Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 44 (Wednesday, March 19, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 19, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2106-H2112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROPOSED BUDGET FAILS TO PROVIDE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the budget we
are going to have tomorrow. A budget needs to reflect what our national
priorities are. That is what a budget is all about, making choices.
I want to tell the Members, although I made several attempts, as well
as many members of our committee, to make changes in the budget, all of
those were defeated. I am going to talk just a minute about one of
those issues, and that is homeland defense.
This is a time, Mr. Speaker, when more than ever we need to make sure
that our counties and cities and States are well-equipped for our
national security. This budget fails to adequately provide for our
homeland security. The President said we were $2.2 billion short in
homeland security. The Secretary said we were short $2.2 billion for
homeland security. Yet this budget leaves that shortfall.
Let me just talk a minute about what is happening in our State. Our
State has high unemployment. We are laying off our police and our
firefighters. Our young men and women who are in law enforcement are
being called up for the National Guard and being sent to the Middle
East, and many are already in the Middle East. Our local communities
frequently do not have equipment that talks to one another,
communicates with one another.
What we are trying to do in this budget and what the Republican
budget lacks is the money to make sure that our local police and our
local fire departments and our local emergency workers, not only that
we have adequate personnel, but that we have the equipment so they can
respond if there is a terrorist attack in the United States and in our
communities.
I cannot believe that we are going to do a budget at a time like this
that does not respond to our local communities and our local States for
those people that are going to be the first line of defense.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget resolution is a failed economic
plan that proposes $1 trillion in tax cuts in search of an economic
purpose. This budget follows President Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut 14
months ago to get this economy moving and produce jobs. That was the
argument behind the original tax cut.
The net result is 2.5 million Americans today are without work who
had work prior to that tax cut, and there are 4 million more Americans
without health care who prior to that tax cut had health care, 2
million more Americans who have moved from the middle class to poverty
prior to that tax cut, and $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have
been foreclosed on and hit Chapter 11. That has been the net effect of
this tax cut.
Now, what are we about to do? We are about to put our foot on the
accelerator 14 months later for another $1 trillion plus tax cut that
will have the same effect of lost jobs, lost health care, lost
corporations and family dreams, and more and more Americans moving from
middle class to poverty.
We need to move the trend the other way. We need an economic plan,
not just a tax cut. While we consider this budget, we as a Nation, as
one Nation, as one country, are moving closer to war. We also have a
plan now for that war and for after that war to rebuild Iraq; in the
range of $100 billion they are talking about rebuilding Iraq. The
administration's postwar request would build more housing, more
schools, and go further in providing health care for pregnant woman in
Iraq than this budget provides Americans. The Wall Street journal wrote
on Monday that the postwar reconstruction of Iraq is ambitious in scope
and speed.
I want to read some of the juxtapositions that are playing here, so
as Members on the other side think about their vote, it just does not
get glossed over by one fix or two in what we here in this Chamber call
the manager's amendment.
Let me read under health care. Medicaid provides insurance coverage
for over one-third of the live births nationally here in this country,
yet Medicaid is scheduled for a $95 billion cut. In Iraq after the war,
maternity care will be guaranteed for 100 percent of the population.
The U.S. budget we are about to vote on does not provide a single
dollar of health insurance for the uninsured in this country, where we
have 42 million Americans who work full time without health care. In
Iraq after the war, 13 million people, half the population, will be
guaranteed health care coverage.
Under education, the U.S. budget cuts Head Start for 28,000 children,
cuts education spending by 8 percent, zeroes out 40 new programs, like
technology, like Star Schools. In Iraq, there will be guaranteed books
and supplies and 100

[[Page H2107]]

percent enrollment for 4 million schoolchildren in Iraq, with U.S.
dollars.
Teacher quality programs in America are cut by $9.3 billion, more
than 10 percent, and 25,000 schools in Iraq will be rebuilt and
renovated at standard level of quality.
Housing, we only have in this budget enough dollars for 5,000 new
affordable housing units; yet in Iraq the plan is for 20,000 new units
of housing.
The Army Corps of Engineers is scheduled for a 10 percent cut in this
country; yet our plan for Iraq calls for total reconstruction of the
Umm Qasr port so it is fully opened for cargo traffic.

{time} 1800

That is the plan for Iraq. That is also the plan for America.
Under Transportation, highway funding in America is cut by $6 billion
over the next 10 years. In Iraq 3,000 miles of new roads will be
rebuilt.
Now, after that juxtaposition, I am not against the reconstruction
budget for Iraq. If you want to build democracy, that should be the
commitment of our country. The plan for Iraq is robust. The plan for
America must be robust.
The plan for Iraq has been thought through in an economic strategy.
The plan for America must have the same strategy, the same care for its
health care, for its pregnant women. The same care for its schools. The
same care for its housing. The same care for its infrastructure.
This budget that we are going to vote on leaves too many Americans
behind. Because of the impact of the 2001 tax cut, 2.5 million
Americans without jobs, 4 more million Americans without health care, a
trillion corporate assets foreclosed on, and 2 more million Americans
who have gone from middle class to poverty. One could be cynical enough
to think that what I just read about Iraq versus America could be
distilled down to 30 seconds.
I want Members to think about this before they vote on this budget.
Just papering over the differences on Medicare will not erase the
differences between America and Iraq when it comes to our investment in
education, health care, housing, our infrastructure. We need a robust
plan for America. And this budget falls woefully short as it pertains
to our future, our families' future and their children.
Now, I am committed to working, if we win this war, which we will win
this war, to the reconstruction of Iraq. I want the same emphasis, the
same desire, the same dreams, the same hopes that our President talks
passionately about for Iraq for here at home. Because we cannot
guarantee 100 percent of pregnant women in Iraq with basic health care
for their pregnancy and yet cut $95 billion of Medicaid where one out
of every three Americans get their health care as it relates to their
child birth. We cannot cut 40 programs, zero them out, Head Start
schools, technology schools, teacher quality, and yet guarantee 25,000
new schools will be built in Iraq.
We cannot talk about 25,000 new housing in Iraq and yet only provide
the funding for 5,000 new affordable housing in America. That is not a
dream for America. That is foreclosing on America's dream.
And I know there are good people with good values on the other side
who think hard about what they are doing, and I want them to think hard
about the vote that they are going to cast on that budget because they
have to go back home and explain how Iraq got moved to the front and
their families, their neighbors got moved back. That is not right. We
can do better.
It need not be a Democrat-Republican issue. Let us make America first
not only around the world but here at home.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Oregon
(Ms. Hooley) for her distinguished service in the House, and I thank
her for putting together this Special Order.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about what will be coming
before the House of Representatives, the House of the people, and that
is our Nation's budget. We know that the Federal budget is a very, very
thick book of many, many pages with fine print and many, as we say,
line items. But at the end of the day what a budget is about is not
only a compilation of numbers but it is a statement of the values of
the American people.
I have done much budgeting in my day from local government, the
county of San Mateo, where we were required, obviously, to balance our
budget. I still adhere to that because I think being fiscally
responsible is not only necessary but it is the prudent thing to do.
So what is this budget debate going to be about? Both sides of the
aisle are really challenged to come up with their best ideas for their
vision of our country, of where we are going and what we need in order
to get there.
Tonight on the Feast of Saint Joseph, the worker, our country is on
the brink of war. And yet the President's budget does not include one
dime for that. There is something wrong with that picture. There is
something very wrong with that picture.
Let me give you a picture of my congressional district. It is a very
distinguished place in our country. It is the home of Stanford
University. It is the home of Silicon Valley. In 2 short years
everything that was up is now down. We have one of the highest
unemployment rates in our Nation. Our State is facing up to a $35
billion deficit. Keep in mind that our State and our local governments
represent 12 percent of our national economy.

Now, what are the President and this House proposing in their budget?
The same old same old. How many months ago? 18 months ago the President
said as the economy was sputtering. We need massive tax cuts. Tax cuts
that would go to the wealthiest, the best off in our Nation. It is a
legitimate argument that was pitched then about whether that was the
best prescription for our Nation's circumstances. I voted against it
because I thought at the time that when the sun is shining, that is
when you fix the roof. We did not do it. Squandered the surplus.
We now have a different economic condition in our country. Indeed,
our country faces even more challenges than we could have ever dreamed
of as the first roll of tax cuts went out. So what is contained in this
new budget that the President has brought to us and your Republican
friends are going to bring to the floor? More tax cuts. I believed it
was wrong then; it is certainly wrong now.
Imagine if Winston Churchill, when he was rallying his countrymen to
go to war said, And in addition to my rallying you, my countrymen, I am
calling for a massive tax cut.
This is a sober time in the life of our Nation and in the families of
our Nation. Many have committed their children, their treasury and our
Nation's treasury to this war in Iraq. Veterans benefits should not,
therefore, be cut. Our Nation's defense needs to be paid for. But the
education of those that are serving in Iraq, their children's education
should not be cut at home. We do them a disservice. We dishonor them,
and we dishonor the future of our country by doing this.
This is not about throwing money at things. This is the
responsibility of a great democracy. That is why the Democrats have
held the line on education here at home. It is why Democrats recognize
that we will not have homeland security unless we fund hometown
security. There is something wrong when the firefighters from my
district who came in to meet with me just this morning said, because
hometown security is not being funded, our positions, our jobs are
being eliminated. Now that does not make sense. It is not right.
I keep thinking of what my father used to say when something really
got mucked up. He would say, You have made a real mess of this. This is
a harsh judgment of my Republican colleagues, but you have made a mess
of the economic life of this country, a real mess. We are now back to
you have produced a deficit and it is over $300 billion. You will drive
the national debt up to at least 5 trillion. The cost of this very tax
cut that you are going to bring to the floor in your budget, the cost,
the price tag of that alone is $1.6 trillion.
This is not pitting those that have more against those that are
average, against those that have even less. This is about the United
States of America. We are all in this together. And so the fairness and
the responsibility and the

[[Page H2108]]

fiscal responsibility need to be exercised. It is a budget that leaves
the American people wanting. If we cannot fund properly our national
defense, our hometown security, education for our children, and the
health care of our veterans and those amongst us, then what have we
come to? What have we come to?
We have a responsibility not to place these burdens on our children,
our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. The Democratic budget
recognizes that. That is why I am proud to stand next to it. The
Republican budget does not.
It is no wonder that those in Republican seats on the other side of
the aisle are rising up and saying, This is not fair and we are not
going to vote for it. I salute their guts and their courage to do that.
Why? Because our Nation's treasures are putting their lives, their
courage, their lives on the line some place else on the globe; and we
need to stand next to them by honoring their families here at home.
That is what this is about.
So, Mr. Speaker, as we come to the floor and speak about what is
going to come to us on the floor, there may not be that many people in
the country listening, unfortunately. Why? Because legitimately we are
preoccupied with the moment when America is going to strike. But
whether people notice it or not, whether they notice it or not in terms
of our words in this debate, make no mistake about it, it will be felt.
It will come home to each individual, each mother, each child, each
health clinic, each classroom, each senior center, each lunch program
in your grammar schools and our elementary schools.
It will be felt in communities across this country. Why? Because that
is what our Nation's budget is about. It is about our democracy. It is
about what we value. It is about where we place our priorities. I hope
that it is a budget that reflects the best of us and not some bumper
sticker. I hope it is a budget that funds what is going to collectively
take us into the future. I hope it is a budget that does not
shortchange what children eat in their lunch programs, whether they
have a classroom that is the right size, whether their teacher is
trained and educated the right way, whether those that have served in
other wars are honored with the benefits that they receive. I hope it
is not a slap in the face to America. That is not what this should be
about.
I am proud that the Democratic alternative will take us back to a
balanced budget by 2010. I do not think our friends on the other side
of the aisle can boast that. It covers the priorities that we believe
not only have made our Nation great in the past, what has been given to
us, but what we can do for the future of our country.

{time} 1815

I thank my colleagues, especially the New Democrats, for taking time
this evening to demonstrate the differences, because there is a
difference, Mr. Speaker, and, Mr. and Mrs. America, between the two
major parties. It is our responsibility to bring our ideas forward and
have them be part of the debate in this country about which way is the
best way to go. I thank my colleagues, and I especially thank the
gentlewoman from Oregon who has brought such leadership to this.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to stand by the words
of my colleague from California. There are many of us here, especially
among the New Democrats, that did vote for the tax cuts going back
almost 18 months ago. I come from New York. In New York, we love tax
cuts, mainly because we pay so many taxes on the island. But I have
some real problems with the budget that we are looking at.
We are supposed to debate this tomorrow, and I hope that we do, but I
understand that many of my colleagues on the Republican side are having
a real problem with the budget that they saw, and I hope they stand
together, because we as a Nation are going through some very, very
tough times. America, as I said, is going through some very trying
times. The economy is struggling, unemployment unfortunately is up,
consumer confidence is down, and our Armed Forces are gearing up to go
to war.
Tomorrow possibly, if they can come to an agreement, this body will
debate an overall budget for this country that hopefully will address
all of these concerns. And I hope it is a good debate. I hope they
allow us at least to even put our budget forward. That is what this
great place is about, the debates. Then we have the vote. We either win
or we lose. But unfortunately around here lately, we are not even
allowed to put a substitute up. I am always hopeful.
The two proposals that I have seen, one from the administration and
the other from the House Budget Committee, do not come close to
addressing our concerns. I am going to have a very hard time going home
and telling my constituents that I might be cutting after-school
programs, student loans, teacher quality programs, COPS funding.
COPS funding. That should be part of our homeland security. I know in
New York City, they are spending an extra $5 million a week. COPS
programs, that is helping my community work with my schoolchildren to
make sure that the areas are safe, and to get the kids to know them so
that they have someone to go to when they need it.
A highway fund. We all know that when we put money into the highways,
those are jobs, not only making our infrastructure better, but also it
helps the mom-and-pop stores because our construction workers have to
eat. Our construction workers, by the way, pay our school bills.
But I have to say, when you try to make room for a back-loaded tax
cut plan proposed by the administration that provides a very, very
minimal stimulus, I think we have a problem. I cannot go home and tell
my constituents that I slashed funding for our veterans. We are on the
brink of going to war. We have young men and women overseas getting
ready to protect this country, and we are showing our older veterans
the compassion by cutting their funding for health care. There is
something very, very wrong with that.
I spent my life as a nurse before I came here. I know firsthand that
our hospitals across this Nation are struggling to keep their doors
open. Yet in the Republican budget we see more slashes for Medicare and
Medicaid. There is something very, very wrong with that.
I am one of these people that do not believe in kicking someone when
they are down. If this budget passes tomorrow or Friday, we are going
to be hurting an awful lot of people.
Again, are we going to have a decent prescription drug plan? Out on
Long Island, I have my seniors that cannot even afford to be able to
buy their medications. That is wrong. No one should have to go without
their medications. I look at things holistically. If you are not giving
medications to the patient, they are going to end up in the hospital,
and it is going to end up costing more money. Yet in the wisdom of my
colleagues on the other side of the floor, they want to cut Medicare
reimbursements, they want to make our hospitals have to even cut back
more, which means, by the way, they are not going to be able to hire
nurses to take care of the patients.
We have to look at things, in my opinion, on how we would run our
house. We all have to make sacrifices. We all have mortgages. We all
have bills to be paid. We sit down and we look to see what has to be
done. But this budget, the Republican budget that is coming out
tomorrow, is totally unacceptable.
I think the shame of it is that we are making these cuts so we can
make room for a $1.4 trillion tax cut. I do not know. I think the
American people, if anybody is watching, would kind of sit around and
say, wait a minute. My mother, maybe my grandmother, maybe she needs to
go to a nursing home. She needs her prescription drugs. Those are going
to be slashed? I do not know. That is not the way you cut a budget.

Then we have the war. We all know most likely that we will be going
soon, but there is not one penny in either proposal of the budgets that
I have seen for the war or even the cost of rebuilding the economy.
Some argue we can address these costs in a supplemental. I understand
supplementals. However, these supplementals are becoming like second
budgets. If we have any kind of an idea of what something is going to
cost, we should budget for it, and we should budget for it now.

[[Page H2109]]

I know we are going to go into some debt because of the war, and that
to me is good debt. It is good debt mainly because we are protecting
this Nation, and we are going to be protecting other nations so that
they can have democracy and freedom and freedom from terrorism. We have
to look to see what our priorities are.
This body, and I happen to think the Democratic budget substitute is
the one that we should be looking at, it puts us back in balance, and
that is what we all want. It provides a stimulus package that actually
will stimulate the economy. We should have been doing this in January.
We should have been stimulating the economy so that we would not have
unemployment going up and up and up.
Homeland security. I talk to my schools, I talk to my firemen, I talk
to our police officers, I talk to my county executive. They are trying
to put plans together, but there is no money there. Most of our States,
as I have mentioned before, are already in debt, so they cannot even
spend the money. My county is in debt, and we have worked very hard to
try and get out of debt, but unfortunately sales are down, so tax
revenues coming in are not there.
The Democratic plan also offers a sensible prescription drug
proposal.
The other thing is we are going to make sure that the funds are there
for our military. This can be achieved by providing a stimulus that is
reasonable and targeted to the people who need it the most.
The American people are looking to Congress to pass sensible policies
that not only encourage investment, but also increase goods and
services. Again, we have to be able to do a number of things here. We
have to make sure that we are there to protect our armed services, but
we also have to make sure that the country is economically sound. The
Democratic proposal can do that. The Republican budget will not.
Unfortunately, the choices before this body suggest policies that do
more harm than good. For example, half of the costs associated with
President Bush's tax cut involve an elimination of the tax on
dividends. To be honest with you, I do not have a problem with that. In
better times, I probably would vote for it. I happen to think that in
the long term it might be good for this country. It is not good right
now. It is not the best bang that we can get for our dollar. I am
hoping that we might be able to take this out and address it next year
when things are better. This particular provision should be included in
a long-term tax reform bill, as I had said. We should debate this at a
later time when we can afford it.
A true stimulus plan provides immediate capital to assist an ailing
economy. I believe that eliminating the tax on dividends does not
provide us with the bang for the buck as we need it, as I said before.
And though I understand the need to make sacrifices, and I know the
American people understand what sacrifices are, if we want to jump-
start the economy, it should not be done by passing bad policy. I want
to support a budget that actually stimulates while taking into
consideration long-term budget implications. There is no room for
political gamesmanship when people lose their retirement savings or
their jobs.
Again, I am just going to say, what I saw on the Republican budget,
large cuts to education. It cuts my veterans' benefits and health care.
My hospital on Long Island for my veterans can barely keep its doors
open now. It fails to protect the environment. It fails to make the
adequate investment in health care.
I know that we have tough decisions to make, but again, the
Democratic plan covers all these issues, makes them fair, and certainly
brings hopefully a little bit of sunshine down the road when we can go
back into a balanced budget.
I hope the American people get involved in this debate. I hope that
they call their Representatives, because the pain that we are going to
be feeling not just from the war, but from the cuts on educating our
children, taking care of those in the hospital, taking care of those at
home, taking care of our seniors, that is not where we should be making
cuts.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I thank the gentlewoman for her thoughts today
and for advocating a fiscally responsible budget.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the
gentlewoman from Oregon for organizing this hour to talk about a very
important subject, the budget. Of the many things that are disturbing
about the budget that the President has proposed and the Republicans
have proposed here in the House of Representatives, I think perhaps the
most disturbing, is the chatter that is coming out of the Republican
side of the aisle that deficits do not matter. It used to be that a
balanced budget amendment seemed to be required, and now we have sort
of decided because it is inconvenient to have to balance the budget
that deficits no longer matter.
They have come up with all kinds of fascinating arguments as to why
that is. I think the biggest one they focus on is to say that deficits
do not really affect interest rates, because that is typically one of
the arguments against running deficits is that if the government is
gobbling up all the money out there, it is going to drive up interest
rates and hurt the overall economy. They point to various points in our
history and say that, well, in the 1970s we did not have much in the
way of deficits, and we had very high interest rates. In the 1980s we
had high deficits and lower interest rates. That is debatable. It seems
to me just as an economic matter, if you run deficits over a long
period of time, eventually that is going to have a negative effect on
interest rates. But even ignoring that point, it is simply true that
you cannot run a deficit forever.
The biggest reason that deficits are, in fact, a problem is that they
suck up all the money for the future and get us to the point as a
country where all we can do is pay the monthly payment, just like
someone with a credit card debt that is out of control, where they are
simply trying to pay the monthly payment, and the interest keeps
racking up. The amount of money that we will spend on interest will
accelerate. The amount of deficits we run up on a year-by-year basis
will accelerate under the President's budget. Ten, twenty, thirty years
from now, we are going to have no money for any priorities, be they
Republican, Democrat or whoever.
So if we can at least eliminate one notion, during the debate
tomorrow I would hope that someone on the Republican side of the aisle
would stand up and say that deficits matter. They are something we
should be concerned about, and just because they are inconvenient, we
should not turn logic on its head and suddenly say we do not care about
them anymore.
The other thing that is truly disturbing about this budget is never
in the history of this country have we cut taxes while at the same time
going to war. The unrealism of that puts us in huge fiscal jeopardy and
puts us in a position where we will not be able to meet our obligations
in that war. Keep in mind, we are really about to enter our second war.
Al Qaeda declared war on us years before September 11. That war was
crystal clear after September 11. So dealing with that challenge was
number one. Now we are about to launch a second war in Iraq and we, the
Republicans, are telling the American people that we can still cut
taxes by hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars.
That is hopelessly unrealistic. We have already seen the impact of
it, the lack of funding for homeland security, and we are very
concerned about it, the lack of funding for the war in Iraq for that
matter. It has not been put on the table as part of this budget, and we
know there is going to be a cost. That is very, very unrealistic.
The last thing that is troubling about this budget is it in no way
stimulates the short-term economy. The tax cut that is being proposed,
only 10 percent of that tax cut will come into being in the first year,
right now, when the economy is in trouble. If it were truly
stimulative, that is where the money would be. Ninety percent of this
tax cut is at least 1 year away, which means it is going to have no
impact whatsoever on our economic problems today. Presumably in 2, 3, 4
years, the business cycle will return, and we will have a strong
economy, and what is the purpose of the tax cuts then? Certainly it is
not stimulative.

[[Page H2110]]

That is the overarching problem with this budget. This budget
reflects a philosophy that says fundamentally we need to cut the
Federal Government dramatically. The tax cut that was passed 18 months
ago, or almost 2 years ago now, was bad enough. It set us on a path
when fully implemented to dramatically see that reduction. Now to pile
on another trillion dollars will put us in a position where we will not
be able to fund many priorities.
Again, the Republican majority is being very disingenuous about this.
They come before you and they talk about the no child left behind bill,
their commitment to education. They talk about a prescription drug
benefit. They talk about the need to deal with health care. If you are
going to cut taxes by trillions of dollars, you are not going to be
able to address those issues. The no child left behind bill is already
on pace to be underfunded by $12 billion from what the President said
he would do as a starting point. What this shows us is we cannot meet
those priorities. The rhetoric talking about them is simply empty.
So one final thing I would ask of the majority in the debate tomorrow
is to make that clear to the American people, that this is the choice.
Do you want simply to have the largest tax cuts possible, primarily for
what they like to refer to as the investor class, which primarily means
not most of the people in America? Do you want to have that, or do you
want to fund these priorities? Because when the Republicans get up here
and talk about a prescription drug benefit and talk about education,
understand they have no plan whatsoever to fund it. To the extent it is
in there, it is only in there rhetorically. We simply cannot have the
tax cuts that they are talking about and fund the priorities that they
are talking about.
Let us have an honest choice. Let us honestly assess what our choices
are, be fiscally responsible, fund our priorities as they lay out there
and not pretend that we can have it all; not pretend that in essence we
can spend the same dollar three or four times.
Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for bringing this
debate out. Tomorrow I think we will have the opportunity to talk about
it further. I would urge us to reject the Republican budget plan.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk
about the budget resolution we will be asked to consider tomorrow, a
budget that I believe is one of misplaced priorities. Just a few hours
ago, the gentlewoman from Oregon and I went before the Committee on
Rules to urge support for what I believe must be one of our foremost
priorities. The gentlewoman from Oregon and I asked that an amendment
be declared in order that would provide $2.2 billion in funding to
first responders not next year, but immediately, in fiscal year 2003.
I believe that we can and must agree to put aside our differences and
fund first responders. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to
consider this important amendment on the floor tomorrow. We say
first responders are a priority, but as happens all too often in
Washington, it is one thing to call an initiative a priority, and it is
an entirely different matter to devote the funding required to validate
that priority. In this particular case, there is no question that the
need is real, immediate and essential.

I represent the First District of New York, the western boundary of
which is no more than 40 miles from the border of New York City,
clearly one of the most prominent targets for terrorists, and I have
spoken with our firefighters throughout our district, our police
officers throughout our district, and they recognize that they are ill-
equipped to respond. They need training, they need equipment, and the
Federal Government must provide the support that they require.
I also come to the floor today to discuss our priorities as a Nation
and to talk about how I believe the Republican budget that we will
consider tomorrow is a budget of misplaced priorities. As we consider
this budget, we have an opportunity to make the right choices for our
Nation, choices that will strengthen our families, secure our
communities and send us back down the road to economic security.
Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are forcing a
vote on a budget that is the antithesis of fiscal responsibility and
sends our Nation back to deficits. These deficits stretch out as far as
the eye can see, and they squander desperately needed programs for
working families.
If the goal of the Republican budget is to provide a shot of
adrenalin to our economy, in my opinion this plan falls far short of
that goal. The Republican budget puts forth a costly economic growth
package with less than 3 percent of the proposed tax cuts occurring
this year when it is most needed. On the other hand, the Democratic
proposal would provide four times the amount of stimulus provided by
the House Republican proposal with $136 billion in targeted tax breaks
applicable immediately. These tax breaks will encourage investments by
business and help those who are in the greatest need of relief.
Both the Democratic and the Republican budgets would balance by the
year 2010. The difference is that the Republican budget would do so by
forcing what I believe are unconscionable cuts to key mandatory and
discretionary funding programs. The Republican budget would cut
important programs such as student loans, veterans' benefits, and
school lunch programs by as much as $98 billion over 10 years. Today
when so many families are sacrificing and struggling, it is not the
time to crack down on veterans, students trying to earn a college
diploma and schoolchildren from low-income families who deserve to eat
a nutritious meal.
Why do we not try this? If we are going to crack down on anyone, why
do we not crack down on corporations that relocate offshore exclusively
for the purposes of evading their United States tax obligations?
Further, the Republican budget would undermine domestic
appropriations by $244 billion below the amount needed to continue
programs at today's level. Passing this budget will hurt working
families, children, the elderly, veterans, seniors, and so many others.
These types of cuts are difficult to justify under any circumstance.
They are impossible to justify when one considers that they result from
an irresponsibly large, massive package of tax cuts geared to the very
wealthy. Why should we give an additional tax cut to the top 2 to 5
percent of wage earners in this country when doing so requires us to
seriously undermine so many important programs, and doing so also
imperils the long-term security of Social Security and Medicare?

{time} 1830

We need to do the right thing tomorrow and pass a real stimulus
package, one that stabilizes our communities by delivering results for
small businesses and working families now rather than later. Now is not
the time to be forcing damaging budget cuts that undermine the social
fabric of our communities just so that we can provide additional tax
breaks to those who make the most. Now is the time to act with fiscal
responsibility in mind to jump start the economy and to provide lasting
investments in our families.
I believe that we know what our priorities should be, and I urge my
colleagues to vote for the Democratic budget substitute tomorrow.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New
York.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) who has been
working on budgets since we both got here.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley) for yielding.
Tonight the Congress starts its debate as to the budget resolution,
which represents a statement by the Nation as to our priorities as a
country. On the eve of war, this is a more solemn event than ever, and
I think it is fair to say that the United States citizens expected
their Congress more so than ever to come together, Democrats and
Republicans, the House and Senate, the Congress and the President, on a
realistic plan, not politics, not gestures, not symbolism, something
that truly represents a plan to keep our country secure and strong and
to plan for the future, as we are expected to do as leaders.
What I would like to do tonight is to highlight in what I hope is the
most accurate fashion possible the Republican

[[Page H2111]]

budget resolution and the Democratic budget resolution and along the
way to express my opinions in terms of how I think we bring this all
together. First of all, I think it is fair to say that the Republican
budget resolution has as its centerpiece a tax cut over 10 years in the
amount of about $1.3 trillion. This is truly a very significant tax
cut. I think it is also fair to say that virtually every Member of
Congress serving here today has promised the people that we represent
that we intend to enact Medicare coverage of prescription drugs in
order to deal with a growing crisis in our country as far as seniors
and disabled and other people lacking access to critical prescription
drugs. And so both budget resolutions must be measured against that
standard.
The Republican budget resolution, it is fair to say, sets aside $28
billion, $28 billion to cover the cost of Medicare coverage for
prescription drugs, I might add a very minimal fraction of what the
President proposed as that cost. In addition, it is fair to say that
the current version of the Republican budget resolution calls for
significant cuts in spending, some of which have already been referred
to here tonight. These cuts are going to be very difficult to defend to
the people at home. They are significant cuts in veterans benefits.
They are cuts in student loans. They are cuts in the Medicaid program
that States that are struggling to meet their budgets right now are
relying upon to furnish a safety net there. They are cuts in funding
for the environment. These are significant cuts. Particularly like a
State like mine, Florida, these cuts will have real impact on people at
home.
Finally, the Republican budget resolution calls for a deficit of $319
billion in the next year, a staggering deficit, one that will bring
with it a significant interest cost that every man, woman, and child
will be paying in this country as the Federal Government goes deeper
into debt. It is also important to point out on the eve of war that the
Republican budget resolution provides not a single penny for what we
all know will be a very expensive war in Iraq, not to mention perhaps
an even more expensive cost of dealing with Iraq after Saddam Hussein
has been disarmed, after Saddam Hussein is gone.
I think the weaknesses, the limitations in the Republican budget
resolution are terribly self-evident. At a time where I expect the
President will surely call upon the Nation to sacrifice, to participate
in the commitment our men and women abroad are making and their
families are making without them here at home, it is not the priority
of our country to call for a $1.3 trillion tax cut. Taking that tax cut
is not the type of commitment, not the kind of sacrifice people have in
mind in supporting our troops and supporting our President and
supporting our Nation. Cutting veterans programs, depriving students
who have worked so hard to get through high school the opportunity to
go to college, losing students loans, these are not the things that
made our country great. This is not what we stand for. This is not what
we are fighting about. These are not our priorities.
Let me talk about the Democratic budget resolution and start by
saying in fairness to the Republicans, we clearly are in a challenging
situation here in terms of how to juggle our competing priorities. The
Democratic budget resolution, which I strongly support, represents an
attempt to build on the more constructive features of the Republican
budget resolution and the more constructive features of the President's
budget and then attempts to improve upon them and not to simply
criticize them.
So let me highlight some of those points. The first is that the
Democratic budget resolution calls for a tax cut of approximately $136
billion compared to $1.3 trillion in the Republican tax cut.

{time} 1845

The centerpiece of the Republican tax cut is the elimination of a tax
on dividends for some corporations through a very complicated process
that will not take effect for some time. That has been presented as a
stimulus. I think it is fair to say that is at best a fundamental
change in tax policy, and because it has no effect any time soon, it is
not really going to stimulate the economy at a time when we need the
economy to be stimulated.
In contrast to that, the proposed Democratic budget alternative calls
for immediately putting into effect a more accelerated type of
depreciation for businesses, an attempt by the Federal Government to
say to small businesses, medium-sized businesses across the country, we
want to encourage you to invest in your company, buy the equipment you
need, make the purchases you need to keep your business going, and you
are going to pay less taxes on that as part of our attempt to help
stimulate the economy.
The Democratic budget alternative also makes permanent the child care
tax credit and the marriage penalty elimination, which benefits a huge
number of Americans and will put money in their pockets, which will
help stimulate spending and the economy.
On the spending side, the Democratic budget alternative does not make
the cuts in veterans' benefits, in student loans, in environmental
programs. It keeps those programs continuing. It funds them to take
into account growth and inflation. I cannot think of a worse statement
of our priorities than to be cutting veteran benefits in the days
ahead. The Democratic budget alternative does not do that.
With respect to prescription drug coverage under Medicare, the
Republican budget alternative calls for $28 billion. The Democratic
budget alternative calls for $528 billion. This is a realistic sum.
This is a number that Democrats and Republicans ought to be able to
work with. It is not dramatically different than where the President
started. It is a higher number. This is an attempt to find common
ground to finally do what the politicians have promised people at home
for far too long, to begin to cover prescription drugs.
Now, I have to say, this is not the ideal plan. If you are serious
about attacking deficits, if you are serious about funding security at
home and abroad, this is not the most elaborate, the most generous
Medicare prescription drug plan Democrats might offer or this Congress
might pass. But it is an attempt to juggle competing priorities. It is
an attempt to start a modest Medicare prescription drug plan that, over
time, as our country regains peace and prosperity, we can truly fund at
the level our seniors deserve.
Another important difference between the Democratic and Republican
budget alternatives is homeland security. The Democratic alternative
provides 34 billion additional dollars above and beyond the Republican
budget alternative for homeland security; $10 billion of that is to the
States. In the last couple of days, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
Tom Ridge, has ordered Governors throughout the country to go on a
heightened state of alert. Security is not free. This will cost money.
Virtually every State in this country, including Florida, is
struggling because of the economy, because of deficits in their own
budgets. The Federal Government needs to step in as a partner and help
provide security. The Federal Government, in my judgment, has been
derelict in its duty in not stepping up to the plate and doing this
sooner.
This Congress recently missed another opportunity to provide funding
for first responders, for equipment and training for police and fire.
We cannot make the same mistake again on the eve of war. The Democratic
budget alternative provides $34 billion additional above and beyond the
Republican budget alternative. This is something Democrats and
Republicans should agree on. This is something that every citizen in
this country expects.
Finally, let me make two other points. One is that the Democratic
budget alternative proposes to bring the country back into a balanced
Federal budget by 2010. Deficits do matter. They affect interest rates
in the long term. They have a lot to do with the ability of our country
to plan for the future, the retirement of the baby-boomers, to keep
Social Security and Medicare solvent.
Now, if the Democratic budget alternative sounds too good to be true,
it is because there are some difficult choices there. Let me close by
mentioning a couple of the difficult choices.
The Democratic budget alternative revisits President Bush's last tax
cut,

[[Page H2112]]

which was based on an assumption the economy was going to be growing at
a dramatically positive rate, and that we would be enjoying peace and
prosperity for years to come.
Well, we know, painfully so, that is not the case. What the
Democratic budget alternative does is to freeze the Bush tax cut,
President Bush's tax cut, with respect to the highest income earners,
in order to generate revenue to pay for homeland security, to pay for
the cost of the war in Iraq, to pay for what this country is going to
have to do after we successfully disarm Saddam Hussein. These are the
priorities of the country. This is what is expected of us.

The other way that the Democratic budget alternative funds security,
funds a meaningful prescription drug benefit and achieves a balanced
budget by 2010 is to eliminate the repeal of the estate tax. It would
say instead what Democrats and Republicans should have agreed upon a
long time ago, as proposed by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Pomeroy): We will establish immediately a $6 million credit from the
estate tax for couples, $3 million per individual, that will result in
98 to 99 percent of American citizens avoiding the estate tax.
The effect of that is, again, to generate the revenue that allows us
to keep this country secure and strong and back to a balanced budget so
that we can achieve what we have been challenged to face tonight, to
support our men and women abroad, to keep our promise to our veterans,
and this next generation of veterans serving our country so bravely,
and serve our people and get our economy back to the strength it
deserves so we can be strong not just abroad, but at home as well.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 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. Speaker, I am here today because I am
deeply concerned about the devastating impact the President's budget
could have on working families across this country, particularly at a
time when our Nation stands at the very brink of war.
The cuts that are proposed in this budget stand to hurt the very
families whose loved ones are overseas preparing to fight this war.
Last weekend I had an opportunity to meet with a number of military
families whose husbands, whose brothers, sisters and wives are
courageously serving our Nation in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
They shared with me their thoughts and fears while their loved ones
were deployed so many miles away from home.
In addition to expressing the uncertainties that they face, they are
also concerned about their children's future. That is why education is
a major concern to them. They know that the quality of their children's
education is dependent upon some significant Federal support.
Mr. Speaker, the President's budget proposal seeks to cut education
funding by more than $10 billion in the next year alone. In my home
State of California, where the State budget deficit is expected to
exceed $25 billion in 2004, as many as 30,000 teachers, counselors,
nurses and administrators are already receiving notices to leave their
posts in our children's schools. School districts are slashing a number
of positions, and the President's budget provides no direct Federal aid
to States to help with this great concern that we have.
At a time when we are sending more servicemen and women to Iraq each
day, the very least we can do for them is to ensure that their children
are receiving the very best services we can offer, but this budget is
failing to meet this promise. While these same families are expressing
their concerns as their loved ones are being sent abroad indefinitely
to potentially face the perils of war, the very least of their concerns
are costly tax cuts.
Mr. Speaker, we have larger priorities at hand. While we are still
attempting to assess the costs of the war, our focus should remain on
providing for our Nation's military, their families and our national
security. It is simply irresponsible to neglect these priorities in
favor of sweeping tax cuts, tax cuts that largely fail to benefit the
brave men and women we are sending overseas at this very moment.
We understand that at a time of war we may, in fact, face large
deficits, but we should not make them greater by supporting a tax
package that has at its very heart helping those that at this time need
it the least. This is simply the wrong message to be sending not only
to working families, but to military families carrying out their
commitment to America.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, again, the
Democratic budget is a fiscally responsible budget that does not cut
funds for veterans, that stimulates the economy, that makes sure that
our children can go to college, have after-school programs, and the
Republican budget does not do that.

____________________