[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7497-7504]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 WHAT ARE OUR REAL NATIONAL PRIORITIES?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, it is good to be here today, 
though I am saddened by the fact that a budget has passed out of this 
House and I was unable to be on this budget resolution. That budget did 
not speak to the needs of my community. In fact, it did not speak to 
many communities, that of the environmental community as well as the 
education community.
  It is amazing that the President said, when he was Candidate Bush, 
that he promised a new era of environmental protection, and that we 
should leave no child behind. Yet the impact of this budget today was 
simply that: We are leaving children behind, and the environment has 
not been given anything to enhance or direct some of the toxic wastes, 
the brownfields and all of those other environmental hazards that 
impact my district.

                              {time}  1630

  I can recall that last year in the budget when we talked about 
100,000 new teachers. When I was a teacher, I really did gleam at the 
whole notion that we would for once pay attention to the importance of 
quality teachers, to bring those 100,000 new teachers into classrooms, 
whereby no child would be left behind in having a quality teacher.
  When we talked about reducing class sizes, where class sizes would be 
no more than 20 students per class, again I was excited about the 
budget last year that brought forth those types of innovative 
provisions and initiatives that certainly did speak to leaving no child 
behind.
  Today's budget resolution did not have either of those in there. In 
fact, the President has been very inconsistent with the application of 
his promise. If the President were true to his promise, he would not 
cut critical and necessary environmental and education programs.
  It is so important for Watts in my community and other Members' urban 
communities to have gotten from this body a budget that would speak to 
the issues that are so important to them, and yet we rushed quickly to 
get out the $1.6 trillion tax cut, which invariably the Senate did 
reduce a bit to a $1.35 trillion tax cut overall.
  I am for a tax cut, have always been for one, but we must have 
targeted tax cuts that will enable us to have those 100,000 new 
teachers, that will enable us to have those reduced class sizes, so 
that in my districts of Compton and Watts and the Los Angeles Unified 
School District, students really will get quality education that they 
sorely need.
  It is important that the American people understand that the children 
that we speak about are poor children. Those 53 million children that 
we have to educate in this country are poor, they are disabled; they 
are, for the most part, limited English speaking. They are in need of a 
budget that speaks to them, a budget that does not leave them behind.
  So the Republican proposal provided less than half the average funds 
Congress granted the Department of Education for the past 5 years, in 
speaking to education, the Department of Education that Congress 
granted over the past 5 years, speaking to education, speaking to the 
environment, speaking to those needs of the children, the majority of 
the children who make up the 53 million children who are in dire need 
of those qualified teachers.
  This proposal that the majority put out fraudulently inflates their 
increase by taking credit for funding previously provided initiatives 
during the past administration for the 2002 appropriations. In reality, 
Madam Speaker, that is not the way you do business in terms of a 
budget.
  Let us look at some of the things that happened in this budget 
proposal. It actually guts out school renovation, whereby States have 
to then divert $1.2 billion in their 2001 budget to fund other critical 
education programs, because they need more than $100 billion to bring 
classrooms up to adequate condition.
  I certainly would like for Members who voted on this budget to come 
to my district and to look at the classrooms in my district, where the 
ceilings are falling, where the seats have splinters, where the 
students cannot move around in the seats because they will really be in 
danger of getting some type of sore, some kind of mark, or just simply 
cannot sit still in a seat because the seat is not adequate for them.
  I would like for you to come to my district, where we do not have 
computers for every student, that once a semester they get a different 
teacher, and this teacher has an emergency credential.
  I want those who really voted on this budget to come to my district 
to look at the school environment and recognize that this budget did 
not speak to those students. This budget also caps the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, funding at $1.25 billion. Disabled 
students, students we are trying to bring into the mainstream, should 
be in the mainstream of

[[Page 7498]]

education, having now to deal with caps and funding that is below par 
in meeting their needs, the needs of these students who have special 
needs, but still are very sharp, very much wanting to be in the 
mainstream of education, and needing the funding to provide them the 
type of resources that are critically needed.
  Madam Speaker, it also cuts educational technology funding by $55 
million, less than the 2001 freeze level of $872 million. What a 
travesty. We have an H1-B bill that passed out of this House sending 
for folks from other countries over here to do high-tech jobs because 
we do not have trained personnel for these jobs, and yet we are not 
even in the process of trying to train the future leaders in high-tech 
when we cut educational technology by $55 million.
  I have just mentioned to you that these schools do not have computers 
for every child or even a computer for every two or three children in a 
classroom; and if you look at the projections of the workforce in the 
next 5, 10, or 15 years, they will be the absolute children we are 
talking about today who are the poor children who will not have a 
chance to move into the world of work and high-tech jobs. They will 
simply be unable to meet the criteria for these jobs because of our not 
putting the money in a budget today that speaks to education for our 
children who will be the workforce of tomorrow.
  So, I am simply concerned about this. It is a critical issue that 
really touches me deeply, because I was sent here by people who want to 
make their life better by education. They want to have a better quality 
of life by ensuring that their children have a qualified teacher and 
that the class sizes are conducive to learning. That means students who 
are in classes which have no more than 20 students.
  So I say to you, those of you who voted on this bill, obviously you 
do not need the money for educational technology. Perhaps you do not 
need the money in your district for the individuals with disabilities. 
But I certainly do, and many of the Members here who represent urban 
and rural districts need this. So when we talk about ``leave no child 
behind,'' I am afraid this budget in terms of education has left many 
children behind, many of whom represent the 53 million children who I 
speak of today.
  When we talk about the environment, we again recognize that Candidate 
Bush promised a new era of environmental protection. I have 
grandchildren who talk about the water, because they have heard by 
others and have seen on television that we have a problem with arsenic 
in our drinking water. Yet this budget rescinded an order that limits 
arsenic in drinking water, rescinded that, that limits the arsenic in 
drinking water. It is asking for more studies.
  How many more studies will we have to present to discern the notion 
that we must limit arsenic in our drinking water, that we must have 
that Clean Water Act, and cannot erode that by any means; and yet it is 
being looked at as a possibility of being eroded by this budget, this 
President's budget that passed out of this House today.
  There has been a renouncement of the Kyoto Agreement on global 
warming and reversed a campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide 
emission from power plants. Again, there was a promise that the 
Candidate Bush did, but now we see has totally dissipated. But the 
emissions in the air are not dissipating at all. We still have this 
problem of carbon dioxide and other toxics in the air.
  This is why the clean air and clean water bills cannot and should not 
be eliminated or diminished in their effectiveness, because of the 
critical need for the environment to again be conducive to children who 
play outside, who have no other recourse but to play outside, and they 
are playing in these areas where you have toxics, where you have carbon 
dioxide emissions in the air.
  If that was not enough, we looked in this budget to see delayed new 
hard rock mining regulations that would require companies to protect 
water quality, pay for cleanup, and restore public lands ruined by 
mining activities.
  These are provisions that were inside of this budget. A delay on 
this, rescinding on that, pushing back, suspending on others, clearly 
issues that do not and will not help this environment at all. We will 
not have a budget that speaks to clean air, clean water, clean up of 
toxic waste, clean up of brownfields.
  Another provision in this budget that was proposed was a proposal to 
drill for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have 
heard a lot about ANWR. We have heard a lot about the need for that. 
And that is not a need. We should not disturb wildlife. We should try 
to find alternative means by which to deal with our environment, and it 
should not be that drilling for oil and gas at all in a place that will 
disturb the inhabitants.
  The proposal was to suspend several of the past administration's 
environmental rules, including one that would protect the remaining 
roadless areas in the National Forest. What are we trying to do? What 
are we simply trying to do when we tend to erode those things that past 
administrations have done to speak to the needs of a cleaner, safer 
environment? Why are we trying to destroy those provisions, those 
initiatives, that will help the communities, the urban and rural 
communities, to reach levels where the air is cleaner, the water is 
safer, and, indeed, that there is no drilling in places that will 
create a climate that is not conducive to one who wants to go into 
National Forests and wants to not have roads and other areas that will, 
again, impede their solace of being there.
  We have looked at EPA in the budget that is supposed to help us with 
the clean water, clean air, brownfield cleanups, and yet there has been 
a cut in the funding of EPA by $500 million, less than the 2001 freeze 
level.
  Those of us who come out of local government, and once as a mayor of 
a city I recognized if you do not clean up the environment, you will 
not be able to induce or to even bring in businesses to provide the 
jobs for those who are the least of those who will get a tax cut or the 
results of a tax cut. You will simply not have those persons who will 
be able to make the charge of investing in this economy, investing in 
this country, if they do not have the jobs that accord them the 
salaries that will be conducive to the quality of life that we would 
want all Americans to have.

                              {time}  1645

  Yet we see these cuts in EPA of $500 million.
  The budget also provides $850 million for the Clean Water State-
Revolving Fund program, but it is less than two-thirds of last year's 
level. If, again, Madam Speaker, we are talking about clean water, we 
cannot make this budget and its resources less than two-thirds of last 
year's level. We have to bring this up to the level where those in this 
country will realize that we are trying to clean the water, we are 
trying to clean the air, we are trying to clean those brown fields, we 
are trying to stop the emissions in the air. We simply cannot state 
that charge if, in fact, the budget reflects something that is totally 
different, and which this budget did.
  The budget also cut the EPA's science and technology program by $54 
million, again, from the 2001 freeze level. This cut includes $4.5 
million for safe drinking water research and a $6.3 million cut in 
research on key air pollutants. I simply cannot understand a person who 
said with the most oratorical stance that one could make that there 
will be a new era of environmental protection; and yet this budget does 
not reflect any of that, a person who spoke about this comprehensive 
education package that will leave no child behind; and yet we see that 
many children will be left behind.
  I simply say as an educator, I cannot go back to my district and say, 
well done, we have done what you need, we have met those needs that you 
have. I cannot go back to my grandchildren and those children who think 
that the water is tainted, that there should be something done with the 
water and say, well, we do not know whether we can do that; we do not 
know whether we can fix that now. I cannot tell my asthmatic children 
and grandchildren

[[Page 7499]]

who have asthma that you really cannot go outside because the emission 
in the air is so thick that you will not be able to breath. I simply 
cannot go home and say that ``well done'' on a great budget resolution. 
I cannot go home and say that this budget speaks to the needs of my 
community.
  I simply will have to say that we do not have the right people making 
the right decisions for you; and, therefore, we need to look at the 
possibility of changing that in the near future. Because, Madam 
Speaker, if we are talking about the environmental and educational 
welfare of our children, then our Nation is at stake, our children, the 
environment really are at stake here. Because we have to speak to the 
children. We have to speak to the environment. We have to speak to the 
critical needs that will help us to address these needs, the critical 
needs of these areas that will not be advantaged by this tax cut. In 
fact, they do not even meet the levels of the tax cuts.
  So if we are to live up to our promises, if we are to be the types of 
leaders that will be obligated to be responsible for those who are less 
fortunate, for those who are looking to us to provide those things that 
have not been provided for on the local and State level, then we must 
address why this budget resolution did not present itself in the 
fashion that would create the type of climate that would be conducive 
to the needs of those of whom I speak.
  This is why I could not support the budget. I wanted to. I really 
wanted to help the President and help our country to have a budget that 
we could all rally behind and would appreciate. But that budget left 
behind our Nation's poorest and the most underserved children. And 
because of that, we simply cannot go out and rally that this budget was 
one for the urban or the rural communities. In fact, we cannot even say 
this budget presented itself for children so that we could bring them 
forward and not leave them behind.
  It is a pretty sad day when we cut from educational technology and 
children are desperately trying to get on the Internet and trying to 
see just what that computer is all about. It is a sad day when the 
disabled student cannot get some of the resources that he or she needs 
because of this budget that did not speak to them. It is a very sad day 
when children cannot have adequate schools because of the renovation, 
the funding that has been cut from this budget.
  I am pleased that we have one who has come to the floor who is a 
great leader, who is one of our budget persons, and who can speak to 
and articulate why the majority of this Democratic House did not vote 
on this budget. I present to my colleagues now this outstanding leader, 
the gentlewoman from the State of North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I 
appreciate her leadership in coming to the floor and speaking about the 
seriousness of this budget and how it affects children, how it affects 
the environment. I heard the gentlewoman say what a marvelous thing he 
is doing for the country, to point out the seriousness of a budget 
document. The budget document is very important. It says, where are we 
going to put our resources. It says, indeed, where we place value. It 
says if we are talking from a political campaign or from a deep-seated 
commitment of American resources.
  Now, the document should indeed be about where our priorities and our 
needs are; and the gentlewoman was correct, I think I heard her talk 
about recruiting teachers. I know the gentlewoman has taken a 
leadership role on that before she came to Congress on the whole issue, 
and she knows the critical shortage of teachers we have across America. 
She also knows that the future of our country is based on having good 
schools. So we have to have those who are able to lead the others. So 
it is so critical, and the number one priority in America happens to be 
education. Yet it was the most egregious omission in the budget.
  Now, I come from agriculture; and I am very pleased that I saw there 
was some lifting up of the agriculture over what we had originally, so 
I want to applaud that. But I cannot accept that this budget was an 
important document; and you know that at the end of the day, that 
document will not be the guide that we just passed for several reasons. 
One, we cannot ignore the priorities of education and prescription 
drugs and the needs of America without the appropriators hearing from 
all of us and hearing from America who is saying, regardless of what we 
did with the budget, we have desperate needs. Regardless of what we 
have heard in terms of opportunities for us to get by with so little, 
we need more resources. So we know at the end of the day they are going 
to ignore those caps, and they are going to exceed those caps.
  Also, we know that the budget is an important document because it 
should tell us where we are going to get our resources. We know that 
when we balance our budget at home, we cannot speculate that the job I 
do not have, I can just plug in a number. Well, the Federal Government, 
how we fund our resources is usually from taxes; and those are the 
actions we now have an obligation or that are legal on the books. So 
that is one.
  The other one for resources happens to be trust funds, trust funds 
committed for the future. What are those trust funds? The trust fund 
for Social Security, the trust fund for Medicare. Or another way we can 
add resources, we can say well, if I need more money, I will just 
reduce spending over here in order to put money over there. So that is 
another way. So our budget should clearly indicate to the American 
people, how do we plan to pay for this and where do we get those 
monies? What tax reductions will do? So if we reduce the taxes, do we 
get more from the trust fund? Or do we cut programs? The money has to 
come from somewhere. So if we have an important document that should be 
telling the American people, this is a guide, well, the guide should 
clearly say, if I look at your budget, I know your resources and I know 
your revenue; and I know where these resources are from and how we 
gather the revenue, and that I am not either going into the Medicare 
Trust Fund, I am not going into the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Why is that important? Well, in the tax budget we just passed, it 
says that we will have a $1.25 trillion tax reduction over the next 10 
years. Now, that is just the beginning of the process. That is not the 
end. And we are paying down less of our debt. If we pay less of our 
debt, that means, guess what? Interest will go up. And as the interest 
goes up, so will that tax bill go up. We will find as we do that, the 
American people will say, well, I thought you said that the tax 
reduction was only about 1.3. How come at the end of the day, it is 
almost 1.6 or $2 trillion? Well, you have to add interest; and guess 
what, there are some other tax adjustments that we need to do, and a 
number for interest will be knocking on the door.
  So again, I want to commend the gentlewoman for taking the time to 
explain to the American people and to our colleagues that the 
gentlewoman takes seriously the budget process, and I know I do. I am 
on the Committee on the Budget. I am offended not only by process, but 
also by substance. We have 435 of us, and the process allows that in a 
conference stage, the conferees, taken from both sides, should meet 
together. Now, we understand that the Democrats are in the minority and 
they will lose many of those battles supposedly, but we do not expect 
to be shut out completely.
  So I am offended by process, but I am equally offended by substance, 
which is not there, the kinds of things that we will not be able to do. 
The kids will not be able to get educated, the environment will not be 
able to keep clean, and the commitment to the American people we cannot 
sustain if, indeed, we go with this budget resolution as it is. It 
means that we have to indeed get the money from somewhere. So it has to 
come from the trust funds, Social Security and Medicare. When we do 
that, we have violated the trust and our commitment to the American 
people. There is not enough money for prescription drugs, and the 
gentlewoman knows that as well.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
coming to the floor, because I tried to just take portions of this to 
speak on and next week we will speak on some of the others; and 
hopefully, this will send a signal to those conferees that we really 
are concerned about the impact this budget will have on our 
communities.
  But when we look at the cuts in educational technology, the 
gentlewoman was one of the lead persons on the H1B bill, that really 
suggests to me and hopefully to some others of us that we are not 
trying to get the future ready for these high-tech jobs that surely 
should be the workforce from this country and not having to bring folks 
from across the waters to try to fill those types of high-tech jobs. So 
when we cut from educational technology, we are simply saying, that 
workforce that will mirror more of a minority, we do not worry about 
them anyway. We will just continue to bring people over. So the 
gentlewoman's take on that is really very valid.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Again, Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the 
gentlewoman for taking the time and taking the leadership and for 
raising the consciousness and the understanding of the importance or 
the lack thereof, as we propose, of the budget process. Perhaps the 
American people will understand what happened today is of some 
significance, and they should wake up and be engaged in this process.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Well, again, we thank the gentlewoman so much 
and thank her for the work that she has done on the budget, 
irrespective of how it came out today.
  We have again with us one of the great leaders of another State that 
has been front and center on education and on the environment, and I am 
sure she can pull from that budget any number of things that she feels 
was really egregious for the constituents whom she serves. Let me 
please recognize now the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

                              {time}  1700

  Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for yielding to me.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to applaud the fact that the gentlewoman 
had the initiative, the gentlewoman took the initiative to come down 
here to talk to the American people, to talk to our constituents about 
the issues that are very important to us and issues that are important 
to them, promises made and promises broken.
  At the same time, we hear from the White House statements like, I am 
keeping the promises I campaigned on.
  Let us just go and replay that campaign, because as far as I can 
remember, if I remember correctly, the current occupant of the White 
House lost the vote of the American people by 500,000.
  Then on top of that, I had an election reform town hall meeting, and 
at the town hall meeting, we had the private company ChoicePoint come 
and testify about how the voter list was affected, so that those people 
who would go and present themselves in Florida and try to vote were 
denied the right to vote, because they started off the process with a 
list that was wrong.
  What ChoicePoint testified at our hearing was that the State of 
Florida requested an inaccurate list. They requested a list of 
ineligible voters that was larger than the number of actual ineligible 
voters in Florida.
  Where did they get those additional names of ineligible voters? They 
got those additional names from the State of Texas. Remind me. Who was 
running the State of Texas? Who is now running the State of Florida?
  So we have the Bush brothers getting together and deciding who is 
going to vote in Florida and who is not going to vote in Florida, and 
then we have Kathy Harris coming up here on Capitol Hill to the 
Congress, the most powerful legislative body on the planet of Earth, 
coming and saying that election reform is the most important agenda for 
me as Secretary of State.
  If the State of Florida was important to the Bush brothers in the 
year 2000, just imagine after having lost the popular vote by 500,000-
plus, how important is the State of Florida going to be in the year 
2004?
  Now we are asked to come here to talk about the environment and the 
budget, and I see that the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), 
who is sitting in the chair, is watching the timer, because this is the 
kind of information that folks do not want to come out.
  Forty-five percent of George W. Bush's tax cut is going to go to the 
wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. If you make a million dollars, you 
are going to get a lot back. But if you happen to be a regular, average 
American, you will not get very much back; but we want to make sure 
that regular, average Americans get the most that they can get back.
  Is it not interesting, I just happened to compile a list, we got up 
to 80 important issues for the first 100 of the Bush days. I would like 
to remind the people that this is the wealthiest Cabinet in the history 
of the United States. So, of course, they are going to go all over the 
country talking about we have to support the President's tax proposal.
  How much are they going to get back? Our Secretary of Energy, Spencer 
Abraham, campaigned on a platform to abolish the Department of Energy; 
is that not interesting? Can you imagine? No wonder the White House is 
now going into apoplexy as they try and recover their position on the 
environment.
  Americans, by a remarkable 7-1 margin, think that Bush is less 
concerned about protecting the environment than protecting the 
interests of the energy industry. Of course, we see that oil is thicker 
than blood, because now George W. is even going against his brother Jeb 
down in Florida, so that they can auction off offshore oil and gas 
leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) gave the administration an 
``incomplete'' with respect to dealing with the environment in their 
first 100 days. Now, we also would have to give the administration an 
incomplete, because even as we try and take care of business on behalf 
of our constituents, and, of course, we have to interact with the White 
House, I guess they are just yelling down the hall to empty offices, 
because 90 percent of the positions have not even been filled.
  Madam Speaker, I have written letters to the White House on the Yucca 
Mountain project, the apparent appointment of Walter Kansteiner, which 
is an abomination, to be the assistant Secretary of State for African 
Affairs. That appointment is an abomination.
  I have written to the White House on the Kyoto Protocol, on behalf of 
the people of Vieques, on behalf of people who have hemophilia, about 
the issue of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, about the education 
rate or the E-rate program, about the National Science Foundation, 
about the need for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in my 
district, which is responsible for doing the most incredible things 
around the world on behalf of our health security.
  I have written about contract bundling and the negative impact that 
it has on minorities and women who want to do business with the Federal 
Government. I have written about the 2000 Census. I have also written 
about the 1946 murders of four black sharecroppers in Walton, Georgia, 
who were lynched.
  What have I gotten in response? I got a letter that says, I have 
shared your letter with the President's advisers and the appropriate 
agencies who have been formulating policy recommendations in this area.
  Hello.
  You were elected how many months ago? You had your plan of operation 
how many months ago? You certainly had your plan of operation in effect 
in November of the year 2000, because you took the election. But what 
comes after the election is governing, and that unfortunately is not 
what is being done.
  The American people are being shortchanged. The American people are 
being shortchanged by what is happening in this Congress, with this 
Republican majority, that since it was

[[Page 7501]]

elected in 1994 has failed to produce a budget on time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald) for her leadership. I want to thank her for 
allowing us to have this opportunity to come here tonight and to let 
the American people know what is really happening with their 
government, our government.
  We must have change. We must be able to deliver on behalf of our 
constituents.
  Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

       1. Bush campaigned on a pledge to provide a $1.6 trillion 
     tax cut to America's wealthiest families.
       2. Bush named the wealthiest cabinet in the history of the 
     United States.
       3. Bush's Cabinet stumped for the President's tax cut 
     proposal.
       4. Bush's number one priority in his first 100 days has 
     been promoting a tax plan that will cost $2.6 trillion over 
     the next ten years. 45% of his cut will benefit the 
     wealthiest one-percent of taxpayers, people with an average 
     income of $915,000.
       5. The Bush tax plan against women and lower income earners 
     gives no tax relief at all to those families too poor to pay 
     income taxes (12 million families with 24 million children), 
     no tax deductions for 53% of Black and Hispanic families; and 
     no tax cuts made for single persons earning between $6,001 to 
     $27,050 nor for married persons earning $12,001 to $45,200.
       6. The administration's proposal also fails to make 
     adjustments that would make tax rates truly progressive. 
     Completely untouched is the regressive payroll tax that 
     places the heaviest burden on low to middle income workers, 
     predominately female, while leaving in place a substantial 
     break for high income earners who make no payroll tax 
     contributions above the $80,400 level (most of whom are men, 
     of course).
       7. Bush's tax cut would wipe out the rest of any funds 
     available, leaving nothing for future contingencies, 
     including shoring up Social Security.
       8. The richest cabinet in history will get a kickback of 
     over $100 million through Bush's efforts to push the Estate 
     Tax legislation through Congress.
       9. The Republican party is so devoid of talent that Bush 
     named a record number of George Herbert Walker retreads to 
     his Administration. There's no question about one assignment 
     that's going to get a big, fat ``Incomplete''--installing the 
     487 top officials who will run the executive branch the next 
     four years. 90% of assigned positions are unfilled.
       10. Our new Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, recently 
     campaigned on eliminating the Department of Energy, the very 
     program he now runs, while also leading efforts to prevent 
     increased fuel efficiency in vehicles.
       11. Our Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, has led 
     efforts to rollback endangered species protection and allowed 
     mining company polluters to escape clean up requirements and 
     liability.
       12. Bush appointed Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior 
     because she believes that corporations have a constitutional 
     right to pollute.
       13. Gale Norton's first concrete attempt at a regulatory 
     rollback was a proposal to gut updated environmental mining 
     regulations that went into effect at the end of the Clinton 
     administration. Independent reports estimate that taxpayers 
     could be on the hook for about $1 billion in environmental 
     cleanup cost from today's mines.
       14. President Bush's choice for the No. 3 spot at the 
     Department of Energy is Robert G. Card, who until recently 
     was CEO and president of a cleanup contractor that has been 
     fined or penalized more than $725,000 for numerous worker 
     safety, procurement and other violations since 1996.
       15. The New Attorney General has a history of blocking 
     enforcement of environmental laws; and throughout his career, 
     Ashcroft has worked tirelessly to restrict a woman's right to 
     choose.
       16. The new head of the EPA, Christine Whitman, who doubts 
     that global warming is a serious problem, defended global 
     warming and got kicked by Bush. In a memo from Whitman to 
     Bush, the EPA Administrator stressed the need for Bush to 
     ``appear'' to be engaged in addressing global warming, as if 
     the environment responds to appearances.
       17. Tommy Thompson, the new Secretary of the Department Of 
     Health and Human Services was one of the country's most anti-
     choice governors and now heads up the department that wields 
     the greatest influence over policies affecting women's 
     reproductive health.
       18. Bush named Don Eberly, a right wing activist who was an 
     official with the National Fatherhood Institute, to head up a 
     White House office for faith-based programs. Some women's 
     rights advocates are concerned that Eberly will utilize the 
     office to help funnel even more federal monies to misogynist 
     groups who promote so-called fatherhood initiatives.
       19. John Negroponte, Bush's appointee for UN Ambassador has 
     a track record of disrespecting human rights. During his tour 
     as ambassador to Honduras, Negorponte earned his reputation 
     for being soft on human rights abuses. Under the helm of 
     General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, Honduras's military 
     government was both a close ally of the Reagan administration 
     and was disappearing dozens of political opponents in classic 
     death squad fashion. Negroponte turned a blind eye to human 
     rights abuses and even helped to cover up extrajudicial 
     killings.
       20. Bush's appointee for Undersecretary of State for Arms 
     Control and International Security, John Bolton, does not 
     belong in the arms control job because, as the director of 
     the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project, Joseph Cirincione, 
     says: ``Bolton is philosophically opposed to most of the 
     international treaties that comprise the nonproliferation 
     regime.''
       21. The nomination of Cuban-born Otto J. Reich as the State 
     Department's top Latin American official is drawing 
     Democratic criticism based on his role in the 1980s Central 
     American wars. The Democrats' concerns over Reich focus on 
     his leadership of the State Department's one-time Office of 
     Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean. The 
     office--which Reich led from its inception in June 1983 until 
     January 1986 was accused of running an illegal, covert 
     domestic propaganda effort against Nicaragua's leftist 
     Sandinista government and in favor of the Contra rebels.
       22. Bush named Linda Fisher, an executive with Monsanto 
     Co., a leading developer of the world's most dangerous 
     chemicals and biotech foods, for the second-ranking job at 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, the White House said 
     yesterday.
       23. Energy interests gave $2.9 million to Bush for his 
     political campaign, and then kicked in an additional $2.2 
     million for his inauguration fund.
       24. Bush plans to allow drilling in the Arctic Wildlife 
     Refuge and to sell out our public lands to private interests.
       25. He did a big favor for major electricity wholesalers by 
     keeping the federal government largely out of the California 
     energy crisis, which has produced major profits for energy 
     companies including Dynegy Inc., Enron Corp. and Reliant 
     Energy Inc., all of which are based in Bush's home state of 
     Texas.
       26. Bush showed his loyalty to the coal mining and 
     electricity industries when he reversed a campaign pledge to 
     reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which may have saved an 
     estimated 30,000 lives a year of those who die due to 
     respiratory illness.
       27. Bush endangered the world's future and damaged our 
     credibility in the International community when he announced 
     the United States' withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, an 
     international treaty aimed at combating global warming. Seems 
     that he's more interested in changing the global climate than 
     the political climate.
       28. Dick Cheney formulated crucial energy policy decisions 
     behind closed doors.
       29. Cheney's task force focused heavily on incentives for 
     production; easing regulatory barriers for energy 
     development; and opening more public lands to drilling 
     including national monuments and the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge in Alaska.
       30. Americans, by a remarkable 7-to-1 margin, think that 
     Bush is less concerned about protecting the environment than 
     about protecting the interests of the energy industry.
       31. Despite objections from his brother, Florida Governor 
     Jeb Bush, he plans on auctioning offshore oil and gas leases 
     in the Gulf of Mexico. Seems that natural gas is thicker than 
     blood.
       32. The Bush administration announced that it will block a 
     rule from Clinton's administration requiring more energy 
     efficient air conditioners.
       33. Republican representative Sherwood Boehlert said that 
     the Bush first 100 days deserve the grade of ``incomplete in 
     dealing with the environment.''
       34. Bush's budget proposes slashing more than $200 million 
     from federal renewable energy and efficiency research 
     programs, even as his administration declares the United 
     States needs to find ways to cope with an ``energy crisis.''
       35. The snows of Mount Kilimanjaro melt away as global 
     temperatures and ocean levels rise, Bush plans nothing to 
     address it.
       36. The Environmental Protection Agency announced it would 
     withdraw the pending decrease in allowable arsenic for 
     drinking water, prepared during the final days of the Clinton 
     administration.
       37. Bush asked Congress to remove from the Endangered 
     Species Act a provision that allows environmental groups and 
     others to sue the Interior Department to get rare plants and 
     animals listed as endangered.
       38. The Bush Administration plans to suspend rules that 
     require federal contractors to comply with environmental, 
     civil rights and labor laws.
       39. In Quebec, Bush announced his intention to promote a 
     trade plan for the Americas based on the failed NAFTA model. 
     This will lead to further erosion of labor rights, human 
     rights, and environmental protections throughout the 
     hemisphere.
       40. And Bush is looking to kill the roadless policy rule 
     that will protect millions of acres

[[Page 7502]]

     of public land from taxpayer subsidized logging.
       41. A Bush White House aide confirms that Bush is taking a 
     look at recommending easing clean air regulations without 
     Congressional actions, thus saving utilities and coal-mining 
     companies billions of dollars of violations of clean air 
     regulations and at the same time mooting legal action against 
     polluting companies.
       42. Bush was the top recipient of contributions from 
     tobacco companies. Through carefully orchestrated budget 
     cuts, Bush has managed to kill the lawsuit that the Justice 
     Department has against big tobacco for deliberately deceiving 
     the American people on public health issues. This move could 
     potentially save big tobacco billions.
       43. Speaking of Bankrupt public policy. Legislation 
     championed for years by the financial industry that would 
     make it harder for consumers to wipe away their debts was 
     passed by an overwhelming margin in both chambers of 
     Congress. Though a similar measure had been approved last 
     year, President Clinton vetoed it. Bush, however, has 
     signaled he will sign the bill, a move that could generate an 
     estimated tens of millions of dollars in additional revenue 
     for major credit card companies.
       44. Where did Bush's enthusiasm come from? Charles Cawley, 
     President of MBNA America personally raised at least $100,000 
     for the Bush campaign, qualifying him for admission into the 
     Pioneers, the campaign's roster of top supporters. Last 
     January, Cawley broke out his checkbook again, writing a 
     $100,000 check to the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Fund.
       45. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce contributed more than 
     $514,000 to candidates and parties, 94% of that money went to 
     Republicans, and the National Association of Manufacturers 
     spent $12.8 million lobbying Members of Congress from 1997 to 
     1999.
       46. In a private meeting in late February, Bush and 
     Republican congressional leaders decided to kill the 
     ergonomics rule put forth by the Clinton Administration, 
     which would protect workers from workplace related injuries.
       47. Following his pledge to leave no [rich] child behind, 
     President's Bush's budget reduces resources for the Child 
     Care and Development Block Grant projects by $200 million. 
     That means that many low-income children will no longer be 
     eligible for childcare, making it more difficult for their 
     parents to work.
       48. Bush plans to eliminate all funding for the Early 
     Learning Opportunities program, which would have supported 
     parent education and family support services.
       49. Bush's budget will shortchange vital education 
     programs; including efforts to reduce class sizes, improve 
     teacher training, repair crumbling schools, promote after-
     school programs, and increase the number of Pell Grants 
     available to low income freshmen.
       50. Bush plans to cut in half grants that help states 
     investigate and prevent child abuse and neglect.
       51. President Bush has proposed a regime of annual testing 
     for all students between grades three and eight. Schools that 
     demonstrated an improvement in performance would be granted 
     increased federal funding. Students at schools designated as 
     low-performing would, after three years, be able to use their 
     share of federal funds to attend other public or private 
     schools. The school would then be privatized with the 
     assistance of the federal government.
       52. Bush's budget does not even provide funds to keep up 
     with inflation for the WIC program, which provides vital 
     nutrition assistance to low-income women, infants, and 
     children.
       53. On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Bush 
     ordered the reinstatement of the global ``gag'' rule on 
     international family planning programs, programs that strive 
     to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce abortion, and avert 
     hundreds of thousands of infant and maternal deaths worldwide 
     each year.
       54. Bush is prepared to unilaterally abrogate the Anti-
     Ballistic Missile Treaty.
       55. Bush strongly advocates the National Missile Defense 
     System or ``Star Wars''. This program has cost taxpayers over 
     $40 billion to date, and yet it has failed repeatedly in 
     carefully orchestrated tests. The program is destabilizing 
     and China has already indicated that it would initiate an 
     arms race if the U.S. pursues the program.
       56. The Bush administration has put its European allies on 
     notice that it intends to move quickly to develop a missile 
     defense and plans to abandon or fundamentally alter the 
     treaty that has been the keystone of arms control for nearly 
     30 years.
       57. Bush said he would suspend negotiations with North 
     Korea, this strict stance on Korea has soured once-improving 
     relations with North Korea.
       58. The U.S. bombs 10 miles outside of Baghdad--a major 
     metropolitan area--saying that the area was ``unpopulated.''
       59. Plans by U.S. President George W. Bush to sell weapons 
     including eight diesel-powered submarines to Taiwan have 
     received an embarrassing setback at the hands of European 
     governments. Neither the Germans nor the Dutch, who have sown 
     up the market in diesel submarines, are willing to allow the 
     sale of the subs to Taiwan.
       60. Under Bush, there has been a growing Anti-US feeling in 
     the EU and around the world.
       61. Bush's decision to proceed with arms sales to Taiwan--
     China has said that offensive weapons such as subs will only 
     lead to greater tensions in Asia.
       62. Bush's commitment to the Balkans. While trying to build 
     peace he is reducing U.S. commitment to peacebuilding. Same 
     with the Middle East where tensions are growing and he is 
     seeking to be less involved.
       63. Bush has continued use of drug certification and the 
     nomination of another hard liner to lead the War on Drugs.
       64. President Bush worked with the CIA and a Private 
     Military Company to cover up their responsibility in the 
     deaths of two American missionaries killed by a Peruvian 
     fighter as part of U.S. drug war strategy.
       65. For women who depend upon government to advance 
     economic equity in an economically unjust society, there 
     would be little or no money for improved child care/early 
     childhood education programs, effective Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission enforcement against discrimination and 
     harassment.
       66. There will be little or no money for expansion of 
     Violence Against Women programs, few options for expansion of 
     health care coverage to the 43 million uncovered, no funds 
     for a new prescription drug benefit for seniors.
       67. A multi-trillion dollar tax cut may also jeopardize the 
     future financial solvency of Social Security and Medicare--
     the majority of beneficiaries being women--and there will be 
     few resources remaining for critically needed social 
     investments.
       68. Bush proposes to privatize Social Security, a move that 
     jeopardizes the financial future of millions of Americans.
       69. President Bush announced an expanded faith-based 
     initiative and a vigorous, but misguided campaign to turn 
     over social service programs to religious organizations. 
     Faith-based initiatives, a more pernicious version of the old 
     ``charitable choice,'' would permit direct federal funding of 
     programs run by religious organizations, free to proselytize 
     and discriminate, that would have little public 
     accountability.
       70. Bush's faith based initiative faces major setback: 
     people of faith have little faith in it!
       71. President Bush's budget will propose deep cuts in a 
     variety of health programs for people without health 
     insurance. Services providing ``health care access for the 
     uninsured,'' would be reduced 86 percent, to $20 million, 
     from $140 million in the current fiscal year.
       72. Mr. Bush's budget request would also cut federal 
     spending for the training of doctors, dentists, nurses, 
     pharmacists and other health professionals.
       73. Bush put a stop to giving unions preference on 
     contracts for federal building projects.
       74. Senator Pete Domenici disagrees vehemently with Bush's 
     decision to hold all federal spending to no more than a 4% 
     increase.
       75. Kathy Harris, symbol of a purposely-failed election, 
     travels to Washington to testify before Congress on the need 
     to have elections that the people can believe in.
       76. George W. Bush needs to win the Florida electoral 
     college vote more in 2004 than in 2000. Therefore, don't look 
     too soon for any election reform from this President.
       77. According to David Broder, ``The Bush White House so 
     far has not made changing the election system a priority. The 
     President's proposed budget, along with the budget 
     resolutions of the House and Senate, set aside no fund for 
     federal aid for improving election equipment or 
     administration.
       78. Republican Jim Ramstad said that Bush White House 
     interference in Minnesota politics could end up hurting the 
     party. A phone call by Dick Cheney to dissuade a potential 
     candidate from running has all the markings of Bush and 
     Cheney trying to be a ``kingmaker'' thwarting the will of the 
     people.
       79. World reaction was tepid, critical or simply silent to 
     President Bush's announcement that the United States would 
     build a shield against ballistic missile attacks.
       80. President Bush throws a bash featuring 535 Members of 
     Congress to celebrate his first 100 days and schedules it on 
     a Monday when few Members of Congress are in town: fewer than 
     200 Members of Congress bothered to show up.

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) for her extraordinary 
leadership, for bringing the really poignant issues to the American 
people. The American people need to hear what passed out of this House 
or, more importantly, what did not pass out of this House in terms of a 
budget for them.
  If we are indeed to have a value system that speaks to those who are 
less fortunate, then a budget should reflect that.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the gentlewoman from California

[[Page 7503]]

(Mrs. Napolitano) here, who is an outstanding Member, an outstanding 
woman who had served with me in the State legislature of California, 
who was also a mayor of a city at the time that I, too, was one in 
another city in California.
  The gentlewoman has been extremely strong in her leadership on the 
issues of education, the environment, on our children who are limited 
English-speaking.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Napolitano) to discuss this budget.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for the opportunity to speak on our 
President's budget and the environment; that topic is very near and 
dear to many of us from the West Coast.
  President Bush certainly has not received any honeymoon from the 
Nation's environmentalists: global warming, oil drilling in Alaska, 
arsenic levels in drinking water, all of the issues that have garnered 
headlines as environmentalists and others have argued with the 
President's position.
  President Bush also stated last week in a Los Angeles Times article 
that he is committed to clean air and clean water. We hear him. We 
honor him. I have the perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate that 
commitment and achieve an early, bipartisan environmental safety 
victory.
  There is a 10\1/2\ million ton mountain of radioactive uranium scrap 
in a city called Moab in the State of Utah. That particular site is 
leaking 57,000 gallons a day of poison into the Colorado River, which 
is one of the main sources of tap water for over 20 million Americans, 
some 18 out of California, and then others from Nevada, Utah, Colorado, 
Arizona. And it is the main source of tap water for all of these 
individuals.



  Even though Moab is several hundred miles upstream from where we are, 
from the point of where southern California draws its water, and no 
unsafe level of radioactivity or toxic substances to date have been 
detected in our area, it is a matter that requires our immediate 
attention.
  Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about this. This is a very 
dangerous situation that scientists and environmental groups and many 
public officials from those areas have referred to as a radioactive 
time bomb.
  Picture a truncated mountain or an ancient ruin that is covering 130 
acres and in circumference rising 11 stories high. This is the ominous 
legacy of a nearby uranium ore mill, which for 28 years processed 
uranium ore for our national defense during the Cold War.
  These mill tailings, or scrap, were dumped into an unlined pond that 
eventually grew into this huge mountain. Because of the mountain's 
concave top, rainwater funnels through the tailings, out the bottom, as 
a brew 650 feet away that includes arsenic, lead and ammonia. That is 
just to name a few of those contaminants.
  Pressed to clean up this toxic site, the Atlas Corporation that ran 
it filed bankruptcy in 1998. Now, who can predict when this mountain's 
poisons will endanger our health and that of our children, of our 
grandchildren and their grandchildren? As a grandmother of 14, there is 
a question I sure do not wish to contemplate. We must act now. We 
cannot wait.
  Last year, Congress passed and former President Clinton signed a 
bipartisan legislation for the Department of Energy to take control of 
this site of Moab, to clean it up, take it over from the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
  This would not have been possible without the support of Members of 
Congress on both sides, the generosity of the Ute Indian Tribe who had 
agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Department of 
Energy to allow them to acquire the Department's naval oil shale 
reserve.
  This Federal land, rich in gas reserve, was taken away from the Ute 
Tribe by the Federal Government in 1915. In return, the pledge made by 
the Ute Tribe dedicates a portion of the gas royalties towards the 
cleanup and removal, not capping, removal of the uranium tailings pile.
  Our legislative goal this year will be to get this $10 million for 
cleanup in the Department of Energy's nondefense environmental 
programs.
  I remind my colleagues, this is not a line item in the budget. It was 
not included in our President's budget. It is such an important issue, 
and yet it was not even considered for entry into our budget for this 
coming year.
  The cleanup is not just a priority to the residents of the 34th 
Congressional District, my district; it is an issue for agencies like 
the Metropolitan Water District and others who import the drinking 
water from Colorado for over 17 million urban Southland residents. 
Efforts to clean up these uranium wastes are being championed by all of 
them throughout the western States of Utah, Nevada Arizona, California 
and other States.

                              {time}  1715

  The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cannon) are all moving in a broad bipartisan coalition to press for the 
removal of this radioactive uranium waste and the cleanup of this site 
that affects millions of Americans.
  My colleagues and I will work diligently to educate our new Secretary 
of Energy and Members in the House and Senate about this looming 
catastrophe. In these exciting days of this new Congress, and with our 
new administration, we all look forward to joining with our president, 
with Secretary Abraham, and with colleagues on both sides to serve the 
best interest of our western States to ensure that clean water from the 
Colorado is available for future generations and will protect not only 
the environment but the precious sites that exist in that area.
  I do not know how much time the gentlewoman has left; but if I have 
another few minutes, I have another issue of environment that I would 
like to mention.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. That would be fine.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There is another issue that deals with environmental 
issues, and that is the tertiary treatment of water now being 
effectuated in some areas, including in California water that is 
treated before it is released into the ocean. EPA is now mandating that 
treatment plants be set up, costing taxpayers billions of dollars, in 
order to do a fourth treatment before that water is released into the 
ocean, or at least a third of it is treated. This water, which is used 
for irrigation in green spaces, in government areas for commercial and 
industrial use, is to be given a fourth treatment.
  Now, imagine that we have an agency, EPA, that is saying that we will 
now have to consider doing a fourth treatment to water that is already 
given the highest treatment before release for any other use. I think 
that we need to be very careful. Although we want to protect the health 
concerns of our citizens, and we are certainly concerned about the 
after-effects of anything that we release for consumption, although we 
do not drink tertiary-treated water, it is used for commercial and 
industrial and irrigation purposes, we are also aware that the costs 
that are going to be borne to do a treatment for which there has not 
been any validity given to it, that fourth treatment.
  We must find ways of being able to work with the environmental 
community to give that fourth treatment, whether it is through settling 
ponds, so that it can filter through nature's way, or be able to 
utilize it in melding through the rivers and aquifers, so that we do 
not saddle the taxpayers with additional burdens of paying for 
additional costs to set up agencies to do a fourth treatment on water. 
That is a very important issue for anybody who is concerned about their 
aquifer refurbishment so that we have enough water in times of drought.
  That is very important and a very safe way of being able to deal with 
water shortages and other issues that are now facing us in many areas 
of our country.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and 
colleague, one of the great women out

[[Page 7504]]

of the State of California, for coming today to lend the support of why 
we did not vote on this budget and why this budget is not good for 
American people who have been left short of the American Dream.
  I now have another outstanding leader of this House who has 
demonstrated over and over and over again her leadership on a myriad of 
issues, but critically on the environment and education. I am pleased 
to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) to speak 
about the impact of this budget on her constituents and on some of our 
American people.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding 
to me and for her leadership in gathering us today to talk about the 
budget that just passed the House of Representatives. And I am sorry to 
say it passed without my vote, because I would have liked to have voted 
for a budget that would have done what is right for the American 
people. That was not this budget.
  We are at a remarkable point in our history right now. For the first 
time in memory, really, we have a surplus of money in the budget. We 
have an opportunity as Americans now, as a family might do, to say, 
okay, now we have some extra money available, why do we not look around 
and see if it is not time to fix the roof, to send our kids to a really 
good university, to provide ourselves with the health care that we 
need, to clean up our community, to make things better, to pay down our 
debts. How about that? We could pay off our debts, if as a family we 
had extra money.
  But instead of doing that, we are about to squander the money that we 
have by giving most of it to the wealthiest of Americans, at the 
expense of what? Well, as a mother and as a grandmother, I am very 
concerned about education. As a Congresswoman, I have been going around 
my district, and not just to poor communities but to my suburban 
communities, and what do I find? I find schools that are overcrowded, 
where kids are bundled up in a couple of classes in one room, where 
ceiling paint is falling down, where there is not enough computers to 
teach the new technologies. We cannot even plug in computers in some 
schools because the wiring is faulty.
  We have the money now to do school construction, to provide after-
school programs, and early childhood education. Things that would 
benefit all of our children are within our reach right now because we 
have a surplus of dollars. What instead are we doing? We look at the 
education budget that came out of this House today, and it does not 
even include what the President of the United States asked for in 
increasing the budget. It barely increases education funding by the 
rate of inflation, one of the poorest increases in education funding 
that we have ever seen, or at least in recent years. And yet this 
President says he is an education President. We are doing so little for 
what needs so much right now. And knowing what we could do, it just 
makes me want to weep.
  I live in Chicago; I represent a district in Chicago where there is a 
crisis in affordable housing. We are short about 155,000 affordable 
housing units in the Chicago area. This budget that came out of this 
House today cuts $2 billion from housing and urban development, money 
that could go to provide housing. Not more housing. As a consequence, 
we could get less housing. We are meeting less of the need than we 
should have.
  If we look at the programs that have formed the basis of our security 
net in this country, Social Security and Medicare, programs that have 
worked to lift seniors out of poverty, have provided health care for 
our elders, people with disabilities, widows and orphans, things that 
all Americans can be proud of, all Americans rely on, this threatens 
the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund. It threatens Medicare. 
It raids the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for an inadequate prescription 
drug benefit.
  So senior citizens who thought, my goodness, both candidates for 
President, including George Bush, campaigned he wanted a prescription 
drug benefit under Medicare. But do not look in this budget that just 
came out of the House. I am afraid to say it is not there. There is a 
measly program that will go to seniors, some of whom earn $11,500 or 
less. But we know even middle-income seniors are going broke because 
they cannot buy their prescription drugs. Where is the prescription 
drug benefit under Medicare? It is not there.
  This is the first budget in a long time that does not give more 
funding for the Ryan White Care Act for the AIDS pandemic that 
continues to rage in the United States, even as AIDS cases, 
particularly among women, particularly among women of color, continues 
to accelerate. There is no money for that.
  Child abuse prevention is cut. Child care is cut. Graduate medical 
education training for doctors to work in children's hospitals is cut. 
Veterans benefits are inadequate. Medicaid is being cut. We are 
supposed to be trying to pay down our debt, which would help us bolster 
the Social Security Trust Fund.
  All of this is being crowded out by a tax cut almost half of which is 
going to go to the wealthiest Americans. Does it make any sense that we 
help the million millionaires at the expense of 39 million senior 
citizens and persons with disabilities who want a prescription drug 
benefit or want to know that their Medicare is safe? And it is all 
based on projections of a surplus for the next 10 years that is using a 
flawed crystal ball.
  What makes us think that our projections are going to work when they 
never have in the past? We have always been way off; yet we are going 
to commit this money. No family would do that. We are going to commit 
this money now and hope that it will be there. This budget is fuzzy 
math, big time; and it jeopardizes all of the programs that have helped 
Americans to improve their quality of life.
  I thank the gentlewoman for letting me say that.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so much. 
I really do thank her, and I appreciate her leadership on the issues.
  Mr. Speaker, as we close, we want to remind all of us that the number 
one priority for this country must be our children, the future of 
tomorrow. And if education is going to be anything, it should be to not 
leave any child behind. Hopefully, the conferees will look at that; and 
we will have a budget coming out of the Senate side, I should say, that 
will help us in bridging the ones who are underrepresented along with 
those who are represented in terms of the American Dream.

                          ____________________