[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 36 (Monday, April 4, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3137-S3138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE BUDGET
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, a Federal budget is about setting
priorities, and the priorities contained in this budget are all wrong.
About a year ago, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, described the
President's budget as ``faith-based.'' Faith-based tax cuts were going
to generate faith-based revenues, and we were all going to be better
off. Well, the deficit is skyrocketing, interest rates are going up,
and additional revenues haven't magically appeared.
If the budget before us were to pass unchanged, the deficit would
increase each and every year for the foreseeable future. Vermonters
understand that this is a burden we don't want to pass on to our
grandchildren. We have fallen into a borrowing pattern that makes this
Yankee cringe.
But let me emphasize that the deficits that we are now facing are
primarily caused by a drop in revenues, not by wasteful spending on
such things as education, veterans' benefits, and Amtrak. We could
eliminate all of the Federal Government's discretionary spending
outside of defense and we would still have a deficit.
On the mandatory side of the budget, I agree that we need to get a
handle on increases in Medicaid spending and the pressures on Social
Security due to the aging baby boom generation. But this budget fails
to confront these challenges and in the case of Social Security
pretends there is no problem.
How can we pass a budget that ignores the cost of the Iraq War after
September 30? How can we pass a budget that includes more tax cuts for
the few, but doesn't budget for the reform of the alternative minimum
tax or the President's own Social Security proposal?
How can we pass a budget that forces us to ``pay for'' any increases
in programs for our neediest citizens but doesn't require us to ``pay
for'' tax cuts for the well-to-do? If we are to reinstate the pay-as-
you-go rule, then it should, as it always has, include paying for both
new spending and new tax cuts.
Speaking of tax cuts, I have grown very tired of the economic
doublespeak now in fashion. If tax cuts were the policy of choice when
we had large surpluses, and they are still the policy of choice when we
now have large deficits, when if ever are tax cuts not the appropriate
policy? Perhaps the families in Vermont who used up their heating
assistance funds before winter was over, or the veteran on a waiting
list for a medical procedure at a VA hospital, would prefer an increase
in government spending to a tax cut.
Priorities, it is all about priorities.
We are 2 years into a war. American service men and women continue to
come home with horrific wounds, both physical and mental. While the
Department of Defense is keeping wounded soldiers in its medical system
for longer periods of time and is shouldering a greater share of the
costs, the long-term costs of health care and rehabilitation still fall
heaviest on the Veterans Administration.
This budget responds by underfunding the VA by almost $16 billion
over the next 5 years. How can we do this in the midst of a war? How
can the President in good conscience insist on maintaining large
numbers of troops in Iraq, and yet refuse to provide for the health
care needs of veterans? This is unacceptable.
This budget drastically cuts the Community Development Block Grant,
CDBG, program and other programs that our communities rely on. These
programs now benefit so many Vermonters who struggle to make ends meet.
This budget would consolidate 18 programs, including the CDBG, and
slashes their funding by 34 percent. In Vermont, this budget would most
harshly affect middle and low-income citizens by making safe and
affordable housing unattainable, ending quality childcare programs, and
compromising nutrition assistance. Funding for these important economic
development programs must be restored.
I am very concerned that agriculture, conservation, and food
assistance programs are faced with drastic cuts in funding. The Milk
Income Loss Contract Program, MILC, which the President saw fit to
include in his proposed budget, has been left out of this budget
resolution. The MILC Program is necessary to help family farmers
through tough times when milk prices are low.
[[Page S3138]]
This budget would also seriously compromise conservation programs
that are used to restore our land and clean our water. Perhaps most
unsettling will be the cuts to food assistance and nutrition programs,
including food stamps. In Vermont, 30 percent of children live in low-
income households that depend on food stamps for their basic needs and
the medical safety net for their healthcare.
Vermont, together with States throughout the Nation, is facing a
serious budget shortfall in providing the most basic level of
healthcare to our most vulnerable citizens. Instead of facing that fact
and providing temporary fiscal assistance to the States, the President
called for billions of dollars in cuts in the Medicaid program, which
the Senate fortunately rejected.
I am most disappointed that the Senate did not vote to provide
additional funding for the Nation's water infrastructure. Spending on
environmental programs from the national parks to programs that keep
our water, land, and air clean will have to be reduced if this budget
is enacted.
Priorities, it is all about priorities.
Even though education amendments passed, which I supported, that
added money back to the Senate budget proposal, that is still
insufficient to adequately fund important Federal education
initiatives. I remain concerned that the budget resolution will
eliminate funding for several key education programs, such as the $1.3
billion Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. This is especially
depressing since just last week the Senate, on a vote of 99-0, passed
the Perkins bill. Then just a few days later, no funding is provided in
the budget to carry out the program that was just passed.
In addition, the budget proposal does not provide the meaningful
increases necessary to carry out the 4-year-old No Child Left Behind
Act and the updated IDEA law that was enacted last December.
President Bush often mentions that education is a priority. He and I
obviously define priority differently. To me, priority means you pay
for the promises you make. I do not believe priority means you sign
laws requiring more accountability to improve student performance, and
then, in the next breath, send up a budget that doesn't provide the
dollars needed to carry out the purposes of those laws.
I have spent a substantial part of my career calling for the full
funding of special education. When the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act was enacted in 1975, Congress promised to pay 40 percent
of the cost. In the current fiscal year, Congress will finance only 19
percent of the program, forcing States and localities to make up the
difference.
I have tried to fulfill this promise in each of the last few years by
making IDEA funding mandatory. The President and his allies have said
that mandatory funding is not necessary, that we can meet the promise
of IDEA by increasing funding by $1 billion each year. In this budget,
IDEA funding is increased by only half of that amount.
This budget tells our children, their parents, and our local
taxpayers that they are not a priority, and that we will not keep our
word.
There is no question we are living through difficult budgetary times
and savings must be sought at every opportunity. But we must not delude
the American people into thinking that we can cut taxes, fight wars
overseas, improve education, take care of our environment, and repair
the Nation's transportation and water infrastructure all at the same
time.
I could not support the budget resolution because it did not
adequately fund important domestic programs and promote tax cuts to the
detriment of other priorities. At the same time, it did little to put
our Nation's fiscal house in order.
____________________