[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 435-437]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the budget President Bush presented today 
clearly demonstrates that we cannot meet our national security needs in 
the wake of September 11, and afford to fully implement the enormous 
tax cuts which were enacted prior to that fateful day, unless we ignore 
our vital education, health, and human resources needs.
  All of us agree that we must spend what is necessary to defend the 
Nation against the threat of terrorism. These new demands on our 
resources, coupled with the recession, necessitate a reevaluation of 
the entire budget picture--including the expenditure of $1.7 trillion 
to finance the tax cut. Unfortunately, when it comes to the tax cut, 
the administration is unwilling to admit that the world has changed. If 
future tax cuts which disproportionately favor our wealthiest citizens 
are treated as a sacred cow, many of the programs that help our 
neediest citizens will be sacrificed. The war requires shared 
sacrifice, not placing all the burden on those families least able to 
carry it.
  Today, we find ourselves in a dramatically different and far less 
advantageous position than we did one year ago. In January 2001, CBO 
projected a $5.6 trillion surplus for fiscal years 2002-2011. One year 
later, the projected surplus for that period is only $1.6 trillion, 
nearly all of it attributable to Social Security. According to CBO, an 
on-budget surplus will not reappear until fiscal year 2010. Four 
trillion dollars of the surplus is gone.
  Whatever the merits of last year's tax bill at the time it was 
enacted, those circumstances clearly no longer exist. In the aftermath 
of September 11, we are facing major new demands on our national 
resources which must take priority. We cannot meet these demands and 
afford such an enormous tax cut without raiding Social Security and 
Medicare. Jeopardizing the security of millions of senior citizens to 
finance the full tax cut is not an acceptable price to pay. We cannot 
now afford the entire tax cut without ignoring critical national needs. 
Neglecting our children's education and the health and

[[Page 436]]

well-being of our families to finance this tax cut is not an acceptable 
price to pay. Yet, that is what the administration budget would do. At 
this critical moment, the Senate must transcend the old boundaries of 
the debate, and act in the nation's best interest.
  Social Security is a major victim of the President's budget. His 
budget does not merely dip into the Social Security Trust Fund for a 
couple of years when we are experiencing a recession and fighting a 
war. It proposes to raid Social Security every year through at least 
2010, taking a total of $1.464 trillion out of the trust fund. The 
magnitude of the administration planned raid on Social Security is 
truly shocking. It would dramatically weaken Social Security's long-
term financial stability. This reckless scheme seriously threatens the 
well-being of every senior citizen and disabled person who will be 
depending on the program in the years ahead.
  Even with the raid on Social Security, the budget does not meet the 
nation's critical domestic spending needs. Discretionary domestic 
spending does not even keep pace with the rate of inflation. It 
receives a real dollar cut.
  The only fiscally responsible course of action now is to postpone 
some future tax cuts that exclusively benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. 
These future tax breaks are not scheduled to take effect until 2004 and 
later. However, if they are allowed to take effect, they will cost 
hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the decade. By delaying 
them, we can save approximately $350 billion. More than one trillion 
dollars of tax cuts will still take effect as scheduled.
  Under the plan I have proposed, no taxpayer would pay a higher tax 
rate than he or she paid last year. In fact, income tax rates for 
everyone would be lower in 2002 and in succeeding years than they were 
in 2001. The child tax credit would be increased as planned and 
marriage penalty relief would be provided as scheduled.
  The $350 billion in cost savings would result solely from a delay of 
future reductions in the tax rate paid by the wealthiest taxpayers in 
the highest income brackets and from maintaining the estate tax on 
estates above $4 million. While a small number of the most wealthy 
taxpayers may receive less of a tax reduction than they anticipated, 
they will still be receiving billions of dollars in new tax breaks as a 
result of last year's bill. Especially in a time of national crisis, it 
is certainly reasonable to ask them to contribute a fair share to keep 
our Nation strong.
  These future tax cuts for those at the top are not part of the fight 
against the recession. They are not scheduled to occur until long after 
the economy emerges from the downturn. In fact, taking fiscally 
responsible action now will actually help the economy--by leading to 
reductions in long-term interest rates that have remained stubbornly 
high because of the fear that unaffordable tax cuts will lead to 
growing Federal deficits throughout the decade. Reducing that threat 
will reduce the cost of long-term borrowing for businesses, and provide 
a stimulus for new job creation now.
  Such a modest reduction in future tax cuts will help us to meet our 
responsibility to the American people to improve education all along 
the continuum from birth through college, to extend better health care 
to more people, and to ensure that workers can find the training that 
they'll need to fully participate in the modern world economy. The 
American people have not made future tax cuts their first priority, and 
Congress should not either.
  At the very least, fairness and fiscal responsibility require that 
future tax cuts be reduced by the cost of the increased defense and 
homeland security spending these perilous times require. This would 
allow our domestic priorities to receive the same funding which all of 
us agreed last year was the essential minimum.
  We have only had the administration's budget for a few hours. 
However, the disturbing neglect of many of our Nation's most pressing 
domestic needs is evident. I would like to take just a few moments to 
describe those to the Senate at this time.
  First of all, let us take the area of health care. Support for our 
public hospitals will be reduced by $27 billion.
  The public hospitals in this country are some of the most beleaguered 
health institutions that we have in this Nation. They are the ones that 
respond to the pressure when unemployment increases and millions of 
workers lose their health insurance. Where do laid-off workers go when 
they get sick? Where do their children go when they get sick? They go 
to the public hospitals. They are the principal institutions that treat 
the uninsured and the neediest people in our society.
  The idea that we will see additional reductions in terms of support 
for these major institutions, which are primarily in the great urban 
areas of our country and operating on such a narrow edge in any event 
because of the extraordinary kinds of burdens they are facing, is a 
major mistake from a health policy point of view in terms of caring for 
our fellow citizens.
  Reductions in the support for the training of pediatricians in our 
children's hospitals by some $85 billion is also a major mistake. We 
want to make sure we are going to have the best trained pediatricians 
in the world to care for our children. I think the idea that the budget 
is going to shortchange the training for those individuals who have 
made a commitment to making a difference, effectively equals a 
reduction in the quality of care, and is shortsighted. We are talking 
about caring for the children of this country.
  We see further reductions in support for medical education, which 
will clearly reflect itself in a reduction of quality. We have many 
challenges in our health care system, but one of the most important 
successes of our health care system is the training, the 
professionalism, and the quality of our health professionals, who are 
the envy of countries all over the world. Our training of health 
professionals is a magnificent example of the best we can provide.
  We have other challenges in the delivery of health care services. For 
example, the cost of health care and the fact that we don't pay for 
prescription drugs, which our elderly desperately need. But the 
training of well-qualified personnel is something in which all of us 
take a sense of pride. We should not lose it. We are seeing a 
significant reduction in terms of support.
  We are seeing reductions in health care professionals at a time when 
we still have a very significant imbalance in underserved areas--both 
in rural areas and urban areas. To see a reduction in support for that 
kind of program makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
  Cutting funding in terms of the Child Care Development Block Grant 
program, at a time when the program is only serving about 12 percent or 
15 percent of the need in this country, fails children. Considering the 
importance of that program for working families, and particularly for 
the working poor, it also fails workers and families.
  Seeing resources cut that help States move individuals from welfare 
to work, and which can also be used for childcare, training programs, 
and transportation, undermines our effort to help move people from a 
sense of dependency into independence.
  I am disappointed in the area of education funding after we worked 
very conscientiously with the Administration to restructure the K-12 
program. We are reaching only a third of the children who would be 
affected by the thrust of the Title I provisions of the reform of 
education programs. We are effectively going to see the same number of 
children covered. Because of the recession, an increasing number of 
children will qualify. One billion dollars of that is going to be 
cumulative. We are only reaching about a third of the children rather 
than meeting the needs of all the children who could benefit from that 
program.
  There is effectively an increase of $1 billion in terms of IDEA, 
which is the program to help local communities all across this country 
offset some of the burden they are facing in providing educational 
opportunities for special needs children. At this rate, it will take 15 
to 17 years before we meet our responsibilities in assisting local 
communities and States in this area. We

[[Page 437]]

are failing our special needs children by failing to give that program 
the support it should have.
  Finally, in the area of teacher quality, there is only level funding. 
Similarly, for after school programs and bilingual education, there is 
no increase.
  We spent a great deal of time in the last Congress to make sure we 
were going to use the best of Republican ideas, Administration ideas, 
and Democratic ideas to try to bring about changes in our educational 
system, but we all knew it was going to take a combination of reform 
and resources. As we pointed out during the course of the debate, just 
having reform without the resources was not going to be consequential. 
Just having resources without the reforms was not going to be 
meaningful. We tried to bring those two elements together. I think we 
did a good job, but now we see in this budget no increase for many of 
these provisions--many of which are so important in terms of 
strengthening academic achievement and accomplishment for our young 
people.
  Finally, about 400,000 children drop out of school every single year. 
We have the Youth Opportunities Act to try to reach out to those young 
people, to try to get them back into school, and to try to get them 
employment. One of the major reforms of the Workforce Investment Act, 
it is an effort to provide educational opportunities and job training 
to our most impoverished youth. Effectively, that program has been 
emasculated. The new Administration budget dramatically cuts funding 
for the program, beginning it's eventual phase-out.
  It makes absolutely no sense. We were trying to get reforms in terms 
of education, and then with the Youth Opportunities Program we were 
trying to reach out to children who have dropped out and try to bring 
them back into the system, either to complete their education or to 
move them into training programs so they can be productive. That 
program has been undermined.
  There are training programs for workers to get the skills necessary 
to be able to compete and produce--on-the-job training programs which 
have really been the result of very strong bipartisan efforts to reform 
the 128 different job training programs and 12 different agencies.
  Republicans and Democrats worked together. We streamlined these 
programs in a very efficient and effective way to try to help workers 
develop new skills in order for them to be more competitive. We now 
find out this program is being significantly undermined.
  If you are talking about young people, if you are talking about 
failing to develop an effective prescription drug program for our 
seniors, if you are talking about missed opportunities in the area of 
education and in training for young people, that is all reflected in 
this budget.
  The final point is that we are in danger of using up all of our 
Social Security funds, paid by working men and women, by transferring 
them into a tax break for the wealthiest individuals in this country. 
The tax breaks that will go into effect in 2004 have jeopardized our 
ability to meet important domestic priorities. There is going to be a 
battle during the course of this year in terms of priorities. I look 
forward to being a part of that debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I will use the 10 minutes available in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________