guarantee in
law that the social security trust fund is sacrosanct, and it is.
The tax cut last year had nothing to do with the Social Security
trust fund. It did not touch the Social Security trust fund. The
question is very simply, Are we going to use a surplus to pay down more
debt, which is what we have been doing? And we paid down almost a half
trillion dollars worth of debt.
I think the seniors out there deserve to get a little truth and
honesty in budgeting. What we have done over the last 4 or 5 years is
we have reduced the national debt by using the surplus to pay down the
debt, and I am all for that. Now we are in a situation where because of
the recession and a lowering of receipts and because of the need for us
to fund the war on terrorism and protect this country, we are, instead
of using more money to pay down the debt, using some money to defend
this country and increase our economic performance in the future. That
is the facts. None of this relates to the Social Security trust fund.
I am on the Committee on Ways and Means. I work on these issues, as
does the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark); and he knows as I know,
as does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), that the trust fund is
sacrosanct. We cannot and will not touch the trust fund. The question
is what we do with the surplus. In this budget we in a very responsible
way deal with the three issues we have facing this Congress. One is
national security, increasing defense, the biggest increase in 20
years. Second is homeland defense. We more than double what we need for
homeland defense. And the third is economic security, including
retirement security.
And that same tax relief bill that the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey) talked about as hurting retirement security, helped
retirement security. It provided substantial resources for all of our
seniors to be able to save more for their own retirement by letting
them save more in their IRAs, 401(k)s, defined benefit plans. It
increased economic security. It did not risk our seniors' economic
security. This is a sound budget.
I urge my colleagues to support it because in fact it keeps the
promise to our seniors. It does not touch Social Security. It does not
touch Medicare except for an unprecedented $350 billion increase in
Medicare funding. More than the United States Senate, with almost every
Democrat voting for it, proposed to increase just a year ago. This is
something that is unprecedented, to allow our seniors to have
prescription drug coverage and to modernize Medicare. This will
increase the kind of retirement security we want to provide for all our
seniors.
I urge my colleagues to strongly support this budget. Do what is
right by our seniors and vote ``yes'' today.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 20
minutes remaining of this hour. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle)
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am about to yield a few seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey), who realizes that the Democrats had a plan that they took
to the Committee on Rules that was not made in order. They had several
amendments, none of which were made in order. So we are operating under
a gag rule. Our plan and amendments were not allowed. This is kind of
the fascism of democracy that operates in a Republican-controlled
Committee on Rules. The gentleman from Massachusetts also understands
that it is a good thing that lawyers do not teach economics.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
We are operating under an economic plan, the Republican plan of last
June. It is only 8 months ago. They said we have plenty of money for a
$1.7 trillion tax break. It would not affect our ability to deal with
Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or education. Eight months
later with the wealthy taking the bulk of the $1.7 trillion, the
greatest generation are now looking out 5 and 10 years from now with
our nursing homes flooded with 91 percent of all nursing homes with
inadequate care, and no additional funding in order to deal with that
long term. That is not right.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget said a couple of minutes ago that we had no plan, but we do have
a plan. It is a very simple one. The plan is to defeat this budget
resolution which is oppressing the American people and bring to the
floor of this House a budget resolution that makes sense; one that does
not do what this budget resolution does, which is to invade the Social
Security trust fund every year over the course of the next decade.
A decade from now under this plan the Social Security trust fund will
have $1.5 trillion less than it has today because this budget
resolution invades the social security trust fund every year over the
course of the next decade.
This year it spends every dime of the surplus in the Medicare budget.
So our principal objection to this budget, first of all, is it does not
play straight. It does not play fair. It is not honest with the
numbers. And it jeopardizes Social Security and Medicare at a time when
we are going to be calling upon those programs because of the larger
numbers of retirees that are coming into play. Furthermore, this budget
resolution does not live up to its promises. It
[[Page H1060]]
takes money out of education. We promised money to the State for
increased education funding. It does not deliver on that. And it makes
virtually impossible a prescription drug program for the elderly.
All of that so it can continue the ruse, the farce, that we can
afford the $1.7 trillion tax cut which you rammed through this Congress
last year. The money just is not there. And you want to continue to pay
for that tax cut and the only way that you can do it is by borrowing
money from the Social Security trust fund, $1.5 trillion over the next
10 years, and taking all of the surplus out of Medicare, and by failing
to deliver on the promises of health care and education which you have
made. That is our plan: get a real budget on this floor.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, Republicans who control the House denied
the most responsible fiscally conservative Members of the Democratic
Party the right to their alternatives on this floor. You act as a big
bully, and now you want to hold it out there as where is your
alternatives, where is your suggestions. No matter how you want to
paint it, a deficit is a deficit is a deficit; and the Republican
budget is swimming in red ink and broken promises. President Bush and
every Republican leader promised that they were committed to a balanced
budget.
{time} 1830
President Bush and every Republican leader promised that they would
put the Social Security surplus in a lockbox and never use it again for
other spending, but today, no matter, one thing my colleagues do deny
is that Republicans want to take a sledge hammer to that lockbox so
they can bust it open and loot the money that hardworking Americans
have spent a lifetime contributing. It is that bad and it is that ugly.
The Republicans are doing this because they believe it is the only
way that they can cover up the deficits they created as far as the eye
can see, and that is why they are only giving us 5-year numbers instead
of the 10-year numbers and that is why they are using the overly
optimistic OMB estimates instead of nonpartisan CBO numbers.
Democrats spent 8 years putting this Nation on a sound fiscal course,
and it has taken Republicans 14 months to undo that. Now they want to
blame the recession for everything, but no one here or in the country
really believes that this recession can be blamed for deficits 10 years
from now.
The fact is we Democrats saved enough for a rainy day like this, but
the Republicans spent every penny of it on an irresponsible economic
plan, leaving few priorities that they claim to support like education,
prescription drug coverage for seniors and environmental protection.
So vote against fiscal irresponsibility. Vote against red ink and
deficits. Vote against looting the Social Security and Medicare, and
vote against this budget resolution.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I think the plan is starting to materialize. I have
been saying the Democrats do not have a plan, but what they are against
was the tax cut. Okay. Their plan is to raise taxes. We are starting to
see the plan. Starting to see the plan. Raise taxes on the American
people. If it is not that, one would think they would come forward with
an alternative.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who understands that our plan
would only raise taxes on the 1 or 2 percent of the very richest people
in this country who the Republicans gave the $1.4 billion tax cut to.
It would help low income people for whom the Republicans do not really
care.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate both of these
fine gentlemen for setting the table for me because the comments I have
to make play right into this. I did, during the debate, try to prepare
my constituents for this possibility. The problem is that nobody
believed what I was saying, and I guess I even had trouble believing it
myself. How could over $5 trillion in surpluses, projected surpluses
disappear within 1 year? I mean, it was impossible for anybody to
comprehend that.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Iowa would allow me to control my
time, that would be helpful to me.
The problem is nobody would believe that this was even possible, but
I want to just go through the facts.
This administration has been in office just over 1 year. We had $3.12
trillion, not even including the Social Security surplus projected as a
surplus for the next 10 years, and 1 year later it is gone.
Despite the administration's claims that this is all about September
11 or some economic downturn, over 40 percent of that vanishing surplus
is due to the tax cut, and the commitment to hold Social Security in a
lockbox has vanished. There is no commitment anymore.
A year and a half ago, we were out there worrying about whether or
not we were going to pay the debt down too fast in this country and
whether that would be detrimental. What are we doing now? We are
talking about another trillion dollars or more in additional interest
on debt over the next 10 years.
This is all in 1 year. So why could not my constituents believe it?
Nobody could believe that this could happen in 1 year. What is the
plan? We played out the plan over the last 8 years, and you have done
away with it within 1 year. You have done away with it. So if you want
to know the plan, the plan is to get you all out of office so that we
can have some responsibility in this place again. That is the plan, and
I think the American people will understand that that is the plan.
The seniors, the children, the people who care about the environment,
they will understand what the plan is when we worked so hard to put
this country back on sound economic footing, and you will not even
allow a proposed amendment to come to the floor, and you have got the
nerve to come in here and say where is your plan. Where is the rule
that allows anybody to offer a plan? The Blue Dogs cannot offer a plan.
The Black Caucus cannot offer a plan. The Democratic Caucus cannot
offer a plan because your rule does not allow any plan other than the
demise of this country. That is what your plan is and the American
people know what your plan is. They understand.
Now, do you want to give more tax cuts to wealthy people? This is
about priorities. This is about priorities. We can either give more tax
cuts to wealthy people or we can give better education. We can give
more tax cuts or we can give more assistance to prevent AIDS from
spreading around the world. We can give more tax cuts to wealthy people
or we can do more employment training so people who have been laid off
by this recession, so that they can get some jobs. That is what this is
all about, and our plan is to get rid of this administration and bring
some responsibility back to government.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I rest my case. We are seeing the plan develop before our very eyes.
The gentleman said it. Get us out of office, raise taxes and then
increase spending. Increase taxes, increase spending; increase taxes,
increase spending. Here we go again. Do not tell me my colleagues do
not have a plan. They have got a plan. It is called tax and spend.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who had a plan to offer and was denied in a
rather fascist manner his right to offer amendments here and led by the
example by our new Attorney General who feels trampling on the
Constitution is the way that fascist governments should run and I guess
the way we are going under the Republican leadership, but we will let
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) tell us what his plan was and
what the Republicans refused to allow him.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, could the Record be read back? Did the
gentleman just call our government a fascist government? I am just
wondering
[[Page H1061]]
if that was what was just said on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, no. I talked about the fascist wing of the
Republican Party.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, excuse me?
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the fascist wing of the Republican Party.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, that we are in a time of
war and the President called for unity, and in that spirit, four of us,
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and myself, went to
the Committee on Rules last night and asked that this amendment be made
in order.
Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003, we used
their numbers, the Republican numbers. We offered this using their
numbers. We offered to extend the debt ceiling till the end of this
fiscal year without any strings attached save one, that was that we
would be able to review the numbers in August when the CBO numbers come
out again to see if we are on the right track and what they say today
is actually coming to fact and coming to fruition. We were denied that.
That is a plan. This is a budget that we tried to offer last night. Not
in order.
People watching may wonder, why is all this arguing going on. I want
to tell them. Only the majority can make a legislative body bipartisan.
The minority cannot do that. We are like a jackrabbit in a hailstorm,
all we can do is just hunker down and take it, and if my colleagues do
not want to be bipartisan, when we offer a budget based on their
numbers, offering to extend the debt ceiling, without the approval
really of our leadership and they turn us down and then come here today
and say there is no plan, we do not have plan. Some of us did, I tell
my friends. I saw naked raw partisanship work when I was in the
majority here and my colleagues are practicing that today when they
deny us the ability to at least debate using their numbers, a different
approach.
People are not dumb in this country. They know unfair partisanship
when they see it, and if they insist on keeping on doing this, we are
going to have a very difficult time solving the problems that the
people of this country face.
So I would just tell my colleagues that I am very disappointed in the
way this debate has gone today, and I hope we can do better in the
future.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
The very distinguished gentleman who just spoke, his plan does not
raise taxes. I thought the plan was to raise taxes. That is what the
last four gentlemen just said, to raise taxes. The gentleman basically
came to the Committee on Rules with my budget and a trigger.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, we submitted a budget proposal, concurrent
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 2003, using my colleagues'
numbers and they were denied. How can my colleague say there is no
plan. At least four of us had a plan, and now they come here and say
our plan is to raise taxes. Our plan was not to raise taxes. Their plan
was. All we asked was to review the numbers in August to see if what
they say today is coming true, and we were not even allowed to do that,
and naked partisanship is going to get my colleagues in trouble
eventually. Got this side in trouble.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who understands democracy
and the right of debate and free speech.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, here we are for round three of the shell
game.
This is Humphrey-Hawkins, and we are supposed to be talking about
employment. We have got people who are getting off welfare, right? We
have got all these women, we want them to go out there, and we are
increasing the number of hours they have to work. So we are getting
them out there, staying away from their kids even longer.
HHS says under this shell are 15 million children who need day care.
Under this shell we find out what the Republicans take care of, 2.7
million children. One would think that if there were 15 million who
needed it and they were only covering 2.7 million that they would put
in some additional money. I mean they are not going to leave any child
behind certainly. They really do care about children. I have heard them
come out here and get almost weepy eyed over children, but there is
only 2.7 million.
What is under this shell? Nothing. They flat-lined it. They said the
money we gave last year is exactly what we are giving this year. What
that means, according to the Children's Defense Fund, is 30,000 more
kids are going to be out from under this shell. They are not going to
be covered by day care, and at the end of 10 years of this they are
going to have 114,000 more kids if they keep flat-lining it.
Now, we can try and confuse people, but when a mother leaves the
house in the morning and she is going off to a job, she wants to work,
raise her level of dignity. She feels good about herself, but she does
not feel good and cannot concentrate on what she is doing if she does
not know her kid is in good child care, and if we do not supplement
what people making $7 an hour in those jobs making beds in the hotels
are making, they cannot get good child care.
Do not come out here with that rhetoric about leave no child behind.
Vote no on this resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 6 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Would the gentleman from Washington look under one of those shells
and see if there is a Democratic plan? I mean they are leaving the
entire country behind by not having a plan. The entire country is left
behind by the Democrats today. Please look under that shell and look
for a Democratic plan.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Watts), the very distinguished chairman of the Republican
Conference.
{time} 1845
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I have heard a lot over the last couple of hours
about what the Republican budget does not do, and it is ironic that in
this budget we take care of IDEA, which we have been fighting for; we
take care of seniors and prescription drugs; we protect the homeland
security; we do things for national security; we do things to try to
get some growth in the economy.
So I continue to ask the question, Where is the Democrats' plan?
Where is their budget? And the fact is they have no budget. That tells
the American people there is no vision.
I just want to share something. I could come up here and I would not
have to say a word but point out what the Democrats are doing, because
they have nothing. Wanted: Democrat budget plan. Suspected of raising
taxes on American families; increasing wasteful Washington spending.
And I could go on forever. Again, I ask the question, Where do we go
from here? Give me a plan on what you propose to win the war against
terrorism. Give me a plan. It is easy to beat up ours, but give me
something to show where you want to take the Nation.
Again I ask you the question, What do you want to do to secure the
homeland? Are you going to raise taxes? Are you going to cut other
programs? What are you going to do?
Give me a fiscal break. What are you going to do to protect America's
homeland? Again, I ask the question, since we have taken care of
families, we have done things to try to grow the economy, what is the
Democrats' plan to grow the economy? Give me a fiscal break. If you are
going to beat us up, give us your plan.
We have seen nothing over the last 2 hours, over the last 2 weeks,
over the last 2 months. We have seen nothing.
Again, I ask the Democrats, What do you do to help workers? I see
nothing in your budget. I have seen no budget
[[Page H1062]]
that you have submitted. I have seen no vision you have provided.
Again, do you want to raise taxes? Do you want to cut programs? Do you
want to take care of workers? What do you do to take care of workers?
No vision. No budget.
What are you going to do for prescription drugs? We have money in our
budget to take care of that need. Again, are you going to raise taxes;
cut programs somewhere? Are you going to cut national defense? Give me
a fiscal break. If you are going to beat us up, give us your plan.
Nothing for prescription drugs. Again I ask, Where is your plan for
health care? No plan. Are you going to raise taxes? Are you going to
increase wasteful Washington spending? Are you going to cut homeland
security? Are you going to cut national security, the defense budget?
What are you going to do to take care of the health care needs?
No plan. No budget. No vision. No nothing. My colleagues just come to
the floor and beat us up over the things that we have done trying to
help people. What are you going to do for Social Security? Nothing.
Zilch. Not nothing. Not nothing do you do. No budget. No vision.
Give me a fiscal break. If you are going to beat us up over our
budget, surely somebody's got a budget of their own; surely somebody's
got some vision in that party; the great party that once said ``All we
have to fear is fear itself.'' Now all you have to offer is fear
itself.
Give me a fiscal break. Offer your plan. No budget. No vision. Case
closed.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has 6 minutes
remaining on the subject of economic goals and policies.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), who understands that gagging
people and preventing them the right to speech is not incumbent in our
democracy, and remembers a time when not all people in this country
were allowed to speak out. The Republicans obviously are reverting to
those times because they are afraid to hear another plan.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I wish the gentleman from Oklahoma had been here 3 hours ago when we
were asking for a chance to speak, to present a budget, to not be
gagged, to have a chance under the rules of the House of
Representatives, the people's House, to debate. But under the
Republican rule, which manages and controls all the time, we do not
have an opportunity to present any plan because my colleagues will not
give us a chance to present any plan. So what we have to deal with is
what you give us.
I remember 2 years ago we had a President who said, and this was
during harder times, he said we are going to save Social Security
first. It seems now we have a President and colleagues on the other
side who say because we have hard economic times, and because we have
to pass a budget, we have to take from Social Security first; take
these tax cuts, that will go mostly to the well-to-do and large
corporations, like Enron; take from Social Security first to fund
programs like Star Wars, and you are going to take from education.
Mr. President, please explain to me why you will not fund drug-free
school programs. Mr. President, please explain to me why you will not
fund dropout prevention programs in our schools. Mr. President, please
explain why you and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
not fund school construction monies so we can build more schools in our
overcrowded systems. Mr. President, please explain to me why we gutted
the monies for classroom size reduction so our kids would not have to
be 30 in a classroom to learn.
Take from Social Security first? I intend to try to save Social
Security first. And if I had a chance to present a budget, I would show
you how we could save Social Security first. But you do not. Instead,
we have a security blanket that is thrown around this budget.
Everything is security.
Well, by your raiding Social Security and Medicare by about $1
trillion, we could fund eight wars on terrorism. Instead, we are giving
money to the well-to-do and corporations like Enron. Vote against this
budget because it does not deserve our vote and the American people do
not want it.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members to address their remarks
to the Chair and not to the President.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
budget.
The budget before us today reflects a failure to meet the promises
made to members of the House Education and the Workforce Committee as
we worked to make the compromises needed to create a bipartisan
education reauthorization bill known as The No Child Left Behind Act.
One of the key issues was that if we voted to require extensive
testing by all schools in the country in order to achieve
accountability, we would also supply funding to support the improved
teaching that may be needed to help school districts achieve their
required goals and avoid expensive penalties. However, this budget cuts
The No Child Left Behind Act by $90 million.
It is unconscionable that programs have been cut that were integral
to members agreeing to the compromises that led to passage of the Act.
Yet, forty programs would be terminated. These include such critical
support for children as funding for elementary and secondary school
counseling. A second area of support called for in the Act is to place
qualified teachers in every classroom; however, the budget eliminates
teacher technology training. The list of terminated programs includes
the National Writing Project, which gives teachers experience in
improving their writing and models best practices. It also cuts funding
for another program that sets the standard for identifying accomplished
teaching, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, which
administers a highly lauded national process for identifying the
highest quality teachers.
I have selected just these few examples of eliminated programs that
would improve teaching quality so that indeed no child would be left
behind. But this budget decreases resources for teachers by 4 percent
and eliminates high-quality training for 18,000 teachers.
Many members of the House wanted the opportunity to vote to provide
funding for a much older federal mandate which has been shamelessly
under-supported since 1975, special education. Yet, we have not even
been allowed to show our support for phasing in this commitment over a
period of years. The modest increase in funding contained in this
budget is only a third of the amount that real commitment would offer.
Although the Education and Workforce Committee will be working on the
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in
the next Congress, there is no justification for holding this funding
commitment hostage in order to implement whatever needed reforms may be
agreed to by Congress at that time.
The list of other gaping holes in this budget for education is long--
freezing funding rather than providing the $500 million called for in
the No Child Left Behind Act to support the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers, which provide safe, healthy places for children to
learn after school.
While the bill is targeted at the lowest income, lowest performing
children, the key portions of that effort contained in Title I are
woefully under-funded while the number of poor children mushrooms.
There are no funds to subsidize interest on school modernization
bonds needed to address the $127 billion backlog in school repairs,
again a program that many members supported.
Finally, high quality child care must be available to enable more
children to be ready to learn when they reach kindergarten. Yet, this
budget freezes child care funding. What will be the value in
reauthorizing the child care block grant this year, when we are told in
advance that long overdue reforms cannot be made because there are no
additional funds?
As members should be aware, virtually every national education
support organization--such as the Parent Teachers Association, the
National School Boards Association, and the 100-member consortium of
education organizations called the Committee for Education Funding--
have expressed their outrage at the inadequate funding for education in
this budget.
Is this what our constituents want? Clearly not. A study released
yesterday, conducted by the Ipsos-Reid polling and research
organization, reported that education was, by a wide
[[Page H1063]]
margin, the highest national priority for spending on non-military or
homeland security programs. An astonishing 85 percent agreed that a
good reason to increase federal spending on education was that ``our
national security depends on our ability to successfully equip our
children with the skills and knowledge they will need to function in
today's increasing complex world.''
The public supports a substantial increase in spending. Their
commitment to our children must start with this budget so that no
longer will so many be left behind.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, there are some of us who remember this world in the
1930s, when Hitler suspended the Bundestag to promulgate conservative
ideology and not let people speak. It is a shame that the Republicans
in the House, Mr. Chairman, have taken up that same ideology and are
denying a chance for debate and open discussion of a budget. It does
smack of fascism; and it is too bad, because the American people will
recognize that and understand that in a free economy, and in a free
country that created programs like Social Security and Medicare and
special education and aid for dependent children and aid for people who
are unable to care for themselves, for the disabled, that to deny them
care is obscene.
I think it will be quite clear that, for whatever reason, whether it
is deficits or anything else, that the overwhelming desire of the
Republican Party is to destroy programs in the Federal Government,
except those few intended for the very wealthy.
Most of the colleagues who are screaming about the war never wore a
uniform other than the Boy Scout uniform. And I would like to suggest,
as I said before, none of them have worked in free enterprise, which
they tout so loudly. And yet, because that is where the campaign
contributions come from, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, that
is where their allegiance is. They are forsaking the seniors who need
health care and who need an economic safety net. They are forsaking our
children by denying them the chance to come along and get an education.
I am sure the American public is going to recognize this, and I am
sure they are going to recognize it when they see wasteful money spent
on things like Star Wars, which will not work, and programs which do
nothing except to pay for large defense contractors, who are related to
former Republican Presidents, and I think they are going to see that
this is an obscene, corrupt, and undemocratic attempt to harm those
people who are most fragile in this country only to benefit the 1 or 2
percent of the very wealthiest. And I hope my colleagues will vote down
this budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I ask unanimous consent that he be
allowed to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining and
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 9\1/2\ minutes
remaining on the debate on the congressional budget.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and
colleague for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is irresponsible, irrational, and
just plain wrong. It is a sham, it is a shame, and it is a disgrace.
The Republican budget buries us in a pile of debt and puts us in a
much deeper financial hole; and it is the obligation of the
Republicans, the majority party, to dig us out.
The Republicans have destroyed the lock box and thrown away the key.
Mr. Chairman, Social Security is a sacred trust, a covenant with the
American people. It is a promise that should never, ever be broken. But
the Republican budget spends $225 billion of the Social Security trust
fund on other government programs.
Social Security is a safety net for many Americans, allowing them to
live with dignity. But the Republican budget takes away that safety
net. Republicans are stealing the Social Security trust fund. The
Republicans are taking the security out of Social Security.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues tonight to vote for the
people, vote for the old folks, vote for the disabled, and vote against
the Republican budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of strong words, I
think even sometimes inappropriate words, disturbing, extreme words
this evening, as we have been discussing this budget, particularly from
the other side.
All of us agree that these are unusual times. It is a time for tough
decisions, a time that defines people. Do they rise to the occasion, or
do they cower when they should stand tall? Do they sit quietly when
they should speak? Do they freeze when they should lead? I am amazed
this evening that at a time like this the Democrats have not stood,
they have not spoken, and they have not led. At a time when your
country needs vision, they have none.
This year's budget reflects the tough decisions of those willing to
lead when events call for a clear vision and clear priorities. Our
budget meets the demands of these historic times and provides for our
national defense, it provides for homeland security, and it provides
for personal security.
Let me talk about health care just briefly. Our plan provides $350
billion to expand and enhance Medicare; to provide a prescription drug
plan for our seniors, which is needed; to provide for the reform of
Medicare. Would we like to add more? Yes.
{time} 1900
But we have added a very reasonable amount. If Members look at
prescription drugs, approximately 72 percent of our seniors are covered
by prescription drugs. Yet the only thing that we have heard from the
other side of the aisle is a plan that would control everything in the
medicine box of our seniors, and would displace this money that already
provides prescription drugs with an increase in taxes or an increase in
deficit.
We also have expanded and enhanced our community health centers,
which provide health care for those who fall through the cracks. We
have expanded health care for the poor, the children, and the
uninsured. We have increased funding for research by doubling the
funding for NIH, and we have provided fiscal responsibility.
The other night in the Committee on the Budget when Democrats offered
a string of amendments, the sum of those amendments would have
increased our deficit by $200 billion. That is why we do not see them
offering a budget. That is why we did not see them offering a budget
when we marked it up during the committee. If we combined all of those
amendments, it would require us to increase taxes by $150 billion to
pay for the additional amendments they wanted.
We have not cowered. We have taken a stand, a tough stand in these
days that require tough stands. We have provided a budget which
establishes the needed priorities, and yet it is remarkable to me that
we hear chilling silence when it comes to offering a budget of
responsibility.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of anger on the floor
today, and to me this is such a sad day. It is total reversal of all
our former self-congratulation. The last administration took credit for
beginning our deficit reduction course to save Social Security and
Medicare. The majority said oh, no, we are doing it, and the country
gave us both the credit. There will be no question where the blame lies
for dynamiting the lockbox. The Social Security and Medicare lockbox
will be remembered as the most fraudulent metaphor the majority has
ever used on this floor.
The majority has taken us back to the dark budget ages of using
budget
[[Page H1064]]
estimates by political appointees rather than by the professionals of
the Congressional Budget Office. The American people are always willing
to take domestic cuts in time of war. Members will never convince them.
They are too smart to be convinced by a budget that tells them we can
do tax cuts, fight a war, and defeat a recession at the same time. The
seniors and the baby boomers deserve a lot better.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, in an earlier colloquy today on
transportation spending, I understood a couple of things. One is that
although the budget provides for $1.8 billion in outlays, I understood
the colloquy to indicate that if the Committee on Appropriations only
wanted to appropriate $23 billion for 2003, and not the $27 billion, a
little over $27 billion, we on the Committee on Transportation and the
Infrastructure expected.
Secondly, I would query the chairman about the firewalls. I
understand in the budget resolution we cannot construct firewalls to
protect the TEA-21 dollars, and I am wondering where that will come and
what the commitment is.
Thirdly, today the Senate marked up their budget and provided for an
additional $5.7 billion of Federal highway spending in 2003. I would
solicit an opinion from the chairman.
Mr. NUSSLE. Number one, we have a reserve fund for the extra
transportation dollars so it would only be released to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure if in fact they marked it at that
higher level, 4.4 of contract authority, 1.3 in outlays.
Second, on the firewall that was discussed, that is for a future
potential budget enforcement act reform bill that we intend to move on
the floor.
The third question was whether or not we would try for a higher
number with the Senate. We are working to try to get as much money to
stimulate the economy as possible. We agree transportation is one of
the ways. We will work for as high a number as we can.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my disappointment and
discouragement with respect to the Republican budget proposal. We are
failing the working men and women, children and seniors. My
constituents elected me to come here to talk about issues that we are
not having a fair chance to discuss. That is why the other side of the
aisle hears our loud tone of voice and our cry. There are thousands of
people in our districts who are unemployed who were affected long
before September 11, who had some hope, who thought that our
leadership, that our President, was going to leave no child behind.
The President has decimated our budget with respect to education. He
has made promises and broken them. People will have their energy bills
cut. The LIHEAP program is going to be slashed. People will have to
make a decision whether to buy food or pay the light bill. This is a
harsh reality of the Republican proposal, and I stand here to say this
is not acceptable and that my constituents in the 31st Congressional
District want their voices heard. We want to be able to have our
amendments in our presentations in our committees. I ask for a ``no''
vote on the Republican budget proposal.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have heard often on this
floor today for a call of calm and reconciliation. I have also heard
the discussion about the Democrats having no plan. Well, Mr. Chairman,
let me say, these four volumes indicate why Democrats cannot have a
plan because the Republicans and the administration have squandered the
surplus. There is no surplus. This plan invades Social Security. This
plan blows up the lockbox.
In fact, my constituents will be asking me why over the last 3 years,
when the Democrats had a plan for a prescription drug benefit, why
there was no response from the Republicans. Why Social Security is at
the point it is when we had a trillion dollar surplus. No plan? We do
not need a plan. Those who have destroyed the plan destroyed the
surplus, and need to present us with something that Americans can be
proud of.
It is interesting that Republicans would talk about homeland security
and the war against terrorism. A minuscule amount in this budget is for
homeland security. Most of it is squandered away by the invading of
Social Security. I ask my colleagues to vote a resounding ``no'' for
this budget because this is not a budget that Americans can stand on.
It is a budget that is nothing but smoke and mirrors and walls that do
not respond. This is a budget that does not work.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to myself.
Mr. Chairman, well, we are coming to the end of this very important
debate. We have heard a lot of discussion and debate today about plans
and who has got a plan and who does not have a plan. Let us review the
bidding very quickly.
The President in response to September 11, the national emergency,
the war against terrorism and a recession in our economy put a plan on
the table in February. It was not a perfect plan. There has never been
in the United States history a perfect budget plan, but he has one.
What did we do in committee last week? We took that plan and we made
it better. How? We said special education is going to get a little bit
extra. Veterans are going to get a little bit extra. Science is going
to get a little bit extra. Homeland security can get extra. We are
going to treat defense, and all sorts of things that we thought were
important priorities with a little extra, and the President today said
the Republican plan is better.
We have taken the President's plan and we have made a better plan. So
the President has a plan and the Republicans have a plan. During the
last 6 months of the most crucial time in American history, what have
the Democrats been doing? Well, three very important things that we did
together in a bipartisan way. We said we are going to respond to the
national emergency. So we dipped into that surplus, and we took some
money out and we said New York needs some help. We did that in a
bipartisan way. Every Member voted for it.
Then we said we are not going to let people come into this country
and do what they did to the people of America ever again. We will find
them. We will beat them. We will win this war, and we will do whatever
it takes. In a bipartisan way, we stood together and we funded that
war. Every Member voted for it.
Just last week, finally, we all said the economy is just too
important for us to allow it to languish or for it to possibly falter.
In a bipartisan way, we dipped in there again and took some of that
money and said that is what we are going to do. All of this hand
wringing about where did the surplus go, my gosh, it just vanished.
Members, it did not vanish. Have Members forgotten Osama bin Laden?
Have my colleagues forgotten what happened on September 11?
Members are saying the seniors are not going to understand. The
seniors won World War II. Our kids understand. Our parents understand.
The teachers understand. The nurses understand. Our veterans, by God,
understand. So for the other side to run in and tell us now that nobody
understands where the surplus went is a bunch of malarkey.
So what did the other side do over the weekend? Instead of writing
their own plan, 96 pages of criticism. That is fair. We are living in
America. We will fight to the death anybody's right to disagree. That
is what America stands for, but at some point in time the other side
does not just get to disagree. They have to lead. The great party on
the other side of the aisle has led many times in our history, but now
it fails.
The minority leader said, ``We think the Republican budget in the
House is a failure, an absolute, total failure in dealing with the big
problems in America,'' and he let his voice drop.
[[Page H1065]]
Did the gentleman come down here with a plan? No. Did he say I have
got some ideas? No. Did he criticize? Sure, and he has a right to do
that. I will fight for his right to do that. But Members are not
allowed to just complain. Members are not allowed to just play
politics. At this most crucial time in American history, Democrats have
to stand up and say what is important and put their plan on the table.
They are not allowed to just snipe from the sidelines and say, oh, we
are for national defense and homeland security. Yes, we want a
prescription drug benefit. Gosh, we want more than the Republicans do
for education. Oh, yes, in fact, we want more for science, and let me
think, we want more for all of these things.
We cannot do that without a plan, or without raising taxes. So
please, I ask the other side of the aisle to demonstrate their
leadership by coming forward with a plan. I beg them. This is too
crucial a time in American history for them to let us down.
I implore Members to vote for a plan to win the war and get this
country secure again.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, the reason the sign used by the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) was made yesterday was because the majority knew
last night when we went to the Committee on Rules with our plan that we
were not going to be able to offer it. So these nice charts we see
about not having a plan, we would have a plan today, but the other side
of the aisle would not let us offer it.
We would like to look in August and see if what the gentleman says
tonight is actually coming true. What the other side of the aisle said
last year we know has not come true, and we only ask to review it in
August. We used the Republican plan as a gesture of bipartisanship. The
other side of the aisle will not let us have a plan, and then they
bring all of these charts down here that they made up yesterday and say
the Democrats do not have a plan.
{time} 1915
This raw partisanship, people are not dumb, they see it. It is going
to get you in trouble just like it got this side in trouble sooner or
later.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Here is one reason that we have not produced a plan. It is because
the plan that we are confronted with, the budget, so-called, before us,
is not a real budget. As I said earlier, it is a tip of an iceberg.
Here are just a few of the things that it does not include. It uses
OMB scoring, and therefore it picks up $225 billion because OMB
estimates the cost of Medicare by that much less than CBO. It fails to
fully fund discretionary spending at the level of inflation, that is
all, current policy, and picks up another couple of hundred billion
dollars. We do not think that is realistic. If we had to put up a plan
that would be comparable on an apples to apples basis, we would have to
adopt these and many other devices in this budget which we think would
be a bad precedent. That is why we declined to do it. There will be a
Democratic plan. Senator Conrad is producing one as we talk.
Let me just say once again with respect to the war, when the votes
come on the defense appropriations bill and on the other appropriations
bill with homeland security and national security, Democrats' names
will be the board because we back the President and we support those
appropriated items.
Let me say something else about the key concern that we have in this
budget and the situation we are in today. This graph here shows the
extent to which previous administrations have invaded Social Security.
The Clinton administration came to office in 1993 inheriting a budget
deficit of $290 billion, a record deficit. On February 17, less than a
month after being in office, they put on our doorstep a deficit
reduction plan which passed this House by one vote. As a result, every
year for the next 8 years the bottom line of the budget got better to
the point where in the year 2000, we were literally in surplus without
counting Social Security or Medicare, the first time in our fiscal
history that that happened. It happened under the aegis of the Clinton
administration. Sure you cast some of those votes and I cast some of
those votes, they were costly votes in most cases; but this is where
the handoff occurred to President Bush.
I have seen at least five Republicans come here to the well and tout
the fact that you have had $400 billion in debt reduced in the last
several years. All of that happened on the Clinton administration's
watch. Why did it happen? When you move your budget out of deficit into
surplus, you have got money to pay off debt. That is why it happened.
But look what happens. Here at the pinnacle of this summit, there is
a handoff to President Bush and immediately things go south. Some of
that is due to the fact that we have had fundamentally unexpected,
terrible tragedies to occur in this country; and I would be the first
to admit that that has had an impact, no question about it. But your
tax cuts had an impact, too. Your miscalculation of what the economy
was going to do has had a big impact as well. It is at least 40 percent
of this. But look at this. And the reason we cannot go with your budget
tonight is it has no plan, it has no strategy, it has no way for us to
reverse that course which is graphically laid out there, showing you
that we are backpedaling right to where we were 10 years ago. After 10
years of progress on the deficit, we are literally backsliding.
Since everybody seems to be pooh-poohing the deficit, as if this is a
temporary, transitory phenomenon, let me read CBO's analysis, dated
March 6, of the President's budget. It says that this year we will
incur a deficit under President Bush of $248 billion; $297 billion next
year under his budget. Over the next 10 years it says we will incur
deficits of $1.8 trillion. The consequence of that is we will be
invading Social Security to the tune of $1.8 trillion.
Here is this chart which we have used before. You start with a blue
stub there, you start with a blue stub there which shows that we handed
off the budget to the Bush administration with a budget out of Social
Security and out of Medicare and look what happened. Immediately the
red lines below the line begin to appear. The yellow lines up here
indicate that every year over the next 10 years we will consume the
Medicare surplus. Every year over the next 10 years we will consume the
Social Security surplus. There is no way around it. You do not have a
plan in your budget to reverse course here. So everyone voting for this
budget tonight should understand this is the bottom line that you are
voting for, an invasion of the Social Security surplus for the next 10
years. That is the bottom line. What it means is that we will be
incurring more debt. We will not be achieving our promise of paying off
the debt so that we can alleviate the burden on the Treasury and make
it able to meet its Social Security obligations.
This is a 180-degree reversal of where we were last year. That is why
we respectfully decline to vote for this budget resolution. We think it
is a badly designed element, and we think it will take us back to where
we were. We hoped that we had recovered from that from a long time ago,
but it does not appear that we have.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the very
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the
House.
Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the President's budget, and I urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this budget as
well. The budget process helps the Congress to decide the spending
priorities of this Nation. I am disappointed that some folks on the
other side of the aisle have decided not to propose a real substitute.
Instead of making tough decisions, some would rather complain from the
sidelines.
This Congress has a responsibility to govern. I believe that this
budget fulfills our responsibilities to our constituents and to our
Nation. I want to congratulate our budget chairman for a job well done.
I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
Our first responsibility is to defend our Nation. Folks, we are at
war. We must spend money to win this war. This budget contains a
historic increase in defense spending. Our troops need this money so
that they have the
[[Page H1066]]
weapons, the supplies, the equipment to do the job. Some say that there
is not enough money in this budget to fight this war. I assure you if
the President needs more money to fight this war, this Congress will
make sure that any man or woman who wears the uniform of the United
States military and puts themselves in harm's way, they will have the
training, the equipment and the weapons and whatever they need to win.
This budget also contains the necessary money for homeland security.
On September 11, we found out that terrorists can attack in the most
unconventional way. We do not know where they will strike next. We do
not know, but we have to be prepared. This budget helps our Nation
prepare for these contingencies.
This budget also helps prepare our Nation for other challenges on the
domestic front. It includes money to implement the President's
ambitious education agenda, so that our schools will teach our children
better. It includes the largest financial commitment to a prescription
drug benefit in our Nation's history. We reserve $350 billion to
Medicare and prescription drugs for seniors in this budget. It also
includes important funding for our Nation's veterans and for our
Nation's farmers. The President's budget sets the right priorities for
our Nation.
My friends on the other side of the aisle, some have criticized our
budget with great enthusiasm; but they have failed to offer a real
alternative. Why did they not offer an alternative? Some would like to
play politics with Social Security. Any realistic budget would have to
confront the fact that the surplus disappeared because of the economic
slowdown, because of the war and certainly because of domestic
terrorism in this country and our willingness to prepare ourselves for
it.
Folks, we made a real decision last year. I heard some of our friends
talk about surplus. We had a great surplus. We made a conscious
decision to take some of that surplus off the table, because we thought
moms and dads and local people who make money, punch a time clock, own
their small business, they make better decisions with that money in
their pocket than the Washington bureaucrats. We also made a conscious
decision to pay down debt. During this period of time, we paid down
over $450 billion of public debt. I think that is probably better than
having that surplus sitting there and being tempting for people here in
Washington.
I know people have big plans, big thick books on how to spend that
money. But times have changed. We must prepare this Nation to continue
to fight the fight that we are in. We must prepare our people for
domestic violence and prevent people from coming into this country and
have terrorist attacks across this Nation. We need to take care of our
senior citizens. We need to take care of our veterans. We need to take
care of farmers. This budget does exactly that.
I ask you tonight, put politics aside, put demagoguery aside, and
vote for this budget so that we can move forward and this Congress can
get its work done.
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I am having this statement placed in the
Congressional Record today, although I am not physically present. As
you know, I have been granted a leave of absence so I can be with my
family in Mississippi to attend the funeral of a close relative. For
this reason, I was away from the House floor yesterday, March 19, 2002,
and am away today, March 20, 2002. I want this statement placed in the
Record today so that I can be on record on today's most important
proceedings pertaining to the Federal budget for Fiscal Year 2003.
Today the House is considering the Federal budget for Fiscal Year
2003. I stand by our President as he leads us in the war against
terrorism. But I cannot vote for this budget proposal because I have
serious concerns over this Budget's treatment of health car for
seniors, veterans and retired military. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the
Rules Committee refused to make in order the Blue Dog Coalition budget
alternative. I cannot support a rule that will not allow for open,
honest debate on a matter as important as the Federal budget.
This proposed Budget fails to address pressing health care needs but
includes new unspecified tax cuts--tax cuts that have not even been
proposed by anyone or considered by Congress. According to the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congress' own accounting agency,
there is no budget surplus. Therefore, funding for these tax cuts could
only come from Trust Funds that are set aside for health care
entitlements such as Social Security and Military Retiree Health Care.
I cannot support a budget that threatens the well being of our nation's
seniors and veterans, or those who will soon be part of those venerable
segments of our society.
A particular matter affecting military retirees is Concurrent
Receipt. Certain military personnel qualify for both military retired
pay and veterans disability compensation. Current law requires that
military pensions be reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of VA
disability compensation received.
This is an injustice that should have been corrected long ago. The
United States government promises certain benefits when young Americans
are recruited to serve a career of military service, including health
care and pensions upon retirement. Veterans who become disabled in the
line of service also earn and deserve their health care benefits.
The proposed FY2003 Budget calls for concurrent receipt for a limited
number of disabled retirees, but his Budge is woefully inadequate
because it would continue to deny earned benefits to many other
disabled retirees.
Yesterday, Congressmen Gene Taylor and I attempted to introduce an
amendment to the Budget proposal, to fully fund concurrent receipt for
military retirees who are also service-connected disabled. Funds for
this proposal would have come from funds allotted in the budget for
unspecified tax cuts that have not even been proposed or considered by
this House. Unfortunately, on a party line vote, the House Rules
Committee refused to allow the full House of Representatives to even
consider the Shows-Taylor Amendment.
Reducing these promised and earned benefits--to disabled war heroes,
of all people--is wrong. The FY2003 Budget Resolution that is being
considered is called a ``wartime budget.'' How can we recruit soldiers
to fight the War on Terrorism if we continue our legacy of broken
promises? Too many military veterans are telling their children and
grandchildren not to join the service because the government does not
keep its promises. This is precisely why we must keep our promises to
our military heroes this year, today.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 353.
As a senior member of the House Budget Committee, I am profoundly
disappointed with this measure which unrepentantly retreats from the
fiscal policies and practices that fostered enormous federal budget
surpluses. In the Majority's push to craft a ``nominally balanced
budget,'' they have failed to put forth a plan to get our budget on the
path to recovery. Further, Mr. Speaker, this budget blatantly ignores
what everyone here knows--and what all the major economic forecasters,
including CBO, OMB and GAO, told us well before September 11th--the
federal budget will be overtaken by escalating budget deficits as the
Baby Boom generation begins to retire in just six short years. This
budget, which calls for cumulative non-Social Security deficits of
$1.052 over the next five years, spending all of the Medicare trust
fund surplus and 86 percent of the Social Security surplus, actually
worsens our long-term fiscal picture.
Mr. Chairman, last year, I stood on the floor of the House and
cautioned against betting the ranch on ten-year estimates that the CBO
itself has stressed are highly uncertain. Based on its own track
record, CBO concludes that its estimated surpluses could be off in one
direction or the other, on average, by about $52 billion in 2001, $120
billion in 2002, and $412 billion in 2006. This year, the Majority
seems to have come around to my view--why else would they put forth a
budget based on five year numbers? Why indeed? It couldn't be because
ten-year numbers would reveal just how much of the Social Security and
Medicare surpluses this budget will really consume, could it? It
wouldn't be to cloak the fact that over ten years, over half of the
projected Social Security surplus will have to be diverted to cover
other government functions, according to both the CBO and OMB, would
it?
Mr. Chairman, to arrive at a ``nominally balanced budget,'' my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle not only ignore the impending
budgetary pressures out past 2007 but, for the first time since 1988,
discard CBO's projections, now that they have become inconvenient, in
favor of rosier OMB estimates. Have they learned nothing from the
dramatic reversal in our nation's budget picture? Mr. Speaker, last
year, the Majority was more than willing to accept the CBO's estimate
of a $5.6 trillion surplus. Now that applying CBO's baseline to their
budget resolution will result in a worsening of the non-Social Security
deficit, to the tune of $318 billion, over the next decade, the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, my colleague, Mr. Nussle, has
decided that since he does not like the ``weather report'' as prepared
by CBO, he will simply ``turn the channel.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, while I
respect my colleagues right to hope for the best, it does not erase our
affirmative duty to prepare for the worst. The hallmark of responsible
budgeting is leaving room for error. Last
[[Page H1067]]
year's budget left no room for error. In fact, by August, we were
projecting that for the next seven years, virtually all of the non-
Social Security, non-Medicare surplus would be spent, not to improve
the programs, not to create a prescription drug benefit under Medicare
or even enhance the solvency of these critical programs, but to cover
other government expenditures. And, Mr. Chairman, that was well before
September 11th and the resulting war on terrorism.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman I would note that to arrive at their
``nominal balanced budget'' for 2003 the Majority has put the blinders
on with respect to the supplemental defense request that we all know is
coming next week and has blocked out the memory of their much-touted
stimulus bill that was enacted just over a week ago and has a five-year
cost of $94 billion. When the stimulus bill is included, this budget
has a deficit of $224 billion in 2003 and $830 billion between 2003 and
2007, excluding the Social Security surplus.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, adding insult to injury is the Majority's
proposal for a national prescription drug program for seniors. H. Con.
Res. 353 claims to create a $350 billion reserve to be spent, over ten
years, for not only a drug benefit but also the Medicare
``modernization'' and provider givebacks. Without ten-year numbers for
the rest of the budget, how can this proposal be credible? Further, the
budget condition release of monies for a drug benefit on enactment of a
Medicare modernization bill and provider payment adjustments. Last
week, during the House Budget Committee's mark up of this bill, I
offered a reasonable, budget neutral amendment that I offered to create
a meaningful voluntary prescription drug benefit within Medicare for
all Medicare beneficiaries. Regrettably, it was summarily rejected
along party lines. Under my amendment, $69 billion would be added over
three years to the Medicare service, raising the total commitment to
$158 billion by 2007 and $500 billion over ten years. These additional
funds are essential if a Medicare prescription drug benefit is to be
available to and affordable for the majority of those receiving
Medicare benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this
``spend today, borrow tomorrow'' measure that turn its back on hard-
learned fiscal of the passed decade and undermine longstanding domestic
priorities, such as strengthening Social Security and Medicare,
providing a universal prescription drug benefit. Mr. Chairman, I urge
my colleagues to make the right choice today and reject this sham
budget.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res.
353, the FY 2003 Congressional Budget Resolution. The budget resolution
is fiscally irresponsible. It spends more than 86 percent of the Social
Security surplus and uses up the entire Medicare surplus. There are
only six years left before the baby-boom generation begins to retire,
and now is not the time to deplete the Social Security and Medicare
surpluses.
Over the past eight years we have had budgets culminating in real
debt reduction, and a growing surplus that did not rely on Social
Security or Medicare. The budget resolution before us today, quickly
creates an on-budget deficit of $974 billion over five years according
to the Congressional Budget Office.
The tragic attacks on September 11, 2001, the short and shallow
recession, and the continuing war on terrorism taken all together did
not precipitate the budget deficit. Mr. Chairman, while I support the
war on terrorism, and increased homeland security, I did not support
the irresponsible tax cut passed last year. The fact is, it consumed
approximately 43 percent of the budget surplus and led to our current
poor fiscal health.
This budget does not lead to debt reduction or Social Security and
Medicare solvency and it does not ensure that our other national
priorities are met. Last year, the leadership went down the primrose
path by enacting a tax cut that cost our country nearly 2 trillion
dollars. But before this year is out we must get the budget back on
track.
Further, for the first time in years, the budget resolution is only a
five-year budget instead of a ten-year budget. It remains in deficit
throughout the next five years, which leaves us to infer the damage
that will result in the second five years. In effect, this budget
cloaks the large amount of Social Security and Medicare surpluses that
will be spent after FY2007 and it allows the Leadership to avoid
deciding whether to sustain the sunset provision of the tax cut passed
last spring or extend the tax cuts at an additional cost. This lack of
a ten-year plan leads me to believe that either the House Leadership
has no long-term plan of recovery or they have a plan that will not
stand scrutiny under the public eye. Regardless, this resolution offers
no targets, no objectives, and no strategies to return to budget
surpluses.
In addition, this budget resolution attempts to make the deficit
appear smaller by authorizing non-defense, and non-homeland security
discretionary spending at almost five percent below the level necessary
to maintain current levels of services. Perhaps, even more
disappointing, the resolution cuts funding for the bipartisan No Child
Left Behind Act recently signed into law, as well as other cuts in
education, health care, and environmental protection.
Mr. Chairman, I am saddened that we are being forced to vote on this
irresponsible budget resolution without any opportunity to create a
bipartisan fiscally responsible budget. As Members of this great
institution, we often deliberate important issues that effect our own
and our children's futures. During debates of this nature, I frequently
ask myself one simple question; will the vote I am about to cast make
the nation and our society better and safer for my two sons, Johnny and
Matt, as they live, learn and grow in the 21st Century. For once, lets
put their future first, ahead of Washington politics.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the budget resolution
for the fiscal year 2003.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution and
I want to thank Chairman Nussle for the hard work he and his staff did
pulling it together.
I just want to point out one feature of the Budget Resolution that
may go unnoticed as we debate defense spending and tax policy and other
macroeconomic issues.
This budget provides a healthy and needed boost for scientific
research--a boost that goes significantly beyond what the
Administration called for. I'm especially pleased with the funding for
Function 250, the General Science function, which is based on an 11.1
percent increase for Research and Related Activities at the National
Science Foundation (NSF).
Our nation's long-range future depends in no small measure on the
investments we make today in research and development, and in science
and math education. NSF spending is critical to ensuring a health R&D
and education enterprise. The Budget Resolution recognizes that.
I want to thank Chairman Nussle for working so cooperatively with me
and with other Members of the House Science Committee to ensure that
the Budget paid proper attention to science funding and to balancing
the federal research portfolio. We obviously haven't solved all our
science funding problems, but this Budget Resolution is an important
step in doing so, especially given how tight overall domestic
discretionary spending it.
I urge my colleagues to support this Resolution.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
concerns about the budget resolution that is under consideration. I
feel very strongly that the budget we are debating is seriously flawed
because it contains cuts and funding amounts that are frozen at
previous year levels.
Furthermore, the priorities reflected within the budget are a clear
indication that vital needs and programs are being sacrificed. I am
dismayed about this budget because the majority failed to make in order
any of the amendments offered before the Rules Committee that would
have restored many of the cuts proposed by the president.
None of the (4) amendments I offered in committee were ruled in
order. Consequently, my efforts to restore $379 million for Community
Development Block Grants (CDBG's) to the purchasing power level of FY
2002 will not become a reality. These grants are critical to local
communities. They fund programs that promote economic development in
low and moderate-income communities and are used to eliminate or
prevent slums and blight and to address needs that pose a threat to the
health and safety of our communities. The cuts, if implemented, would
affect wealthy and low and moderate-income communities that receive
CDBG's.
I also advocated restoring funding for employment and training
programs, which was cut by $686 million from the 2001 level. My
amendment would have restored the funding for the Youth Opportunity
grants program back to its current 2002 level which would have amounted
to a nominal add-back of $180.6 million to the program for 2003.
Youth training services prepare low-income youth for academic and
employment success. They are vital to curtailing high school dropout
rates, increasing college enrollment, and improving the unemployment
rate of young adults.
I also sought to restore a modest amount of $3 million to the Public
Health Service's Office of Minority Health that is located in the
Department of Health and Human Services. The funding would be used to
reverse the tragic imbalance and racial disparity in terms of babies
born in the African American and white communities in our country
whereby a black baby born today is twice as likely to die within the
first year of life than a white baby. That baby is twice as likely to
be born prematurely and at a low birth weight.
We must do all that we can to determine why out of 1,000 births, 14
African American babies die, while for their white counterparts it is
only 6 out of 1,000.
[[Page H1068]]
Had my amendment been ruled in order, I would have been able to make
the case to have the Secretary of HHS undertake research, in
collaboration with other relevant agencies, to help address and
eliminate racial health disparities in birth outcomes. This is one of
our Government's Healthy People 2010 target goals.
Finally, I offered an amendment that would reduce the proposed $28
billion in new tax cuts in order to pay for the additional highway
spending. This amendment adds $1.3 billion to the highway program for
2003 with similar increases in the following years, adjusted for
inflation. This would put the total add-back from the President's
budget to $5.7 billion, since the budget committee has already added
back $4.4 billion.
Continued investment in highway infrastructure will contribute to job
creation and protection as the economy recovers from recession. We
simply cannot afford to shortchange our infrastructure needs.
Mr. Chairman, these are just some of the shortcomings of the budget
being offered today. At this time in our nation's history, we can ill-
afford to withdraw our important legacy of social and health services.
Too many Americans are in need and feeling the impact of September
11th. Our Government's support is more vitally required than ever in
these difficult days. Our funding of key programs must be sustained, if
our fellow Americans are not to lose faith in our leadership.
Money counts for all Americans but if you are unemployed, hungry,
elderly and sick, homeless and or a dependent child, it is a lifeline
and a commitment that must be kept. Our Government should shortchange
no American and that is why this budget is so disappointing. The gap
between our socioeconomic reality and this proposal is daunting. The
Budget does not add up, Mr. Chairman, and should be voted down.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget offered
by the Republican Majority.
Today's Washington Post contained a remarkable report that an
Antarctic ice shelf the size of Rhode Island just shattered and
collapsed into the sea. Scientists say that they have never seen as
large a loss of ice mass and that the disintegration was all the more
remarkable because of the extraordinary rapidity of the collapse. An
ice mass 1,200 square miles in area and 650 feet thick that had existed
for 12,000 years disintegrated in 35 days.
I bring this to my colleagues' attention because the disintegration
of the Federal Government's budget position over the last year has been
nearly as staggering. Eight years of hard-won budgetary gains and
fiscal discipline were thrown out the window in a single year. Last
year's projected ten-year budget surplus of $5.4 trillion dollars
collapsed literally before our eyes, sacrificed to the irresponsible
tax and budget policies of the Administration and the Republican
Majority in Congress.
Just nine months ago, the Chairman of the Budget Committee said,
``This Congress will protect 100 percent of the Social Security and
Medicare Trust Funds. Period. No speculation. No supposition. No
projections.'' This promise echoed similar pledges by the Speaker, the
Majority Leader, and the Majority Whip to place the Social Security and
Medicare surpluses in a lockbox and build a firewall between the Social
Security and Medicare trust funds and the rest of the budget.
Well, here we are twelve months later and $4 trillion poorer. The
lockbox has been smashed open. The firewall has been breached. The
promises of the Republican Majority have been broken. The budget before
the House today raids Social Security and Medicare this year. It raids
Social Security and Medicare next year. It raids Social Security and
Medicare the year after that. It raids Social Security and Medicare for
as far as the eye can see.
Last year's budget resolution placed our nation's finances in a deep
hole. The budget before the House today digs the hole deeper. It robs
us of a chance to address critical needs, like a real prescription drug
benefit for seniors and adequate funding to modernize our kids' schools
and reduce class size. The return of large, multi-year budget deficits
will also make it much more difficult to strengthen the Social Security
and Medicare programs in advance of the Baby Boom generation's
retirement, which begins in 2008 when the leading edge of the Baby Boom
enters their retirement years.
I urge the House to vote down this budget so we can begin work on a
bipartisan budget resolution that meets our responsibilities, restores
our fiscal health, and keeps faith with the promises all of us have
made to the American people.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the Republican's fatally flawed budget resolution. Here we go again.
The Republican resolution is simply smoke and mirrors. It's a
``pretend'' budget so deceptive that if it were an ad, the public would
sue for violations of the truth in advertising laws and they would win!
Not even the transparent ploy of using five-year budget estimates
from the President's Office of Management and Budget rather than the
usual ten-year budget estimates from the non-partisan Congressional
Budget Office can hid the fact that the Republican budget resolution
would raid virtually all of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses
over the next five years in order to pay for the fiscal chaos caused by
last year's irresponsible tax bill.
Five times last year, here in the House, we voted almost unanimously
for a Social Security ``lockbox''. The President and the Republican
leadership repeatedly pledged their commitment to that Social Security
lockbox. In this budget, the Republicans don't just pick the lockbox.
They shatter it with a sledge hammer!
Don't be fooled. When you get rid of the accounting smoke and mirrors
in the President's budget, the non-defense domestic spending is not
even a ``current services'' budget. This budget is replete with severe
program cuts. Cuts that low income Americans simply cannot take. We are
left with much less than we had to begin with. Where is the money for a
real prescription drug benefit? For affordable housing? For Head Start?
For Education? For Job training? For worker health and safety?
The deceptive ``pretend'' Republican budget ignores the cost of the
Supplemental that will be offered as soon as this budget resolution
leaves the House. It ignores the cost of providing relief to millions
of middle class taxpayers to keep them from being subjected to the
alternative minimum tax. It ignores the cost of the Republican proposal
to make permanent the tax cuts from last year's bill. It provides
woefully inadequate resources for a prescription drug benefit and makes
any prescription drug benefit compete with both the cost of provider
``givebacks'' and the costs of unspecified Medicare ``modernization''.
Mr. Chairman, we need a budget that provides a real prescription drug
benefit, improves education, ensures the solvency of Social Security
and Medicare, and pays down the national debt. We need an honest
budget, not this sham Republican press release.
Securing our national defense and homeland security, adopting a real
prescription drug benefit, improving education, providing affordable
housing for the poor and the homeless, maintaining the solvency of
Social Security and Medicare, paying down the national debt--that's the
American agenda, not continuing to squander our resources on overly
large tax cuts tilted toward those who need it least. We can and must
do better. Reject the Republican budget.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, like all Americans, I believe
that we must meet our most pressing priorities of protecting our
country against terrorism, improving our international relations, and
growing our economy. I agree with the president that these current
challenges warrant small, short-term deficit spending.
However, I am concerned about the lack of sound budgeting practices
in the Republican Budget offered today. Under their plan we cannot both
address our most pressing current needs, and establish a framework for
a long-term, sustainable revenue and spending plan without relying on
massive borrowing.
The Republican Budget spends most of the Social Security surplus and
all of the Medicare surplus, putting us in terrible position to deal
with the impending entitlement crises when the baby boomers retire.
Despite promises last year from both the White House and Congress to
save every single dollar of the Social Security surplus and Medicare
surplus, and Congress' votes for a Social Security ``lockbox'' five
times in the past few years, this budget uses nearly all the Medicare
and Social Security surpluses--more than 86 percent of the Social
Security surplus and every penny of the Medicare surplus.
The Republican budget also just isn't honest--it doesn't take into
account the tax and spending programs that both Republicans and
Democrats know Congress is going to pass.
For example, the individual Alternative Minimum Tax will balloon
twenty-fold by 2012, affecting 39 million households (34 percent of all
taxpayers), but fixing that problem isn't in the budget. Republicans
also support making permanent last year's tax cuts, which would cost
$569 billion and Speaker Dennis Hastert plans to bring up an additional
tax cut bill this spring. None of these items are in the budget.
And in terms of spending, the White House has said that it will
submit a supplemental appropriations request for defense and homeland
security that will certainly be approved by Congress--but that isn't in
the budget either. They are assuming non-defense, non-homeland security
discretionary spending will be kept at only five percent of the levels
necessary to maintain current levels of services in 2003. We all know
that's an unrealistic projection--even under Republican control of
Congress, spending has always increased on these programs.
[[Page H1069]]
Another problem with the Republican Budget is that it uses the
optimistic, rosy projections from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) rather than the more conservative Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) projections. Over the next five years, the difference between CBO
and OMB revenue projections is $110.4 billion. OMB also plans on the
government spending $48 billion less over the same five year period on
mandatory spending programs like Medicare and veterans' benefits.
That's a lot of ifs.
To be perfectly honest, I don't really care whether the numbers we
use are labeled CBO, OMB or UFO, but I do believe that it's sound
budgeting practice to use more conservative numbers when you're
balancing your checkbook.
The bottom line is that even with all of these budget tricks and
gimmicks that make it look like we can have everything we want, the
budget is still in deficit and our debt is still climbing. The budget
deficit for next year is projected to be $46 billion, and we'll be in
deficit every year for ten years. By 2007, when the baby boomers start
to retire, the government will owe more debt to the public--nearly $3.5
trillion--that it does today.
Our federal budget needs to be more balanced and fiscally responsible
than today's Republicans proposal.
I had hoped that House Republicans would recognize the need and the
real possibility for bipartisan cooperation on developing a proposal
for the federal budget. If the House leadership is willing to invite
more people to the table, to go to an economic conference as we've
suggested, I am confident that we can have a federal budget that will
protect the country against terrorism, lend needed support to our
military, take care of workers at home, and pay for needed programs
like education, healthcare and social security as well as ensuring a
strong economic foundation for the future.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year
2003 Budget Resolution and to commend my colleagues on the Budget
Committee for their hard work and efforts to produce a strong wartime
budget that meets the needs of our nation. This budget directly
addresses America's security needs--fighting the war on terrorism and
protecting American citizens--without neglecting our domestic
priorities.
I am especially proud of the way this budget addresses the needs of
our nation's 25 million veterans. First of all, discretionary spending
for veterans totals $26.8 billion for 2003. That is a 12 percent
increase over 2002 levels. VA medical care funding is increased to
$23.9 billion and another $1.145 billion is included to prevent
instituting a $1500 deductible for Priority 7 veterans.
In addition, this budget provides the funds necessary to correct the
concurrent receipt restriction for veterans with 60 percent or higher
disability ratings. Current law requires that a veteran's retired pay
be reduced by the amount of disability benefits he or she receives.
This is an unfair practice and I am proud to support a budget that will
end this restriction.
The FY03 budget has the support of the American Legion, the Veterans
of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS and many others. Their support further
indicates that we are on the right track to meet the critical needs of
veterans. I would like to thank Chairman Nussle and the Budget
Committee for putting this sound resolution together and urge all of my
colleagues to support this measure and ensure adequate funding for our
nation and our veterans.
Ms. SCHAKOWKSY. Mr. Chairman, on July 11, 2001, Republican House
Majority Leader Dick Armey said, ``We must understand that it is
inviolate to intrude against either Social Security or Medicare and if
that means forgoing or, as it were, paying for tax cuts, then we'll do
that.'' Unfortunately, the Republican Budget Resolution does not
reflect that sentiment in the least. The House Republicans are offering
a budget that virtually spends almost the entire Social Security
surplus to pay for last year's tax breaks that mostly benefit the
wealthy.
I urge all my colleagues to oppose this Budget Resolution and here is
why:
First, the Republican Budget Resolution would take over $1 trillion
from the Social Security Trust Funds and eliminate the Medicare surplus
over the next five years.
The President and every House Republican leader promised last year
that every single dollar of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses
would be saved for Social Security and Medicare. With this Republican
budget, virtually no dollar of the Social Security and Medicare
surpluses will be saved for Social Security or Medicare.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that the single biggest
factor in the disappearing surplus is the Bush tax cut, not the war on
terrorism or the recession.
Second, the Republican Budget Resolution abandons domestic
priorities.
The Budget Resolution: cuts $90 million from last year's bipartisan
legislation that funds our nation's main elementary and secondary
education programs; eliminates the Community Access Programs (CAP) and
Health Professions Training program, freezes funding for the Ryan White
AIDS Programs, and slashes funding for Rural Health Activities by $54
million; cuts the Violence Against Women Act Grants, and funds the
Legal Services Corporations well below needed levels: cuts state and
local law enforcement grants by $1.7 billion; funds the Community
Development Block Grant program at $379 million below what is needed to
maintain current levels; does not include an additional $1.3 billion in
federal highway funding requested by the Democrats.
Third, the Republican Budget Resolution does not offer seniors a
comprehensive, affordable, and voluntary prescription drug benefit
under Medicare.
Finally, the Republican Resolution does not take into account future
impending costs like additional funding for homeland security, response
to natural disasters, which will require more funds for FEMA and other
federal agencies. None of these or other certain or likely
contingencies are accommodated in the resolution, making its
projections highly suspect.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, this year's budget provides the resources
for education reform while funding a nation at war.
As one of the authors of the bipartisan education bill signed by the
President in January, I'm proud to support this budget. It's a
compassionate one that reflects our nation's priorities and helps
states and local schools meet the promise of education reform.
It's a clear statement that this Congress and this President will not
turn its back on our children and their future, even in a time of war.
This budget builds on the significant increases provided for
education in recent years--an average annual increase of 14.3 percent
over the past four years.
[TEACHERS.] I'm particularly proud of the support this budget
provides for school teachers. President Bush and Congress have provided
a 35 percent increase in federal teacher quality funds to help states
and local schools put a quality teacher in every classroom by 2005. The
President's budget request this year maintains this historic level of
support. We're asking a lot of teachers, and they deserve our support.
[SPECIAL EDUCATION.] The budget provides a $1 billion increase for
special education, putting us on track for full-funding of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act within 10 years. It also
paves the way for us to make long-overdue changes to IDEA to ensure
that children with special needs are not left behind. I'm especially
grateful that our Budget Committee colleagues have taken this step.
Building on last year's reforms, the budget also:
[LOW-INCOME SCHOOLS.] Provides a $1 billion increase in Title I
grants to low-income schools--on top of last year's $1.6 billion
increase--focusing resources on the highest-poverty school districts.
[READING FIRST.] Provides a $100 million increase for the President's
plan to improve reading instruction by addressing reading difficulties
at an early age through proven scientific methods.
[HEAD START.] Increases Head Start by $130 million to increase
children's preparedness for learning when they enter school.
[CHARTER SCHOOLS.] Provides $100 million in new funding for charter
school facility financing.
[EXPANDED PARENTAL CHOICE.] Funds new tax relief measures, such as
education tax credits, to assist parents transferring their children
from chronically-failing or dangerous schools.
[HISTORICALLY-BLACK COLLEGES & HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTIONS.]
Provides a 3.6 percent increase for assisting historically black
colleges, universities and graduate institutions, as well as Hispanic-
serving institutions.
[PELL GRANTS.] Maintains the maximum Pell Grant at a historic high of
$4,000.
The budget also paves the way for other priorities such as welfare
reform and child care. Funding for the Child Care Development Block
Grant (CCDBG) has more than doubled in the last five years to $2.1
billion. This budget keeps that commitment to help move more Americans
toward independence and self-reliance.
I also want to commend the committee for providing significant
increases in funding for two key Department of Labor offices that help
to safeguard the pension assets and retirement security of American
workers. The budget provides a $3 million increase for the Office of
Labor Management Statistics, and a $7 million increase for the Office
of Inspector General.
Budgets are about tough choices. But there are some who don't want to
make choices. There are some who dare to suggest that this budget
somehow shortchanges our children.
[[Page H1070]]
They say they want more funding for education, but they won't put
forth their own budget to tell us how they'd get to that goal.
Students, teachers, and parents deserve to know: Which tax would they
raise? Which program would they eliminate?
Last week's action in the Budget Committee offered a hint. Last week,
Democrats offered 17 amendments to the proposed budget. Taken together,
the amendments totaled $205 billion in new spending and $175 billion in
new taxes over five years.
Mr. Chairman, in this time of national emergency, what Americans want
is leadership--not gamesmanship.
I'm proud to support this budget, which responds to our nation's
challenges without forgetting the promise to the children who are our
future.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, last year, when the Republican
leadership brought their budget resolution to the floor I commented
that they were ``leading us down a fiscally dangerous path.'' Now that
we are debating the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution, it is clear
that the Republican leadership has no intention of exiting that
treacherous route.
This 2003 budget resolution, like its 2002 predecessor proposed by
the same Republican majority, is fiscally irresponsible and puts at
risk Congress's ability to live up to our commitments to public
welfare, the environment, and important infrastructure projects.
The Social Security trust fund is being invaded for more than $1
trillion over the five-year budget window. In addition the entire
Medicare surplus will be sacrificed. At the same time, the purchasing
power of our domestic programs is being reduced by more than $20
billion in fiscal 2003 alone. Instead of providing necessary funding
for critical domestic needs, the Republican leadership is taking Social
Security and Medicare funds paid from the wages of working people and
returning it through tax cuts to the corporations and individuals who
are least in need.
The public deserves an honest, long-term budget, but Congress is not
able to provide one when there is such a broad disconnect between what
the Republican leadership promises and what they deliver. The
opportunity for an honest debate with alternatives and amendments has
been stifled by the closed rule the Republicans have put into place for
the debate of this resolution.
In addition to funding the war on terrorism and ensuring homeland
security, my constituents in Oregon want the federal government to
fulfill its commitment to domestic priorities, which includes Social
Security, the environment, education, and necessary infrastructure
projects. This budget resolution fails our domestic priorities and,
therefore, I oppose its passage.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, this is truly an Enron budget. The
Republican Budget Committee has cooked the books and produced the most
seriously flawed budget in my career.
The accounting gimmicks are spectacular. We have a 5-year budget
instead of the customary 10-year budget. This is because it hides
dwindling revenue from the gradually implemented Bush tax cut. If
refashioned, a 10-year budget would show much larger deficits.
Republicans also chose to use the politically crafted OMB numbers,
instead of the non-partisan CBO numbers. Whether we insert political or
non-partisan numbers into this resolution, the story is no different at
the end of the day. Because all of the accounting tricks in the world
cannot hide that we are still raiding Social Security and Medicare. And
we are still growing the national debt. The Republican Party is trying
to hide a budget deficit of $257 billion next year and that is just
plain wrong.
In this budget, providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit and
increasing provider payments do not reflect half of what is necessary
according to reasonable forecasts. And this budget does not even take
into account the additional spending and further tax cuts proposed by
the President. This time next year it is very likely we will have a
budget deficit double or triple what is reflected in this resolution.
Mr. Chairman, we need an honest budget, one that provides a
prescription drug benefit to our seniors, keeps Social Security solvent
for the baby-boomers, and does not further saddle the national debt we
are leaving to our children. We can provide a budget that does all this
by simply ending the greed. So much of our revenue surplus was
squandered on a tax cut that benefitted the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans. And last week, the President invited them back to the
feeding trough. We must not pay for this giveaway on the backs of our
seniors, children, and all those looking to Social Security for their
retirement needs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep
your promises to your constituents and vote down this budget.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican
budget resolution for fiscal year 2003.
I understand that the nation is engaged in a vital enterprise in
response to the vicious attacks of September 11th. I know that fighting
to break up terrorist organizations and protecting our country and our
people, which I support, are expensive undertakings and the highest
national priorities.
But, Mr. Chairman, they are not our only priorities.
From September 11th on, the President has exhorted the American
people to continue our normal activities--perhaps being more aware of
what's around us, perhaps putting up with more security hassles and
delays--but starving the domestic budget is not going to keep us moving
forward as I thought the President meant we should.
We still need to invest adequately in health care, education, job
training, law enforcement, clean air and water, energy efficiency,
economic development, housing, science and technology.
We particularly need to address the impending retirement of the baby
boom generation, strengthening Medicare and Social Security, not
diverting their surpluses to general government operations.
At bottom, Mr. Chairman, what we need to do in this budget resolution
is identify and provide the resources needed to do both of these
things--defend and protect ourselves, and invest in the future--which
means we must take another look at the huge, irresponsible tax cuts for
the wealthy that were enacted last year.
Some people thought we could make the tax cuts and have plenty of
money left over to meet the Nation's needs. They were wrong. This
budget misses or avoids opportunities as it promises years of deficit
spending. This demonstrates that we must revisit the revenue side and,
at a minimum, suspend further cuts until we can afford them.
Mr. Chairman. I am certain we can do better than this budget
resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote against it and commit to
working together to fashion a new budget resolution that provides the
resources to provide both for our security and for our Nation's
domestic needs.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the issue of funding
veterans military retirement in conjunction with veterans disability
compensation. I am pleased that the House fiscal year 2003 budget
resolution includes funding to eliminate the veterans retirement and
disability concurrent receipt offset. The $6 billion over the next 6
years to gradually provide full benefits to all disabled retirees is
long over due.
I firmly believe veterans should not have money taken out of their
military retirement to pay for their disability compensation because
these are two separate entities that serve two different compensations.
I was pleased to cosponsor legislation to repeal this offset, and I am
pleased that by providing funding for concurrent receipt, Congress has
finally recognized the importance of keeping its promises to those men
and women who have risked their lives, and have suffered injuries in
preserving our freedom.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Budget
Resolution. This is a good budget that will serve our Nation well
during this time we are at war with terrorists. It funds our national
security as well as addressing our homeland security needs while
ensuring that many other problems are addressed.
To touch upon just a few of the many worthy items in this budget, I
want to highlight the support in this budget for local firefighters,
disabled military retirees, home healthcare and IDEA funding.
Firefighters often provide the backbone of both rural and urban
communities in our Nation. They risk their lives in order to save the
lives and property of others. I am gratified that the Budget Committee
was able to recognize their important contributions by encouraging this
Congress to continue to provide grants directly to local firefighters.
I am also pleased that this resolution provides funding to address
the concurrent receipt problem facing our military retirees who are
disabled. This budget puts us on a path to eliminate the concurrent
receipt problem within 5 years for our military retirees who are the
most severely disabled.
I also want to applaud the Committee for continuing its commitment to
ensure that home healthcare remains available to our elderly. A 15
percent cut in reimbursements to home health providers scheduled for
October 1, 2002 will devastate the industry and ultimately force many
of our elderly out of their own homes and into hospitals and nursing
home facilities.
Finally, this budget continues the commitment of this Congress to
work hard toward fully funding its commitment to assist schools in
educating students with special education needs. We include $1 billion
over last year or a 12 percent increase. Further, we commit to
providing 12 percent increases every year over the next 10 years so
that we fully fund the commitment made by Congress on IDEA funding.
This budget also does so much more to protect the American people. I
commend it to all
[[Page H1071]]
of my colleagues and urge you to support H. Con. Res. 353, the Budget
Resolution for Fiscal Year 2003.
Mr. PASTOR, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this
misguided budget resolution.
After 28 years of deficit spending and digging our children into
deeper and deeper debt, in 1998, we finally balanced the budget and
experienced budget surpluses. This lasted for only 5 years, and then a
misguided $1.4 trillion tax cut threw us into fiscal irresponsibility
once more. Now, this budget sends us into deficit spending as far as
the eyes can see.
As bad as deficit spending may be, what is worse, we are once again
raiding Social Security and Medicare.
We have taken endless votes in this House to ensure that we protected
Social Security. We voted time and time again to place the Social
Security trust fund into a ``lockbox.'' But this lockbox has been
smashed open and Social Security has been raided so that we can give
the wealthiest among us a huge tax cut.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the President's efforts to stop
terrorism. We must fund our military and homeland security. We must
ensure that we are safe to travel our country and the world. We must
support our President in this effort.
But, we cannot neglect the other needs of our people. We should fully
fund education programs for all ages. We should ensure that our
Nation's infrastructure is modern and safe. We must find a way to
provide health care for those millions who have no health care options.
We must find a way to provide prescription drug coverage for our
elderly. And we must do whatever it takes to protect Social Security.
It is my contention that this budget is broken. We might be better
served to start over, to sit down with the President and come up with a
new plan, a plan that protects us from those who wish to do us harm, a
plan to protect our children from ignorance, a plan to protect our
elderly from sickness, a plan to protect our children from added fiscal
irresponsibility, and a plan to protect Social Security.
Mr. Chairman, I regretfully oppose this budget. Let's start over with
the President. If we work together we can do all these things.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution we are
considering today is more of a campaign pamphlet than it is a
deliberative piece of legislation. As a member of the Appropriations
Committee, I'm pleased to say that the work of the Budget Committee is
no longer grounded in fiscal reality but more apt to produce what we
call soundbite legislation. Once again, we are seeing that budget
resolutions can engage in flights of fancy, while the Appropriations
Committee will be forced to do the hard work of deciding how the real
money will be spent in this place. This resolution really makes the
budget process a sham. This is a budget that's based less on sound
economic assumptions and more on the principles of Enronomics.
The supporters of this budget are working on a selling job to make
you believe that this plan will provide a balanced budget by fiscal
year 2010. But what we are told is far different from the fiscal
reality. This is feel good legislation that will exact fiscal harm and
pain in the out years. To hide the real truth, the Republican budget
purposely uses 5 year numbers instead of 10.
The Republican budget is simply irresponsible. In its budget, the GOP
proposes new tax cuts and funds these cuts by spending hundreds of
billions from the Social Security trust fund to pay for other programs.
Moreover, the Republican leadership plans to bring to the floor next
month even larger tax cuts and has expressed support for making
permanent the provisions in last year's tax cut. CBO estimates that by
making these tax cuts permanent, revenues would be reduced by $569
billion over 10 years.
Democrats want a budget that reflects our Nation's priorities.
Unfortunately, key Democratic amendments on key issues that the
majority of Americans care deeply about were blocked by Republicans
from reaching the House floor.
An amendment I offered relating to prescription drugs, which would
have ensured that seniors receive a prescription drug benefit that is
comprehensive and meaningful, was blocked from being considered on the
floor. Unfortunately, the $350 billion that the Republicans have
proposed in their budget for Medicare reform and prescription drugs
would barely make a dent in helping seniors and the disabled in getting
the prescription drug coverage they need--and deserve. We have all made
this a pledge with our words--the test is to show it with the numbers
laid out in the budget resolution. The Republican resolution fails
miserably at this test.
Their budget also fails to adequately fund other key priorities so
important to Americans and our future, such as education, child care,
and environmental protections.
The Republicans budget aims to hide the truth and the real costs over
the years. I oppose this budget resolution and urge my colleagues to
vote against this resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in House Report 107-380 is adopted and the concurrent
resolution, as amended, is considered read.
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 353) establishing the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2003 and setting forth
appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2007, pursuant to House Resolution 372, he reported the concurrent
resolution, as amended pursuant to that resolution, back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 209, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 79]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--209
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
[[Page H1072]]
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--5
Blagojevich
Ehlers
Gutierrez
Shows
Traficant
{time} 1955
Mr. JOHN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. RILEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 79, adoption of H. Con. Res.
353, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2003, I was too late to
cast my vote because I was detained in a meeting. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
____________________