[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 32 (Friday, March 12, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2766-S2768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
S. CON. RES. 95
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this morning, an amendment offered
by the senior Senator from Ohio was accepted by voice vote. At the
time, I withheld from speaking on this amendment in order to expedite
consideration of the budget resolution, but I would now like to take a
moment to give my full statement.
This amendment addresses a serious shortfall in the President's
foreign affairs budget: funding for international health programs.
I commend Senator DeWine for his leadership on these key humanitarian
issues. Compared to some of the other amendments offered today, it is
not a large amount of money. But, it means life and death to literally
millions of people.
This amendment provides $330 million for the Child Survival and
Health Programs Fund. It is fully offset by reducing the amount that
the Federal Government spends on administrative expenses by $330
million.
This reduction will not be painful. We do not micro-manage the
process, and leave it to the administration to determine where to make
these cuts. But, I can think of some places that the Administration
might want to start.
For example, next year the administration plans to spend $5.5 billion
on ``transportation of things''; $21.1 billion on ``supplies and
materials'' for federal agencies--not including the Department of
Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security; and about a billion
dollars on printing costs.
[[Page S2767]]
If you want specifics on how to pay for this, one could come up with
this scenario.
The administration is planning to increase the amount spent on
``supplies and materials'' for the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Education, Energy, and Interior and the FDIC. Simply
maintaining the FY04 levels for these agencies yields $158 million.
Freezing certain non-defense agencies' budgets for printing costs at
the FY04 levels, which would otherwise be increased, brings the total
amount of offsets to $173 million.
To get the remaining $157 million, one can freeze a number of
combinations of proposed FY04 increases for ``other services'' of non-
defense agencies. This includes, but is not limited to, increases to
the Departments of Commerce, Energy, the Judicial Branch, and the FDIC.
The portions of the government that I just listed total $365 million so
this is more than enough. When added to the ones listed above, this is
$538 million in offsets.
The use of Function 920 to pay for these offsets, which are spread
over a range of different functions, is appropriate in this case. This
is the type of offset that Function 920 was established to accommodate.
These are not my numbers they are OMB's. I encourage my colleagues to
read the Object Class Analysis documents for further information.
I could go on, but we get the point. There is enough flexibility in
this budget to do a tiny bit of belt tightening in order to save lives
overseas, build goodwill towards the United States, and reduce the
conditions--poverty, sickness, and despair--that help terrorists gather
fresh recruits.
It may mean a few less paper clips or a few less glossy brochures,
but the savings will be well worth it.
The President's national security strategy recognizes the essential
role of foreign aid. But while we read about the importance of foreign
aid, we don't see it throughout the President's budget request.
Most of us have praised the President's budget for significant
increases for the Millennium Challenge Account--MCA--and to combat HIV/
AIDS. However, I have serious concerns because a portion of these
increases are paid for by robbing other essential programs, like health
care and food aid. Our amendment would restore some of these cuts.
Putting AIDS aside, the President's budget cuts essential
international health programs by 11.4 percent.
It would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases like
measles, which kills 1 million children--not 100,000 or 200,000--but 1
million children each year. Measles can be prevented with a simple
vaccine that costs pennies. Yet in many poor countries they cannot get
it.
The President's budget would cut programs to combat measles and other
infectious diseases like SARS, ebola and malaria, by 24 percent.
The President's budget would cut programs for vulnerable children by
64 percent. These programs help provide the basic necessities of life
to orphans, street children, and children whose lives have been turned
upside down by war.
Child survival and maternal health programs are also cut. These are
the programs that provide lifesaving child immunizations. They also
help to reduce needless pregnancy-related deaths each year. Six hundred
thousand women die from pregnancy related causes. Almost all of these
deaths could be prevented.
We should be moving aggressively to increase funding for these
successful programs--not reduce funding.
This is not a partisan issue. Over the past 6 years, Democrats and
Republicans have worked side-by-side to increase funding for
international health. Funding for AIDS is going up, but it is going up
at the expense of programs to combat other diseases which also cause
millions of deaths. Preventable deaths. And curable diseases. This is
unacceptable.
We cannot save every life. Our international health budget is less
than the health budget of my own tiny State of Vermont. The President's
budget would cut it even more. Our amendment would at least protect
these programs from further cuts.
Less than 1 percent of the Federal budget is used to combat the
conditions that cause poverty around the world. This is woefully
inadequate. It shortchanges America's future. It invites insecurity.
One would have thought that if September 11 taught us anything, it
was that business as usual is no longer tolerable. As I have said
before, the President deserves credit for the Millennium Challenge
Account and for increasing funding for HIV/AIDS.
But, I ask Senators to look behind the curtain to see these are
funded. Some is new money. Sadly, some is from cuts to other essential
humanitarian programs.
If we are going to lead, and especially if we are going to ask others
to do more, we are going to have to stop playing shell games with the
foreign aid budget. Leadership is good policy. Leadership means
resources.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, securing this nation's borders and keeping
Americans safe from terrorist threats is of the utmost importance to
this body. That is why I support the men and women who serve this
country. Thousands of men and women are currently deployed in Iraq,
Afghanistan and other parts of the world. We count on so many of these
brave men and women to protect our communities at a moment's notice and
for that, too, we thank them. We want them to come home safe to their
families, and to find good jobs and good healthcare waiting for them.
The State of Montana, known affectionately for its ``big sky'' and
small population, plays a key role in protecting this nation. At the
core of this country's national defense is the ICBM program maintained
by Malmstrom Air Force Base. This program must be fully modernized and
I support Malmstrom's mission 100 percent.
Montana also shoulders a unique responsibility to protect this nation
due to the 600-mile land border--the equivalent distance of Washington,
DC, to Chicago--we share with Canada. This border is porous and
topographically diverse and it constitutes the front line in the war on
terrorism. We have to make sure we not only have enough agents at the
border, but that we get them the equipment and technology they need to
secure Montana's borders, and to head off any threats directed toward
populations and infrastructure anywhere else in the country.
Though not every state has an international land border it must
secure, every state has the sacred duty to protect the people who call
it home. In the past 2\1/2\ years, the states, with federal assistance,
have made strides in emergency planning and terrorism preparedness. We
need to give our first responders the training, equipment, personnel
and resources that they need. But we're not there yet and we've got to
stay the course. That's why I joined 22 of my colleagues in the Senate
in urging the Budget Committee to find a way to restore $1 billion
dollars to the State Homeland Security Grant program that was cut from
the fiscal year 2005 budget. Montana's first responders rely almost
entirely on this assistance for their terrorism preparedness efforts.
But that's not enough. We need to make sure that our state and local
law enforcement get the funding they need if we expect them to protect
our communities and prevent the threat of terrorism. How can we expect
our communities to fight the war on terrorism if we aren't willing to
fund it well enough to win?
The same people who prepare for the unthinkable terrorist plot must
also plan for nature's devastation, which our state knows all too well.
These brave people serve their communities and their nation without
regard for the risks they take. We ought to be thanking them. We ought
to get them the personnel and resources they need and I am committed to
finding the way to do that. The money needs to be there for coordinated
communications for state, local and federal agencies, for fire fighters
and emergency managers, so that they can save time and save lives in
the event of any disaster we'd rather not imagine.
Security in Montana is more than knowing our borders and communities
are protected. It is also knowing that our children are receiving the
top notch education we have come to expect. Montana schools have made
do with too little for too long. It is access to affordable health
care. Unfortunately, access to health care remains a
[[Page S2768]]
challenge for many, particularly Native Americans and Veterans. It is
critical that the necessary resources are provided in Indian Health
Services and Veterans Administration.
Unfortunatley, it is commonplace for Native Americans seeking care
from Indian Health Service to be denied essential services that most of
us simply take for granted. This is a problem.
I believe we also owe it to our veterans to better attend to their
medical needs. Surely the greatest nation in the world should be able
to keep their promise to the veterans who have fought for and protected
our nation.
There are many challenges that face us now. By working together, we
will make America stronger.
This week throughout the Senate's debate on the budget several very
good amendments, including several on issues I just mentioned, were
offered that I, unfortunately, could not support. I do not believe that
we need to roll back tax relief that Congress enacted in 2001 to fund
this amendment. I supported those 2001 tax cuts. Congress enacted them
in a time of massive surpluses. Returning some of those surpluses to
the taxpayer was the right thing to do.
We can find other offsets to pay for the spending in this amendment.
Offsets like the closing of corporate tax shelters currently pending in
the JOBS bill come readily to mind. Before we start rolling back the
tax relief that we enacted in 2001, we should ensure that we have taken
all reasonable steps to obtain revenues through closing down abusive
tax shelters.
I shall look forward to working with my colleagues to find other
offsets for their amendments--offsets that as much as possible avoid
rolling back the tax relief that we enacted in 2001.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first, I want to offer my
congratulations to our Budget Committee Chairman, Senator Don Nickles,
for his efforts to craft a budget. He has announced that he will retire
from this body at the end of his current term, and so this will be his
last budget resolution, and his work on the Budget Committee and in
this body deserve recognition. Though I oppose the budget resolution he
produced in committee, and that was approved by this body, I have
nothing but the greatest respect for the author of that document.
Let me also note that the resolution passed by the Senate is an
improvement on the disastrous budget the President proposed, and I
credit Chairman Nickles with a great deal of that improvement. In
particular, I want to commend him for including at least some of the
expected cost of our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in his
mark. Though it is still far short of what our best estimates tell us
will be needed, it is a great improvement to the ``head in the sand''
approach adopted in the President's fiscal year 2005 budget proposal. I
regret the committee did not support my amendment to more adequately
and honestly budget for our operations, and I very much hope that as it
comes out of conference, the final version of the budget resolution
will adopt the approach I have advocated--forthright budgeting that
pays for our operations instead of shoving the cost onto future
generations.
I regret that this theme of ``buy now pay later'' pervades this
budget, as it has for the past 3 years. This resolution heads our
budget in the wrong direction. As our distinguished Ranking Member,
Senator Conrad, has noted, when compared with current policies as
represented in the CBO baseline and as adjusted by taking out last
year's supplemental appropriation for our operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. this budget resolution further worsens the budget bottom
line. Budget deficits will be greater, and Government debt will be
larger under this budget.
That means that this budget further adds to the burden our children
and grandchildren already bear because of the fiscal recklessness of
the past three years.
In one important respect, this resolution is a significant
improvement over the version reported out of committee, because it
restores some of the budget enforcement we so desperately need as we
face massive budget deficits for years to come. I was pleased that the
Senate approved my amendment to reinstate the discipline of the PAYGO
rule which requires that all new mandatory spending and all new tax
cuts be offset or be subject to a point of order. As it came out of
committee, this resolution maintained the far weaker rules embedded in
last year's budget resolution, inviting further damage to the budget,
and further debt to be heaped on the backs of future generations. With
the adoption of my amendment, the Senate has taken an important step
toward turning around the rapidly deteriorating budget position.
This resolution is also an improvement over the original mark offered
by the chairman because of an amendment adopted in committee that
facilitates the reimportation of FDA-approved prescription medicines
that I was proud to join with Senator Stabenow in offering. Our
amendment will not only save money for those who rely on those
medicines, but it also will reduce our budget deficits and save
taxpayers billions of dollars.
And I should note that this resolution does not rely on revenues
raised by drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, and
I want to express my thanks to the chairman for responding to the
appeal a number of us made with respect to this issue. I was prepared
to fight to remove such language, and I think the chairman was wise not
to rely on revenue assumptions that have always been questionable, and
that were at risk of being removed from the resolution.
The resolution was also improved on the floor when the body adopted
an amendment offered by Senator Baucus which stripped the
reconciliation instruction that would have severely limited
consideration of the issues surrounding the proposed significant
reshaping of Medicaid. The President's proposed changes to that program
would put thousands of Wisconsin's most vulnerable residents at risk,
and the Baucus amendment will make it harder for Congress and the White
House to gut this essential safety net.
I regret the body did not adopt amendments offered by the Senator
from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, and by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr.
Dorgan, that would have provided needed support for our first
responders, who are on the front lines in our fight against terrorism.
The administration did not include adequate support in its budget, nor
did the resolution as it came out of committee, and the Senate failed
to correct that defect when it rejected those amendments. This is an
area of funding as critical to the security of our country as any
other, and while I was pleased to support another amendment in this
area, offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and the Senator
from Michigan, Mr. Levin, to provide a portion of the resources that
are needed, I very much hope further improvement can be made before
Congress takes final action on the resolution.
I was also disappointed that the Senate did not act to improve the
measure by returning to the ``polluter pays'' policy that served us so
well for many years. I was pleased to join with the Senator from New
Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, in offering an amendment to do just that, and I
regret that this sensible policy was rejected.
While the Senate failed to add that provision, it did adopt an
amendment I strongly supported, to increase funding to support state
compliance with Federal clean water standards. The goal of that deficit
neutral amendment is to provide $3.2 billion for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund and $2.0 billion for the Safe Drinking Water Act
Revolving Fund, both vitally important programs that were not
adequately funded by the President in his budget submission.
As I noted earlier, this budget heads us down the wrong fiscal path.
If we are ever to climb out of the deficit ditch again, we need to
start now. Unfortunately, this resolution, though an improvement on
what the President proposed, still leaves us worse off than merely
extending current policies.
We must do better than that if we are to avoid heaping even more debt
onto the already enormous burden our children and grandchildren must
bear.
____________________