[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23155-23156]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                        AN EMBARRASSING COP-OUT

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senate should be embarrassed at what we 
are about to do. It is amazing to me, with the country facing so many 
important challenges, and a slow economy to boot, that the Senate would 
consider adjourning for the year without passing the spending bills to 
fund the Government for the next 11 months. We are putting off until 
January decisions that should have been made months ago--and as a 
result, many Government agencies at the Federal, State, and local 
levels will not see the additional money they have been promised until 
next spring. That is halfway through the fiscal year.
  Let's be clear about what is happening. The Federal Government will 
spend nearly $2 trillion this year. Yet we have not passed the 
appropriations bills because the administration objects to $9 billion 
in spending. We are about to pass a continuing resolution that runs 
through mid-January because the President objects to $9 billion--less 
than one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending. And his own party 
supports much of that spending.
  I ask my Republican friends, do they think it will be much easier 
next year to push through significant spending cuts? Of course not. 
When offered the opportunity to vote no on spending bills, my 
Republican friends generally don't. We as Democrats must begin to blow 
a hole in this ridiculous myth that somehow Republicans don't like 
spending. They like spending just fine. They may claim to be for 
smaller government and lower spending, yet Republicans in the Senate 
have supported appropriations bills more than 85 percent of the time 
since they first took control in 1995. More and more, the differences 
between the parties are not over major spending decisions, because 
almost everyone here votes for all the spending.
  The main difference between the parties is that Democrats want to pay 
for the spending, while Republicans are content to borrow from our 
children to pay for it. Today's GOP believes in the ``free lunch'' that 
we were all taught didn't exist. Future generations will suffer as a 
result.
  What does a long-term CR actually mean for the American people? To 
start, a long-term CR would undermine the war on terror by denying 
nearly $40 billion in additional homeland security funds requested by 
the President. It would delay billions of dollars in planned increases 
to ramp up the Coast Guard and the Customs Service, hire hundreds of 
Border Patrol agents, bolster State and local antiterrorism programs, 
and step up other domestic security programs. The 11,000 FBI agents who 
are supposed to be combating the war on terrorism will have to wonder 
whether they have the necessary resources to fight that war. Many of 
the requirements of the Transportation Security Act require large 
expenditures, such as explosive detection equipment at airports--but 
the money won't be there. The Customs Service will have to defer the 
scheduled hiring of more than 600 agents and inspectors to serve at the 
Nation's high-risk land and sea points of entry. The President's budget 
promised $3.5 billion in new money to ``first responders,'' but those 
essential funds for emergency workers have not been approved. Thousands 
of emergency grants for fire departments, communications equipment, 
emergency operations centers, you name it--these items cannot be funded 
at fiscal year 2002 levels.
  Or take education. The National Conference of State Legislatures has 
announced that States face a cumulative $58 billion budget deficit. 
Many States are already cutting public education funding, and many 
others are poised to do so--making inaction by the Federal Government 
extremely costly to our kids. Passing a long-term CR will delay 
increases in funding for critically important education programs such 
as the title I program and the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, making it difficult for school districts to plan their budgets for 
the upcoming school year. The President's budget promised $3.5 billion 
in new money to ``first responders,'' but that money for emergency 
workers hasn't been approved.
  Here is what's fascinating. Not a single Republican Senator up for 
election said they were for less education spending. They all talked 
about education as a top priority and voiced their support for the No 
Child Left Behind Act we passed last year. But who are they kidding? 
Public schools trying to implement the changes required by the law need 
more funding. For the GOP to support the law that authorizes the 
spending, but then object to the spending itself, is the height of 
hypocrisy.
  Or take veterans programs, or Federal research spending. If a long-
term CR is approved, it would shortchange veterans by funding Veterans 
Administration medical care at $2.5 billion less than what is needed to 
meet their needs. The 4-million veterans who rely on the VA for their 
health care will have to worry if that care will be available to them. 
And the Director of the National Institutes of Health has said that he 
might have to scale back bioterrorism research grants.
  Now, we aren't living in a vacuum here. Like many others, I would 
like to find ways to slow the growth in Federal spending, and I have 
several ideas for doing so. But this year, the differences are so small 
relative to the budget that inaction is simply unnacceptable.
  And here is what's worse. The Republicans, who exhort us to be 
mindful of how we are spending ``the people's money'' now that deficits 
have returned--these are the same Republicans who voted for $500 
billion in additional deficit-blowing tax cuts in the House, and would 
have voted for just as much in the Senate if given the chance. This 
President, who claims to be fiscally responsible and urges us to watch 
how we spend, sent up a budget this year with nearly $600 billion in 
new tax cuts for the well-off and increases in spending of 20 percent 
since he took office. And we are forced into a budget impasse over $9 
billion.
  Let me be clear: When we increase the deficit and add to the debt to 
pay for new tax cuts or new spending, it is no longer ``the people's 
money.'' It is our kids' money, and for that reason we should be far 
more responsible with our fiscal policy than we have been the last 2 
years.
  Congress has been abdicating its responsibilities by failing to do 
something about the economy before we leave. There are many good 
stimulus ideas out there--some of which are affordable, while others 
could be paid for by scaling back tax cuts scheduled for 2004 or 2006. 
But as things stand today, the Senate is unlikely to consider any real 
stimulus until after the State of the Union Address next year which 
means Congress won't act before February or March, which means that 
relief won't be in place before next summer. That is inexcusable. The 
American people shouldn't have to wait 8 months for us to act.

[[Page 23156]]

  Simply put, to delay action on the budget when the difference is $9 
billion out of $2 trillion, and when Republicans have voted for more 
than $500 billion in additional tax cuts, is an insult. We can do 
better, and we must.

                          ____________________