[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3475-3476]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of January 23, 2002, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, when the House and Senate wrote their 
budget resolutions last year, Members were assured by the President of 
huge surpluses as far as the eye could see. The projected surpluses 
held great promise. They were expected to be large enough to address 
long-term solvency issues of Social Security and Medicare and for 
important priorities like a prescription drug benefit and education.
  Since then, most of the surpluses have evaporated because of last 
year's unaffordable Bush tax cut and the spending necessitated by the 
tragic events of September 11. The Republicans in the House want to cut 
taxes further and spend more, and be congratulated for their fiscal 
responsibility.
  While we all recognize the need to protect our country from 
international terrorists and rogue nations, the administration has 
requested a military budget of $396 billion in fiscal year 2003. This 
1-year increase of $45 billion will be the largest increase in military 
budget authority since 1966 at the height of the Vietnam War. This 
increase alone, the $45 billion increase alone, is larger than the 
annual military budget of every other country in the world. In fact, 
the nations that President Bush called the ``axis of evil,'' North 
Korea, Iran and Iraq, our military budget will be 15 times the combined 
military budget of theirs.
  While this budget is being touted for fighting terrorism, the bulk of 
the funding is committed to buying weapons systems designed or 
conceived during the Cold War. The missile defense system, a knockoff 
of President Reagan's failed Star Wars missile defense program, gets $8 
billion in the Republican budget, even though it is not clear that this 
system will ever work or ever defend the United States from any of the 
actual threats that we actually face. In fact, it has failed test after 
test after test.

[[Page 3476]]

  In addition to massive new spending on dated military technologies, 
the Republican budget also includes provisions that would cut taxes by 
$591 billion over the next 10 years, making last year's tax cut 
permanent and providing a host of new tax cuts to America's wealthiest 
companies like Enron, IBM, American Airlines, Ford, GM, and to the 
wealthiest individuals in this country. The share of these tax cuts 
going to the top 1 percent of wage earners, top 1 percent richest 
people, would exceed the share going to the bottom 80 percent. The top 
1 percent receives 45 percent of the tax cut's benefits even though 
they now pay only 21 percent of Federal taxes. The bottom 80 percent 
gets only 28 percent of the tax cut's benefits with an average cut of 
only $430.
  Republicans claim the typical family of four will be able to get, 
quote, at least $1,600 more of their own money when the plan is fully 
effective. However, more than 85 percent of taxpayers will get less 
than that amount. Many will get nothing. One-third of families with 
children receive no tax cut at all. More than half of all black and 
Hispanic families will receive nothing under this plan, even though 75 
percent of those families have at least one working parent.
  Under this plan, a single mother with two children and a $22,000 
annual income gets zero from the tax cut. A retired widow with no 
children and an income of $30,000 would get $300 but a couple making 
$550,000 with no children would get a tax break of $19,000.
  Unfortunately, once we are done paying for military spending 
increases and new tax cuts, there is little left for other pressing 
concerns. For the last many years, literally millions of retired 
seniors have not been able to afford the medicines they need. We have 
all talked about this in our campaigns. Yet the President's budget 
includes only $190 billion for Medicare modernization and prescription 
drugs. It is not anywhere near the amount to fill the prescription drug 
gap in the Medicare program.
  Bipartisan estimates say that to ensure that retirees have access to 
adequate, just adequate, prescription drug benefit coverage would cost 
at least $700 billion over 10 years. The President's budget has only 
$190 billion. The Republican budget we will vote on tomorrow has only 
$300 billion, because of the tax cuts. It will cost the Nation much 
more than that if we remain indifferent to the possible trade-offs that 
seniors face every day when it comes to their health. Our senior 
citizens are being forced to ration health care, not based on cost 
effectiveness, but on how far they can stretch a fixed income to pay 
for exorbitantly expensive medicines.
  The U.S. is the wealthiest nation on earth. We are not a drug 
industry puppet. We must do better by our seniors. Investing too little 
in prescription drug benefits is like paying to put half a roof on our 
house.
  Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Republican budget with huge tax cuts is 
taking us down the same road we traveled last year. We will not be able 
to do other things that Americans are demanding of us.

                          ____________________