[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S1658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                FUNDING

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there have been a lot of representations 
made on the floor today by Members of the other side of the aisle 
relative to funding and lack of funding. It is interesting because, as 
we went through the last budget exercise in the Senate last week, when 
the appropriations bills were passed, we heard from the other side that 
they needed more and more money. And although the President tried to 
hold the line on fiscal discipline by setting a number of $750 billion 
of discretionary spending, which was the agreed-to amount signed off on 
by the Senator from West Virginia and members of the Democratic Party 
back when they controlled the Senate in the last Congress, suddenly we 
found that money was not enough.
  There was over a half a trillion dollars of new spending proposed 
from the other side of the aisle that was not offset, not paid for, 
that would have been put on top of the spending which the President had 
committed to. That irresponsible explosion in proposals in spending is 
an example of the lack of discipline which we are seeing in the area of 
fiscal policy from the other side of the aisle.
  It has to be put in the context not only of the fact that it is an 
explosive attempt to expand the Federal deficit through new spending, 
but also in the context of the fact that this President has made 
stronger commitments in the area of education and national defense than 
any President in recent times and certainly than the President who 
preceded him.
  I yield the floor.
  It is very hard for me to understand how with a straight face, 
Members from the other side of the aisle can come down here and attack 
this President for failing to fund education. When we look at what this 
President has done in the area of funding education, we need to look at 
some pretty simple and obvious charts. In his first year, President 
Bush increased funding for education over President Clinton's budget by 
$20 billion. That is $20 billion of new money this President put 
directly into education in his first year as President.
  An example of that commitment was in the area of special education, 
where President Clinton basically zero funded, relative to increases, 
the issue of special education, while President Bush dramatically 
increased it, by $1 billion a year, year in and year out, since he has 
been President the first 3 years--$1 billion each year, so that he has 
radically increased funding for special education.
  It is pretty hard for the other side to come down here and make the 
representation that this President has not significantly increased 
funding. In fact, if you look at the spending this President has 
committed to funding and done in the context of fiscal responsibility, 
not exploding the budget with spending as was proposed from the other 
side of the aisle when they proposed over half a trillion dollars of 
new spending last week without offsets, this President, in the area of 
education, has increased funding by $2.5 billion in the area of title 
I, for example, in his first 2 years in office. That is a greater 
increase, by 25 percent, than President Clinton gave in his 7 years in 
office. So the commitment for funding for education has been dramatic.
  We heard earlier that the President hasn't funded up to the 
authorization levels. That is not unusual in this Congress or in this 
Government not to fund to the authorization levels. I will point out 
that if you are going to compare funding up to the authorization levels 
of this Presidency versus President Clinton, under President Clinton's 
Presidency, the gap between funding, the difference between funding to 
appropriation levels and authorization levels was about twice what this 
President's gap is in that area. President Bush has done even a better 
job in coming close to funding at authorization levels than President 
Clinton did.
  It is really inconsistent and a touch hypocritical to come down here 
and attack President Bush for failing to fund education when, in fact, 
he has done more to fund education than any President in recent times 
and certainly dramatically more than his predecessor during a time when 
the Democratic Party controlled both the Senate and the Presidency.
  There have been other representations that he has not funded 
adequately homeland security. That is an incredible representation. 
When I hear the Senator from New York come down here and say that 
homeland security has not been adequately funded, when you think of the 
billions, tens of billions of dollars the Congress has voted to assist 
the City of New York, very appropriately, under the leadership of this 
President, I find it difficult to understand how that argument can be 
made.
  If you look at the funding in the area of the FBI, we have heard this 
representation: This number of agencies is going to have to be cut.
  That is a total fabrication. FBI funding under this President has 
gone up every year. It is going up significantly this year. It went up 
significantly last year. And more agents are being added. The same is 
true of the INS, the same is true of the Marshals Service, of DEA. All 
of these accounts come under the jurisdiction of a committee which I 
had the good fortune to be ranking member of and now am chairman of, 
the Commerce, State, Justice Committee. The representation that we are 
actually reducing manpower or reducing the accounts in these areas is 
simply wrong. It is inaccurate, and it is a gross misstatement. It 
should not be made on the floor of the Senate because people should 
know the facts before they come down here and make these 
representations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________