[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5191-5192]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. JIM LANGEVIN

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 28, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the concurrent resolution 
     (H. Con. Res. 83) establishing the congressional budget for 
     the United States Government for fiscal year 2002, revising 
     the congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2001, and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011:

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
budget resolution. In particular, I object to its cornerstone: an 
enormous tax cut that is skewed towards the wealthy and based on 
unreliable ten-year surplus projections. Furthermore, it usurps funds 
that should go to other critical priorities--including long-term debt 
reduction, creating a stable defense, improving education, providing 
affordable health care and strengthening Social Security and Medicare.
  What is most important to me and many of my colleagues is that we 
enact a budget based on principles, not politics. I believe we should 
start by honoring our promises, and I remain committed to paying down 
the national debt, while providing responsible tax relief and ensuring 
our most pressing needs are met.
  The Administration's budget calls for a $2 trillion tax cut 
(including the resulting increased interest costs) that 
disproportionately benefits the wealthiest one percent of our society. 
However, the budget fails to explain how our other national needs can 
be funded. When properly accounted for, the $1.4 trillion ``reserve,'' 
which the budget resolution delineates as available for ``additional 
needs,'' would not even cover the costs of maintaining current 
programs, let alone support the initiatives the President himself 
proposed during his campaign.
  We would all like to reward hard-working Americans by returning some 
of their tax dollars, but we also have an obligation to pay down as 
much of our publicly held debt as we possibly can. We ought not pass 
these bills onto our children, as the Bush Administration and this 
budget resolution propose.
  Further, we should use our current prosperity to enhance those 
federal programs relied upon by some of the most vulnerable members of 
society. Our senior citizens, as well as younger generations, deserve 
to know that the Social Security system will be strong and viable, 
whether they need it now or in twenty years. We must reform and 
strengthen Medicare, without slashing benefits or increasing costs for 
seniors. And we must provide an affordable prescription drug component 
for all seniors.
  This budget resolution would cut appropriated federal programs that 
are absolutely vital to our nation's small business, worker, health, 
environmental protection, and housing needs. The Bush budget also 
shortchanges our vast transportation and infrastructure needs, 
decreases funding for critical law enforcement programs, and cuts 
budget authority for the benefits our veterans need and deserve. And at 
a time when an energy crisis is threatening large portions of our 
country, why would the Administration propose to cut our energy budget 
below current levels?
  Furthermore, the Small Business Administration (SBA) would receive a 
cut of over 46 percent in its overall budget. Small businesses are the 
backbone of Rhode Island's economy and account for more than 95 percent 
of the jobs in the state. They bring new and innovative services and 
products to the market place and provide business ownership 
opportunities to diverse and traditionally underrepresented groups. 
Many of these small businesses rely on the valuable loan assistance and 
technical training programs offered by the SBA. These cuts could 
severely impact Rhode Island's small business community, just when we 
need their contributions the most.
  I support a more balanced approach to our federal budget that allows 
for a significant tax cut, but also takes into consideration a wide

[[Page 5192]]

range of short and long-term budgetary needs. It is for these reasons 
that I will support the Democratic and Blue Dog alternatives.
  Under the Democratic alternative, we could extend the solvency of 
Social Security and Medicare and have a sizable tax cut that would 
benefit every family. This measure would also allow us to adequately 
fund our top priorities, including education, prescription drugs, 
defense and small business, and still retire all redeemable public debt 
by 2008.
  The Blue Dog Budget Alternative would set forth a five-year budget 
framework to account for the uncertainties in long-term budget 
forecasts. The plan provides for retiring over half the publicly held 
debt by 2006 and eliminating back-loaded tax cuts and unnecessary 
spending increases. By reserving half of the on-budget surplus for the 
next five years, we could continue to pay down the debt and strengthen 
Social Security and preserve Medicare. Finally, like the Democratic 
alternative, the Blue Dog budget sets aside a pool of money to help 
states and localities improve their voting systems in time for the next 
federal elections. The Bush framework completely ignores this urgent 
need.
  The Bush Administration's budget threatens the quality of life of 
millions of Americans. There are many tough choices ahead, but I firmly 
believe that with cooperation and an eye towards operating within a 
responsible framework, this Administration and Congress can and should 
develop a budget that will ensure that everyone's needs are met. I 
encourage my colleagues to join me in rejecting this ill-conceived 
Republican proposal and supporting instead a sensible, well-balanced 
budget resolution that speaks to the needs of every American family.

                          ____________________