[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6684-6690]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         PROPOSED BUDGET FAILS TO PROVIDE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the budget we 
are going to have tomorrow. A budget needs to reflect what our national 
priorities are. That is what a budget is all about, making choices.
  I want to tell the Members, although I made several attempts, as well 
as many members of our committee, to make changes in the budget, all of 
those were defeated. I am going to talk just a minute about one of 
those issues, and that is homeland defense.
  This is a time, Mr. Speaker, when more than ever we need to make sure 
that our counties and cities and States are well-equipped for our 
national security. This budget fails to adequately provide for our 
homeland security. The President said we were $2.2 billion short in 
homeland security. The Secretary said we were short $2.2 billion for 
homeland security. Yet this budget leaves that shortfall.
  Let me just talk a minute about what is happening in our State. Our 
State has high unemployment. We are laying off our police and our 
firefighters. Our young men and women who are in law enforcement are 
being called up for the National Guard and being sent to the Middle 
East, and many are already in the Middle East. Our local communities 
frequently do not have equipment that talks to one another, 
communicates with one another.
  What we are trying to do in this budget and what the Republican 
budget lacks is the money to make sure that our local police and our 
local fire departments and our local emergency workers, not only that 
we have adequate personnel, but that we have the equipment so they can 
respond if there is a terrorist attack in the United States and in our 
communities.
  I cannot believe that we are going to do a budget at a time like this 
that does not respond to our local communities and our local States for 
those people that are going to be the first line of defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget resolution is a failed economic 
plan that proposes $1 trillion in tax cuts in search of an economic 
purpose. This budget follows President Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut 14 
months ago to get this economy moving and produce jobs. That was the 
argument behind the original tax cut.
  The net result is 2.5 million Americans today are without work who 
had work prior to that tax cut, and there are 4 million more Americans 
without health care who prior to that tax cut had health care, 2 
million more Americans who have moved from the middle class to poverty 
prior to that tax cut, and $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have 
been foreclosed on and hit Chapter 11. That has been the net effect of 
this tax cut.
  Now, what are we about to do? We are about to put our foot on the 
accelerator 14 months later for another $1 trillion plus tax cut that 
will have the same effect of lost jobs, lost health care, lost 
corporations and family dreams, and more and more Americans moving from 
middle class to poverty.
  We need to move the trend the other way. We need an economic plan, 
not just a tax cut. While we consider this budget, we as a Nation, as 
one Nation, as one country, are moving closer to war. We also have a 
plan now for that war and for after that war to rebuild Iraq; in the 
range of $100 billion they are talking about rebuilding Iraq. The 
administration's postwar request would build more housing, more 
schools, and go further in providing health care for pregnant woman in 
Iraq than this budget provides Americans. The Wall Street journal wrote 
on Monday that the postwar reconstruction of Iraq is ambitious in scope 
and speed.
  I want to read some of the juxtapositions that are playing here, so 
as Members on the other side think about their vote, it just does not 
get glossed over by one fix or two in what we here in this Chamber call 
the manager's amendment.
  Let me read under health care. Medicaid provides insurance coverage 
for over one-third of the live births nationally here in this country, 
yet Medicaid is scheduled for a $95 billion cut. In Iraq after the war, 
maternity care will be guaranteed for 100 percent of the population.
  The U.S. budget we are about to vote on does not provide a single 
dollar of health insurance for the uninsured in this country, where we 
have 42 million Americans who work full time without health care. In 
Iraq after the war, 13 million people, half the population, will be 
guaranteed health care coverage.

[[Page 6685]]

  Under education, the U.S. budget cuts Head Start for 28,000 children, 
cuts education spending by 8 percent, zeroes out 40 new programs, like 
technology, like Star Schools. In Iraq, there will be guaranteed books 
and supplies and 100 percent enrollment for 4 million schoolchildren in 
Iraq, with U.S. dollars.
  Teacher quality programs in America are cut by $9.3 billion, more 
than 10 percent, and 25,000 schools in Iraq will be rebuilt and 
renovated at standard level of quality.
  Housing, we only have in this budget enough dollars for 5,000 new 
affordable housing units; yet in Iraq the plan is for 20,000 new units 
of housing.
  The Army Corps of Engineers is scheduled for a 10 percent cut in this 
country; yet our plan for Iraq calls for total reconstruction of the 
Umm Qasr port so it is fully opened for cargo traffic.

                              {time}  1800

  That is the plan for Iraq. That is also the plan for America.
  Under Transportation, highway funding in America is cut by $6 billion 
over the next 10 years. In Iraq 3,000 miles of new roads will be 
rebuilt.
  Now, after that juxtaposition, I am not against the reconstruction 
budget for Iraq. If you want to build democracy, that should be the 
commitment of our country. The plan for Iraq is robust. The plan for 
America must be robust.
  The plan for Iraq has been thought through in an economic strategy. 
The plan for America must have the same strategy, the same care for its 
health care, for its pregnant women. The same care for its schools. The 
same care for its housing. The same care for its infrastructure.
  This budget that we are going to vote on leaves too many Americans 
behind. Because of the impact of the 2001 tax cut, 2.5 million 
Americans without jobs, 4 more million Americans without health care, a 
trillion corporate assets foreclosed on, and 2 more million Americans 
who have gone from middle class to poverty. One could be cynical enough 
to think that what I just read about Iraq versus America could be 
distilled down to 30 seconds.
  I want Members to think about this before they vote on this budget. 
Just papering over the differences on Medicare will not erase the 
differences between America and Iraq when it comes to our investment in 
education, health care, housing, our infrastructure. We need a robust 
plan for America. And this budget falls woefully short as it pertains 
to our future, our families' future and their children.
  Now, I am committed to working, if we win this war, which we will win 
this war, to the reconstruction of Iraq. I want the same emphasis, the 
same desire, the same dreams, the same hopes that our President talks 
passionately about for Iraq for here at home. Because we cannot 
guarantee 100 percent of pregnant women in Iraq with basic health care 
for their pregnancy and yet cut $95 billion of Medicaid where one out 
of every three Americans get their health care as it relates to their 
child birth. We cannot cut 40 programs, zero them out, Head Start 
schools, technology schools, teacher quality, and yet guarantee 25,000 
new schools will be built in Iraq.
  We cannot talk about 25,000 new housing in Iraq and yet only provide 
the funding for 5,000 new affordable housing in America. That is not a 
dream for America. That is foreclosing on America's dream.
  And I know there are good people with good values on the other side 
who think hard about what they are doing, and I want them to think hard 
about the vote that they are going to cast on that budget because they 
have to go back home and explain how Iraq got moved to the front and 
their families, their neighbors got moved back. That is not right. We 
can do better.
  It need not be a Democrat-Republican issue. Let us make America first 
not only around the world but here at home.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Oregon 
(Ms. Hooley) for her distinguished service in the House, and I thank 
her for putting together this Special Order.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about what will be coming 
before the House of Representatives, the House of the people, and that 
is our Nation's budget. We know that the Federal budget is a very, very 
thick book of many, many pages with fine print and many, as we say, 
line items. But at the end of the day what a budget is about is not 
only a compilation of numbers but it is a statement of the values of 
the American people.
  I have done much budgeting in my day from local government, the 
county of San Mateo, where we were required, obviously, to balance our 
budget. I still adhere to that because I think being fiscally 
responsible is not only necessary but it is the prudent thing to do.
  So what is this budget debate going to be about? Both sides of the 
aisle are really challenged to come up with their best ideas for their 
vision of our country, of where we are going and what we need in order 
to get there.
  Tonight on the Feast of Saint Joseph, the worker, our country is on 
the brink of war. And yet the President's budget does not include one 
dime for that. There is something wrong with that picture. There is 
something very wrong with that picture.
  Let me give you a picture of my congressional district. It is a very 
distinguished place in our country. It is the home of Stanford 
University. It is the home of Silicon Valley. In 2 short years 
everything that was up is now down. We have one of the highest 
unemployment rates in our Nation. Our State is facing up to a $35 
billion deficit. Keep in mind that our State and our local governments 
represent 12 percent of our national economy.
  Now, what are the President and this House proposing in their budget? 
The same old same old. How many months ago? 18 months ago the President 
said as the economy was sputtering. We need massive tax cuts. Tax cuts 
that would go to the wealthiest, the best off in our Nation. It is a 
legitimate argument that was pitched then about whether that was the 
best prescription for our Nation's circumstances. I voted against it 
because I thought at the time that when the sun is shining, that is 
when you fix the roof. We did not do it. Squandered the surplus.
  We now have a different economic condition in our country. Indeed, 
our country faces even more challenges than we could have ever dreamed 
of as the first roll of tax cuts went out. So what is contained in this 
new budget that the President has brought to us and your Republican 
friends are going to bring to the floor? More tax cuts. I believed it 
was wrong then; it is certainly wrong now.
  Imagine if Winston Churchill, when he was rallying his countrymen to 
go to war said, And in addition to my rallying you, my countrymen, I am 
calling for a massive tax cut.
  This is a sober time in the life of our Nation and in the families of 
our Nation. Many have committed their children, their treasury and our 
Nation's treasury to this war in Iraq. Veterans benefits should not, 
therefore, be cut. Our Nation's defense needs to be paid for. But the 
education of those that are serving in Iraq, their children's education 
should not be cut at home. We do them a disservice. We dishonor them, 
and we dishonor the future of our country by doing this.
  This is not about throwing money at things. This is the 
responsibility of a great democracy. That is why the Democrats have 
held the line on education here at home. It is why Democrats recognize 
that we will not have homeland security unless we fund hometown 
security. There is something wrong when the firefighters from my 
district who came in to meet with me just this morning said, because 
hometown security is not being funded, our positions, our jobs are 
being eliminated. Now that does not make sense. It is not right.
  I keep thinking of what my father used to say when something really 
got mucked up. He would say, You have made a real mess of this. This is 
a harsh judgment of my Republican colleagues, but you have made a mess 
of

[[Page 6686]]

the economic life of this country, a real mess. We are now back to you 
have produced a deficit and it is over $300 billion. You will drive the 
national debt up to at least 5 trillion. The cost of this very tax cut 
that you are going to bring to the floor in your budget, the cost, the 
price tag of that alone is $1.6 trillion.
  This is not pitting those that have more against those that are 
average, against those that have even less. This is about the United 
States of America. We are all in this together. And so the fairness and 
the responsibility and the fiscal responsibility need to be exercised. 
It is a budget that leaves the American people wanting. If we cannot 
fund properly our national defense, our hometown security, education 
for our children, and the health care of our veterans and those amongst 
us, then what have we come to? What have we come to?
  We have a responsibility not to place these burdens on our children, 
our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. The Democratic budget 
recognizes that. That is why I am proud to stand next to it. The 
Republican budget does not.
  It is no wonder that those in Republican seats on the other side of 
the aisle are rising up and saying, This is not fair and we are not 
going to vote for it. I salute their guts and their courage to do that. 
Why? Because our Nation's treasures are putting their lives, their 
courage, their lives on the line some place else on the globe; and we 
need to stand next to them by honoring their families here at home. 
That is what this is about.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as we come to the floor and speak about what is 
going to come to us on the floor, there may not be that many people in 
the country listening, unfortunately. Why? Because legitimately we are 
preoccupied with the moment when America is going to strike. But 
whether people notice it or not, whether they notice it or not in terms 
of our words in this debate, make no mistake about it, it will be felt. 
It will come home to each individual, each mother, each child, each 
health clinic, each classroom, each senior center, each lunch program 
in your grammar schools and our elementary schools.
  It will be felt in communities across this country. Why? Because that 
is what our Nation's budget is about. It is about our democracy. It is 
about what we value. It is about where we place our priorities. I hope 
that it is a budget that reflects the best of us and not some bumper 
sticker. I hope it is a budget that funds what is going to collectively 
take us into the future. I hope it is a budget that does not 
shortchange what children eat in their lunch programs, whether they 
have a classroom that is the right size, whether their teacher is 
trained and educated the right way, whether those that have served in 
other wars are honored with the benefits that they receive. I hope it 
is not a slap in the face to America. That is not what this should be 
about.
  I am proud that the Democratic alternative will take us back to a 
balanced budget by 2010. I do not think our friends on the other side 
of the aisle can boast that. It covers the priorities that we believe 
not only have made our Nation great in the past, what has been given to 
us, but what we can do for the future of our country.

                              {time}  1815

  I thank my colleagues, especially the New Democrats, for taking time 
this evening to demonstrate the differences, because there is a 
difference, Mr. Speaker, and, Mr. and Mrs. America, between the two 
major parties. It is our responsibility to bring our ideas forward and 
have them be part of the debate in this country about which way is the 
best way to go. I thank my colleagues, and I especially thank the 
gentlewoman from Oregon who has brought such leadership to this.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to stand by the words 
of my colleague from California. There are many of us here, especially 
among the New Democrats, that did vote for the tax cuts going back 
almost 18 months ago. I come from New York. In New York, we love tax 
cuts, mainly because we pay so many taxes on the island. But I have 
some real problems with the budget that we are looking at.
  We are supposed to debate this tomorrow, and I hope that we do, but I 
understand that many of my colleagues on the Republican side are having 
a real problem with the budget that they saw, and I hope they stand 
together, because we as a Nation are going through some very, very 
tough times. America, as I said, is going through some very trying 
times. The economy is struggling, unemployment unfortunately is up, 
consumer confidence is down, and our Armed Forces are gearing up to go 
to war.
  Tomorrow possibly, if they can come to an agreement, this body will 
debate an overall budget for this country that hopefully will address 
all of these concerns. And I hope it is a good debate. I hope they 
allow us at least to even put our budget forward. That is what this 
great place is about, the debates. Then we have the vote. We either win 
or we lose. But unfortunately around here lately, we are not even 
allowed to put a substitute up. I am always hopeful.
  The two proposals that I have seen, one from the administration and 
the other from the House Budget Committee, do not come close to 
addressing our concerns. I am going to have a very hard time going home 
and telling my constituents that I might be cutting after-school 
programs, student loans, teacher quality programs, COPS funding.
  COPS funding. That should be part of our homeland security. I know in 
New York City, they are spending an extra $5 million a week. COPS 
programs, that is helping my community work with my schoolchildren to 
make sure that the areas are safe, and to get the kids to know them so 
that they have someone to go to when they need it.
  A highway fund. We all know that when we put money into the highways, 
those are jobs, not only making our infrastructure better, but also it 
helps the mom-and-pop stores because our construction workers have to 
eat. Our construction workers, by the way, pay our school bills.
  But I have to say, when you try to make room for a back-loaded tax 
cut plan proposed by the administration that provides a very, very 
minimal stimulus, I think we have a problem. I cannot go home and tell 
my constituents that I slashed funding for our veterans. We are on the 
brink of going to war. We have young men and women overseas getting 
ready to protect this country, and we are showing our older veterans 
the compassion by cutting their funding for health care. There is 
something very, very wrong with that.
  I spent my life as a nurse before I came here. I know firsthand that 
our hospitals across this Nation are struggling to keep their doors 
open. Yet in the Republican budget we see more slashes for Medicare and 
Medicaid. There is something very, very wrong with that.
  I am one of these people that do not believe in kicking someone when 
they are down. If this budget passes tomorrow or Friday, we are going 
to be hurting an awful lot of people.
  Again, are we going to have a decent prescription drug plan? Out on 
Long Island, I have my seniors that cannot even afford to be able to 
buy their medications. That is wrong. No one should have to go without 
their medications. I look at things holistically. If you are not giving 
medications to the patient, they are going to end up in the hospital, 
and it is going to end up costing more money. Yet in the wisdom of my 
colleagues on the other side of the floor, they want to cut Medicare 
reimbursements, they want to make our hospitals have to even cut back 
more, which means, by the way, they are not going to be able to hire 
nurses to take care of the patients.
  We have to look at things, in my opinion, on how we would run our 
house. We all have to make sacrifices. We all have mortgages. We all 
have bills to be paid. We sit down and we look to see what has to be 
done. But this budget, the Republican budget that is coming out 
tomorrow, is totally unacceptable.

[[Page 6687]]

  I think the shame of it is that we are making these cuts so we can 
make room for a $1.4 trillion tax cut. I do not know. I think the 
American people, if anybody is watching, would kind of sit around and 
say, wait a minute. My mother, maybe my grandmother, maybe she needs to 
go to a nursing home. She needs her prescription drugs. Those are going 
to be slashed? I do not know. That is not the way you cut a budget.
  Then we have the war. We all know most likely that we will be going 
soon, but there is not one penny in either proposal of the budgets that 
I have seen for the war or even the cost of rebuilding the economy. 
Some argue we can address these costs in a supplemental. I understand 
supplementals. However, these supplementals are becoming like second 
budgets. If we have any kind of an idea of what something is going to 
cost, we should budget for it, and we should budget for it now.
  I know we are going to go into some debt because of the war, and that 
to me is good debt. It is good debt mainly because we are protecting 
this Nation, and we are going to be protecting other nations so that 
they can have democracy and freedom and freedom from terrorism. We have 
to look to see what our priorities are.
  This body, and I happen to think the Democratic budget substitute is 
the one that we should be looking at, it puts us back in balance, and 
that is what we all want. It provides a stimulus package that actually 
will stimulate the economy. We should have been doing this in January. 
We should have been stimulating the economy so that we would not have 
unemployment going up and up and up.
  Homeland security. I talk to my schools, I talk to my firemen, I talk 
to our police officers, I talk to my county executive. They are trying 
to put plans together, but there is no money there. Most of our States, 
as I have mentioned before, are already in debt, so they cannot even 
spend the money. My county is in debt, and we have worked very hard to 
try and get out of debt, but unfortunately sales are down, so tax 
revenues coming in are not there.
  The Democratic plan also offers a sensible prescription drug 
proposal.
  The other thing is we are going to make sure that the funds are there 
for our military. This can be achieved by providing a stimulus that is 
reasonable and targeted to the people who need it the most.
  The American people are looking to Congress to pass sensible policies 
that not only encourage investment, but also increase goods and 
services. Again, we have to be able to do a number of things here. We 
have to make sure that we are there to protect our armed services, but 
we also have to make sure that the country is economically sound. The 
Democratic proposal can do that. The Republican budget will not.
  Unfortunately, the choices before this body suggest policies that do 
more harm than good. For example, half of the costs associated with 
President Bush's tax cut involve an elimination of the tax on 
dividends. To be honest with you, I do not have a problem with that. In 
better times, I probably would vote for it. I happen to think that in 
the long term it might be good for this country. It is not good right 
now. It is not the best bang that we can get for our dollar. I am 
hoping that we might be able to take this out and address it next year 
when things are better. This particular provision should be included in 
a long-term tax reform bill, as I had said. We should debate this at a 
later time when we can afford it.
  A true stimulus plan provides immediate capital to assist an ailing 
economy. I believe that eliminating the tax on dividends does not 
provide us with the bang for the buck as we need it, as I said before. 
And though I understand the need to make sacrifices, and I know the 
American people understand what sacrifices are, if we want to jump-
start the economy, it should not be done by passing bad policy. I want 
to support a budget that actually stimulates while taking into 
consideration long-term budget implications. There is no room for 
political gamesmanship when people lose their retirement savings or 
their jobs.
  Again, I am just going to say, what I saw on the Republican budget, 
large cuts to education. It cuts my veterans' benefits and health care. 
My hospital on Long Island for my veterans can barely keep its doors 
open now. It fails to protect the environment. It fails to make the 
adequate investment in health care.
  I know that we have tough decisions to make, but again, the 
Democratic plan covers all these issues, makes them fair, and certainly 
brings hopefully a little bit of sunshine down the road when we can go 
back into a balanced budget.
  I hope the American people get involved in this debate. I hope that 
they call their Representatives, because the pain that we are going to 
be feeling not just from the war, but from the cuts on educating our 
children, taking care of those in the hospital, taking care of those at 
home, taking care of our seniors, that is not where we should be making 
cuts.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I thank the gentlewoman for her thoughts today 
and for advocating a fiscally responsible budget.
  I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Oregon for organizing this hour to talk about a very 
important subject, the budget. Of the many things that are disturbing 
about the budget that the President has proposed and the Republicans 
have proposed here in the House of Representatives, I think perhaps the 
most disturbing, is the chatter that is coming out of the Republican 
side of the aisle that deficits do not matter. It used to be that a 
balanced budget amendment seemed to be required, and now we have sort 
of decided because it is inconvenient to have to balance the budget 
that deficits no longer matter.
  They have come up with all kinds of fascinating arguments as to why 
that is. I think the biggest one they focus on is to say that deficits 
do not really affect interest rates, because that is typically one of 
the arguments against running deficits is that if the government is 
gobbling up all the money out there, it is going to drive up interest 
rates and hurt the overall economy. They point to various points in our 
history and say that, well, in the 1970s we did not have much in the 
way of deficits, and we had very high interest rates. In the 1980s we 
had high deficits and lower interest rates. That is debatable. It seems 
to me just as an economic matter, if you run deficits over a long 
period of time, eventually that is going to have a negative effect on 
interest rates. But even ignoring that point, it is simply true that 
you cannot run a deficit forever.
  The biggest reason that deficits are, in fact, a problem is that they 
suck up all the money for the future and get us to the point as a 
country where all we can do is pay the monthly payment, just like 
someone with a credit card debt that is out of control, where they are 
simply trying to pay the monthly payment, and the interest keeps 
racking up. The amount of money that we will spend on interest will 
accelerate. The amount of deficits we run up on a year-by-year basis 
will accelerate under the President's budget. Ten, twenty, thirty years 
from now, we are going to have no money for any priorities, be they 
Republican, Democrat or whoever.
  So if we can at least eliminate one notion, during the debate 
tomorrow I would hope that someone on the Republican side of the aisle 
would stand up and say that deficits matter. They are something we 
should be concerned about, and just because they are inconvenient, we 
should not turn logic on its head and suddenly say we do not care about 
them anymore.
  The other thing that is truly disturbing about this budget is never 
in the history of this country have we cut taxes while at the same time 
going to war. The unrealism of that puts us in huge fiscal jeopardy and 
puts us in a position where we will not be able to meet our obligations 
in that war. Keep in mind, we are really about to enter our second war. 
Al Qaeda declared war on us years before September 11. That war was 
crystal clear after September 11. So dealing with that challenge was

[[Page 6688]]

number one. Now we are about to launch a second war in Iraq and we, the 
Republicans, are telling the American people that we can still cut 
taxes by hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars.
  That is hopelessly unrealistic. We have already seen the impact of 
it, the lack of funding for homeland security, and we are very 
concerned about it, the lack of funding for the war in Iraq for that 
matter. It has not been put on the table as part of this budget, and we 
know there is going to be a cost. That is very, very unrealistic.
  The last thing that is troubling about this budget is it in no way 
stimulates the short-term economy. The tax cut that is being proposed, 
only 10 percent of that tax cut will come into being in the first year, 
right now, when the economy is in trouble. If it were truly 
stimulative, that is where the money would be. Ninety percent of this 
tax cut is at least 1 year away, which means it is going to have no 
impact whatsoever on our economic problems today. Presumably in 2, 3, 4 
years, the business cycle will return, and we will have a strong 
economy, and what is the purpose of the tax cuts then? Certainly it is 
not stimulative.
  That is the overarching problem with this budget. This budget 
reflects a philosophy that says fundamentally we need to cut the 
Federal Government dramatically. The tax cut that was passed 18 months 
ago, or almost 2 years ago now, was bad enough. It set us on a path 
when fully implemented to dramatically see that reduction. Now to pile 
on another trillion dollars will put us in a position where we will not 
be able to fund many priorities.
  Again, the Republican majority is being very disingenuous about this. 
They come before you and they talk about the no child left behind bill, 
their commitment to education. They talk about a prescription drug 
benefit. They talk about the need to deal with health care. If you are 
going to cut taxes by trillions of dollars, you are not going to be 
able to address those issues. The no child left behind bill is already 
on pace to be underfunded by $12 billion from what the President said 
he would do as a starting point. What this shows us is we cannot meet 
those priorities. The rhetoric talking about them is simply empty.
  So one final thing I would ask of the majority in the debate tomorrow 
is to make that clear to the American people, that this is the choice. 
Do you want simply to have the largest tax cuts possible, primarily for 
what they like to refer to as the investor class, which primarily means 
not most of the people in America? Do you want to have that, or do you 
want to fund these priorities? Because when the Republicans get up here 
and talk about a prescription drug benefit and talk about education, 
understand they have no plan whatsoever to fund it. To the extent it is 
in there, it is only in there rhetorically. We simply cannot have the 
tax cuts that they are talking about and fund the priorities that they 
are talking about.
  Let us have an honest choice. Let us honestly assess what our choices 
are, be fiscally responsible, fund our priorities as they lay out there 
and not pretend that we can have it all; not pretend that in essence we 
can spend the same dollar three or four times.
  Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for bringing this 
debate out. Tomorrow I think we will have the opportunity to talk about 
it further. I would urge us to reject the Republican budget plan.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk 
about the budget resolution we will be asked to consider tomorrow, a 
budget that I believe is one of misplaced priorities. Just a few hours 
ago, the gentlewoman from Oregon and I went before the Committee on 
Rules to urge support for what I believe must be one of our foremost 
priorities. The gentlewoman from Oregon and I asked that an amendment 
be declared in order that would provide $2.2 billion in funding to 
first responders not next year, but immediately, in fiscal year 2003.
  I believe that we can and must agree to put aside our differences and 
fund first responders. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to 
consider this important amendment on the floor tomorrow. We say first 
responders are a priority, but as happens all too often in Washington, 
it is one thing to call an initiative a priority, and it is an entirely 
different matter to devote the funding required to validate that 
priority. In this particular case, there is no question that the need 
is real, immediate and essential.
  I represent the First District of New York, the western boundary of 
which is no more than 40 miles from the border of New York City, 
clearly one of the most prominent targets for terrorists, and I have 
spoken with our firefighters throughout our district, our police 
officers throughout our district, and they recognize that they are ill-
equipped to respond. They need training, they need equipment, and the 
Federal Government must provide the support that they require.
  I also come to the floor today to discuss our priorities as a Nation 
and to talk about how I believe the Republican budget that we will 
consider tomorrow is a budget of misplaced priorities. As we consider 
this budget, we have an opportunity to make the right choices for our 
Nation, choices that will strengthen our families, secure our 
communities and send us back down the road to economic security. 
Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are forcing a 
vote on a budget that is the antithesis of fiscal responsibility and 
sends our Nation back to deficits. These deficits stretch out as far as 
the eye can see, and they squander desperately needed programs for 
working families.
  If the goal of the Republican budget is to provide a shot of 
adrenalin to our economy, in my opinion this plan falls far short of 
that goal. The Republican budget puts forth a costly economic growth 
package with less than 3 percent of the proposed tax cuts occurring 
this year when it is most needed. On the other hand, the Democratic 
proposal would provide four times the amount of stimulus provided by 
the House Republican proposal with $136 billion in targeted tax breaks 
applicable immediately. These tax breaks will encourage investments by 
business and help those who are in the greatest need of relief.
  Both the Democratic and the Republican budgets would balance by the 
year 2010. The difference is that the Republican budget would do so by 
forcing what I believe are unconscionable cuts to key mandatory and 
discretionary funding programs. The Republican budget would cut 
important programs such as student loans, veterans' benefits, and 
school lunch programs by as much as $98 billion over 10 years. Today 
when so many families are sacrificing and struggling, it is not the 
time to crack down on veterans, students trying to earn a college 
diploma and schoolchildren from low-income families who deserve to eat 
a nutritious meal.
  Why do we not try this? If we are going to crack down on anyone, why 
do we not crack down on corporations that relocate offshore exclusively 
for the purposes of evading their United States tax obligations?
  Further, the Republican budget would undermine domestic 
appropriations by $244 billion below the amount needed to continue 
programs at today's level. Passing this budget will hurt working 
families, children, the elderly, veterans, seniors, and so many others. 
These types of cuts are difficult to justify under any circumstance. 
They are impossible to justify when one considers that they result from 
an irresponsibly large, massive package of tax cuts geared to the very 
wealthy. Why should we give an additional tax cut to the top 2 to 5 
percent of wage earners in this country when doing so requires us to 
seriously undermine so many important programs, and doing so also 
imperils the long-term security of Social Security and Medicare?

                              {time}  1830

  We need to do the right thing tomorrow and pass a real stimulus 
package, one that stabilizes our communities by delivering results for 
small businesses

[[Page 6689]]

and working families now rather than later. Now is not the time to be 
forcing damaging budget cuts that undermine the social fabric of our 
communities just so that we can provide additional tax breaks to those 
who make the most. Now is the time to act with fiscal responsibility in 
mind to jump start the economy and to provide lasting investments in 
our families.
  I believe that we know what our priorities should be, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the Democratic budget substitute tomorrow.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New 
York.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) who has been 
working on budgets since we both got here.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley) for yielding.
  Tonight the Congress starts its debate as to the budget resolution, 
which represents a statement by the Nation as to our priorities as a 
country. On the eve of war, this is a more solemn event than ever, and 
I think it is fair to say that the United States citizens expected 
their Congress more so than ever to come together, Democrats and 
Republicans, the House and Senate, the Congress and the President, on a 
realistic plan, not politics, not gestures, not symbolism, something 
that truly represents a plan to keep our country secure and strong and 
to plan for the future, as we are expected to do as leaders.
  What I would like to do tonight is to highlight in what I hope is the 
most accurate fashion possible the Republican budget resolution and the 
Democratic budget resolution and along the way to express my opinions 
in terms of how I think we bring this all together. First of all, I 
think it is fair to say that the Republican budget resolution has as 
its centerpiece a tax cut over 10 years in the amount of about $1.3 
trillion. This is truly a very significant tax cut. I think it is also 
fair to say that virtually every Member of Congress serving here today 
has promised the people that we represent that we intend to enact 
Medicare coverage of prescription drugs in order to deal with a growing 
crisis in our country as far as seniors and disabled and other people 
lacking access to critical prescription drugs. And so both budget 
resolutions must be measured against that standard.
  The Republican budget resolution, it is fair to say, sets aside $28 
billion, $28 billion to cover the cost of Medicare coverage for 
prescription drugs, I might add a very minimal fraction of what the 
President proposed as that cost. In addition, it is fair to say that 
the current version of the Republican budget resolution calls for 
significant cuts in spending, some of which have already been referred 
to here tonight. These cuts are going to be very difficult to defend to 
the people at home. They are significant cuts in veterans benefits. 
They are cuts in student loans. They are cuts in the Medicaid program 
that States that are struggling to meet their budgets right now are 
relying upon to furnish a safety net there. They are cuts in funding 
for the environment. These are significant cuts. Particularly like a 
State like mine, Florida, these cuts will have real impact on people at 
home.
  Finally, the Republican budget resolution calls for a deficit of $319 
billion in the next year, a staggering deficit, one that will bring 
with it a significant interest cost that every man, woman, and child 
will be paying in this country as the Federal Government goes deeper 
into debt. It is also important to point out on the eve of war that the 
Republican budget resolution provides not a single penny for what we 
all know will be a very expensive war in Iraq, not to mention perhaps 
an even more expensive cost of dealing with Iraq after Saddam Hussein 
has been disarmed, after Saddam Hussein is gone.
  I think the weaknesses, the limitations in the Republican budget 
resolution are terribly self-evident. At a time where I expect the 
President will surely call upon the Nation to sacrifice, to participate 
in the commitment our men and women abroad are making and their 
families are making without them here at home, it is not the priority 
of our country to call for a $1.3 trillion tax cut. Taking that tax cut 
is not the type of commitment, not the kind of sacrifice people have in 
mind in supporting our troops and supporting our President and 
supporting our Nation. Cutting veterans programs, depriving students 
who have worked so hard to get through high school the opportunity to 
go to college, losing students loans, these are not the things that 
made our country great. This is not what we stand for. This is not what 
we are fighting about. These are not our priorities.
  Let me talk about the Democratic budget resolution and start by 
saying in fairness to the Republicans, we clearly are in a challenging 
situation here in terms of how to juggle our competing priorities. The 
Democratic budget resolution, which I strongly support, represents an 
attempt to build on the more constructive features of the Republican 
budget resolution and the more constructive features of the President's 
budget and then attempts to improve upon them and not to simply 
criticize them.
  So let me highlight some of those points. The first is that the 
Democratic budget resolution calls for a tax cut of approximately $136 
billion compared to $1.3 trillion in the Republican tax cut.

                              {time}  1845

  The centerpiece of the Republican tax cut is the elimination of a tax 
on dividends for some corporations through a very complicated process 
that will not take effect for some time. That has been presented as a 
stimulus. I think it is fair to say that is at best a fundamental 
change in tax policy, and because it has no effect any time soon, it is 
not really going to stimulate the economy at a time when we need the 
economy to be stimulated.
  In contrast to that, the proposed Democratic budget alternative calls 
for immediately putting into effect a more accelerated type of 
depreciation for businesses, an attempt by the Federal Government to 
say to small businesses, medium-sized businesses across the country, we 
want to encourage you to invest in your company, buy the equipment you 
need, make the purchases you need to keep your business going, and you 
are going to pay less taxes on that as part of our attempt to help 
stimulate the economy.
  The Democratic budget alternative also makes permanent the child care 
tax credit and the marriage penalty elimination, which benefits a huge 
number of Americans and will put money in their pockets, which will 
help stimulate spending and the economy.
  On the spending side, the Democratic budget alternative does not make 
the cuts in veterans' benefits, in student loans, in environmental 
programs. It keeps those programs continuing. It funds them to take 
into account growth and inflation. I cannot think of a worse statement 
of our priorities than to be cutting veteran benefits in the days 
ahead. The Democratic budget alternative does not do that.
  With respect to prescription drug coverage under Medicare, the 
Republican budget alternative calls for $28 billion. The Democratic 
budget alternative calls for $528 billion. This is a realistic sum. 
This is a number that Democrats and Republicans ought to be able to 
work with. It is not dramatically different than where the President 
started. It is a higher number. This is an attempt to find common 
ground to finally do what the politicians have promised people at home 
for far too long, to begin to cover prescription drugs.
  Now, I have to say, this is not the ideal plan. If you are serious 
about attacking deficits, if you are serious about funding security at 
home and abroad, this is not the most elaborate, the most generous 
Medicare prescription drug plan Democrats might offer or this Congress 
might pass. But it is an attempt to juggle competing priorities. It is 
an attempt to start a modest Medicare prescription drug plan that, over 
time, as our country regains peace and prosperity, we can truly fund at 
the level our seniors deserve.
  Another important difference between the Democratic and Republican 
budget alternatives is homeland security. The Democratic alternative 
provides 34 billion additional dollars above

[[Page 6690]]

and beyond the Republican budget alternative for homeland security; $10 
billion of that is to the States. In the last couple of days, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, has ordered Governors 
throughout the country to go on a heightened state of alert. Security 
is not free. This will cost money.
  Virtually every State in this country, including Florida, is 
struggling because of the economy, because of deficits in their own 
budgets. The Federal Government needs to step in as a partner and help 
provide security. The Federal Government, in my judgment, has been 
derelict in its duty in not stepping up to the plate and doing this 
sooner.
  This Congress recently missed another opportunity to provide funding 
for first responders, for equipment and training for police and fire. 
We cannot make the same mistake again on the eve of war. The Democratic 
budget alternative provides $34 billion additional above and beyond the 
Republican budget alternative. This is something Democrats and 
Republicans should agree on. This is something that every citizen in 
this country expects.
  Finally, let me make two other points. One is that the Democratic 
budget alternative proposes to bring the country back into a balanced 
Federal budget by 2010. Deficits do matter. They affect interest rates 
in the long term. They have a lot to do with the ability of our country 
to plan for the future, the retirement of the baby-boomers, to keep 
Social Security and Medicare solvent.
  Now, if the Democratic budget alternative sounds too good to be true, 
it is because there are some difficult choices there. Let me close by 
mentioning a couple of the difficult choices.
  The Democratic budget alternative revisits President Bush's last tax 
cut, which was based on an assumption the economy was going to be 
growing at a dramatically positive rate, and that we would be enjoying 
peace and prosperity for years to come.
  Well, we know, painfully so, that is not the case. What the 
Democratic budget alternative does is to freeze the Bush tax cut, 
President Bush's tax cut, with respect to the highest income earners, 
in order to generate revenue to pay for homeland security, to pay for 
the cost of the war in Iraq, to pay for what this country is going to 
have to do after we successfully disarm Saddam Hussein. These are the 
priorities of the country. This is what is expected of us.
  The other way that the Democratic budget alternative funds security, 
funds a meaningful prescription drug benefit and achieves a balanced 
budget by 2010 is to eliminate the repeal of the estate tax. It would 
say instead what Democrats and Republicans should have agreed upon a 
long time ago, as proposed by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Pomeroy): We will establish immediately a $6 million credit from the 
estate tax for couples, $3 million per individual, that will result in 
98 to 99 percent of American citizens avoiding the estate tax.
  The effect of that is, again, to generate the revenue that allows us 
to keep this country secure and strong and back to a balanced budget so 
that we can achieve what we have been challenged to face tonight, to 
support our men and women abroad, to keep our promise to our veterans, 
and this next generation of veterans serving our country so bravely, 
and serve our people and get our economy back to the strength it 
deserves so we can be strong not just abroad, but at home as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am here today because I am 
deeply concerned about the devastating impact the President's budget 
could have on working families across this country, particularly at a 
time when our Nation stands at the very brink of war.
  The cuts that are proposed in this budget stand to hurt the very 
families whose loved ones are overseas preparing to fight this war. 
Last weekend I had an opportunity to meet with a number of military 
families whose husbands, whose brothers, sisters and wives are 
courageously serving our Nation in Afghanistan and the Middle East. 
They shared with me their thoughts and fears while their loved ones 
were deployed so many miles away from home.
  In addition to expressing the uncertainties that they face, they are 
also concerned about their children's future. That is why education is 
a major concern to them. They know that the quality of their children's 
education is dependent upon some significant Federal support.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's budget proposal seeks to cut education 
funding by more than $10 billion in the next year alone. In my home 
State of California, where the State budget deficit is expected to 
exceed $25 billion in 2004, as many as 30,000 teachers, counselors, 
nurses and administrators are already receiving notices to leave their 
posts in our children's schools. School districts are slashing a number 
of positions, and the President's budget provides no direct Federal aid 
to States to help with this great concern that we have.
  At a time when we are sending more servicemen and women to Iraq each 
day, the very least we can do for them is to ensure that their children 
are receiving the very best services we can offer, but this budget is 
failing to meet this promise. While these same families are expressing 
their concerns as their loved ones are being sent abroad indefinitely 
to potentially face the perils of war, the very least of their concerns 
are costly tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, we have larger priorities at hand. While we are still 
attempting to assess the costs of the war, our focus should remain on 
providing for our Nation's military, their families and our national 
security. It is simply irresponsible to neglect these priorities in 
favor of sweeping tax cuts, tax cuts that largely fail to benefit the 
brave men and women we are sending overseas at this very moment.
  We understand that at a time of war we may, in fact, face large 
deficits, but we should not make them greater by supporting a tax 
package that has at its very heart helping those that at this time need 
it the least. This is simply the wrong message to be sending not only 
to working families, but to military families carrying out their 
commitment to America.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, again, the 
Democratic budget is a fiscally responsible budget that does not cut 
funds for veterans, that stimulates the economy, that makes sure that 
our children can go to college, have after-school programs, and the 
Republican budget does not do that.

                          ____________________