Congressional Budget for the United States Government for the Fiscal Year 2006

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his outstanding leadership on this issue. I join in his characterization of this entire budget resolution as reckless and out of touch with the lives of the American people.

While I disagree with the chairman, I first want to say I appreciate the way he has conducted himself with the Budget Committee and the resolution. I appreciate very much his giving us the opportunity to debate all of these issues. But I could not disagree more with the characterization of what is going on or with what is happening in terms of playing politics.

I start by saying that this amendment puts Social Security first. It gets our priorities straight. Second, Social Security is our money--your money, individual money. Each one of us pays into Social Security. It is our American insurance policy so that we know we have a sense of dignity and a foundation for retirement. Then if we become disabled, there is a disability policy or, Heaven forbid, a worker loses their life, something is there for their family. It is your money. It is my money. There is not a penny of the general fund. This is our money that goes into Social Security, and we are saying we want to keep it secure.

The American public is counting on us to keep it secure for the future. And we are saying, with all the talk about Social Security these days, it is time to step up and to fix it and to put Social Security first.

I also say to my chairman, it is so easy to demagog on tax cuts. It is so easy. It is the easiest thing for an elected official to do: Don't worry about paying the bills; don't worry about how the schools are; don't worry about enough police and firefighters; don't worry if you cannot drink the water or breathe the air let's just talk about tax cuts.

You know what, we know it is your money. For those watching, it is all of our individual money, but we also know something else. It is your schools. It is your roads. It is your health care system. It is your military fighting so courageously for us overseas. It is your veterans who are coming home. It is your communities asking us to partner with them so they can provide jobs, economic development in your communities. It is your debt--the largest deficit in the history of the country. You could wipe out every penny of nondefense spending, discretionary spending, and just about pay off this debt this year. It is astounding.

This is reckless, it is irresponsible, and to demagog, always to demagog, and say, Do you want to keep your families safe? Here, have another tax cut. And by the way, you are not going to get it, but the most blessed in your community will. To say we are not going to focus on schools, we do not care about opportunities for the future, to say we do not care about keeping ourselves safe or creating jobs is just plain reckless and the ultimate in demagoguery.

When we had the largest budget surplus in the history of the country 4 years ago, I joined, on the Budget Committee, with our esteemed colleague from North Dakota to support a reasonable future, to Take a third of that surplus and put it into tax cuts focused on middle-income people, small businesses, to drive the economy. Let's do tax cuts, I am all for it, and I have
voted for many. But let's also take a third of that and take care of Social Security. We could prefund the baby boomers' liability coming and take care of Social Security for the next 75 years with just a third of that. Then how about taking the other third to make sure our kids have world-class schools, to make sure they have the technology they need, to make sure they can afford to go to college, to make sure our communities have the police and firefighters so when you dial 911, you are going to get the fastest response possible. And, by the way, let's make sure my city can talk to your city and the next city through an up-to-date communications system. And let's make sure that our seniors have a quality nursing home and can get the dignity of home health care, that we are focused on health care, both for those most in need and vulnerable, and to support those providing that health care in our businesses.

We have a lot of work to do. We have not only an aging population, we have an aging infrastructure. Not only individually do we need a face-lift, but our cities need a face-lift--water systems, sewers, roads, and bridges. It is reckless for us, in defining priorities of the future of this country, not to be responsible in addressing each piece of it.

There is a lot of demagoguery going on around here, and unfortunately it is because the easy way for an elected official is not to pay the bills but to talk about tax cuts.

Let me suggest something else. I agree with our esteemed chairman that the bulk of Americans are not getting the tax cuts they need. They are paying too much in taxes. Why? Because the tax cuts that were passed are not going to them. They are going to the most blessed, the wealthiest among us. I do not begrudge people working hard and doing well, but I think they ought to pay for schools as well, and security and roads and health care, the military, war, and the veterans. We all have a stake in America, and we all have a responsibility to do our part.

What I see is the overwhelming majority of the people in my State are getting a twofer. They sure are not getting these tax cuts that are talked about. They are not going to them. But they are going to pay more for schools, get less quality, and have fewer police officers. There are fewer police officers today in most of the cities in my State than there were on 9/11/2001. What is with that?

So my folks are going to have to pay more for their kids going to college because we are cutting support for the colleges and programs for folks to be able to afford to go to college. They are going to have to be taking less in the way of services that are basic services.

We are talking about basic quality of life in America. Everyone else looks at America and wants to be like us. What we are seeing in this budget is an effort to roll us back. We don't want to be like China, where they can't drink the water. Our quality of life has been the gold standard for the world. We have a responsibility to do the right thing and to have a balanced strategy that strategically focuses on tax cuts to move the economy forward, investments as well as the responsibility of paying down this debt and securing Social Security for the future.

How many people here would take the tradeoff of saying we are not going to fund health research? It doesn't matter who you are, you can get cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, a multitude of health concerns and diseases in this country. Research will make the difference. Who would say that research into health, into cures and technology for the future is not important in the greatest country in the world? Yet all the demagoguery on tax cuts is about removing revenue so that down the road the answer will be: We would love to do that, it would be great, but we are really sorry, there is no funding. That is what this is about, and it is wrong. This is about a balance. We need to work together to get it right.

This amendment begins to get that right because it says we are going to put Social Security first. The President is going all over the country talking about Social Security and what needs to be done. We could start by a value statement about what is important to us. We could start by saying over the next 75 years, we will take a look at the costs of tax cuts that have been passed--$11.6 trillion. I supported some of those that go directly to our small businesses, to our families, and to stimulate the economy. But the overwhelming majority of this goes, again, to those most blessed who have benefited by the greatness of America in our infrastructure and our opportunity.

If we just said, instead of $11.6 trillion over 75 years, how about we take 3.7, about a third of that--just a third of it, about 30 percent of that--and we secure Social Security for 75 years, and then you can have the rest? You can have 70 percent of it. But let's secure Social Security first. Social Security is a great American success story. Everyone is benefited by it. Even those right now who are doing very well, who knows what will happen in the future?

I remember folks from Enron sitting in my office, folks who had been wiped out, who said: Thank God for Social Security. I never thought I would need it, but it is the only thing I have left.

Social Security is meant to be there as security for our families--for everybody. It works.

What we are saying is, if we want to talk about a solution, we don't have to ask folks to pay more in payroll taxes, folks who are already being taxed too much and are being asked to have their services cut. We don't have to cut benefits. We can say it is a priority for the American people and we in the Senate are going to make it a priority for us. That is what this amendment does.

Social Security is a great American success story. Prior to Social Security, 50 percent of the seniors in this country were in poverty. Today it is 10 percent. That is worth fighting for. That is a success story. Again:

Honor thy father and thy mother.

It is not just words. We should act on it. This budget does not, in a number of ways, act on that premise.

It is also important, again, to note that Social Security, in fact, is more than retirement. It is our families' insurance policy. It has worked. It costs a half a percent to administer, it has been there, and it will be there if we do the right thing. But it is important to know about not only the retirees but the disabled, and there are survivors benefits. How many folks who work here in the Senate have a story to tell about survivors benefits?

My husband, at 10 his father died. He was the youngest in the family. His mother was older and not well. He survived on Social Security and went on to college and was very successful because of our country's commitment to each other.

I happen to believe caring about other people, caring about community, is a good thing, not a bad thing. Social Security represents what is best about us. Creating a system that we all pay into, you work hard all your life, it is there at retirement or if you need it in case of a financial disaster in your family; it works. Other countries look to us, to this great system of Social Security.

There is no way the President's proposals do not undermine this system. You can't protect people 55 or older or the disabled, the survivors, when you take an insurance system and begin to pull out dollars. I don't care how many times they say it, it is not true. You can't do that. We know that. Regarding Social Security, if we go the route of what the President is talking about with privatized accounts, we know three things will happen. We are going to drastically increase the national debt, which is already the highest in our Nation's history. We will have high administrative costs--instead of a half percent to administer Social Security, we will see anywhere from 10, 15, 20 percent or more. And the folks, by the way, you would pay to administer the accounts are some of the folks we are seeing here at the Capitol now who want very much to make the change. And deep benefit cuts, there is no way to avoid benefit cuts under the President's proposal.

So we are saying this doesn't work. We don't like this. What we have is an alternative. We have the power to put Social Security first in this budget. We have the power to do that. That is what this amendment does. If you don't want to see increased national debt, you don't want to see higher administrative costs, or deep benefit cuts, join our amendment. Our amendment is the responsible approach, unless your goal is to eliminate Social Security. If the goal is to unravel Social Security for Americans, then you will not support this amendment because this amendment is about fixing Social Security for the future, securing it for the future.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate that. I know we have important matters to discuss on the floor. Let me take the final few moments and speak about the realities of Social Security and what is happening now, what we know to be true about the facts. There has been a lot of misinformation about the situation with Social Security, in terms of its financial security. I think it is important. We all can have different opinions and views and thoughts about what should happen, but we should not have different facts.

The folks we all rely on, as we know, really have no philosophical position. These are the number crunchers whose responsibility it is to tell it to us like it is, the Congressional Budget Office. They tell us this: The Social Security trust fund can pay 100 percent of its obligation until 2052. Beyond that, if we do not do anything, and we need to, they can pay about 80 percent, maybe slightly less, of all the benefits that are currently in law.

We know we have a cap. We know we have a problem. The President's proposal does nothing to fix this.

It actually makes it worse. It makes it worse by adding to the massive debt. It doesn't add anything to the trust fund and, as the Senator from North Dakota was indicating, the accounts are not even fully given to the individual.

There is also a lot of misunderstanding of even how that would work. I would welcome anyone to go to either my Web site or to a number of my Democratic colleagues' Web sites where we have a calculator on the Web site where you can put in your date of birth and average yearly wages over your lifetime, and you can find out for yourself how you would do under the President's proposal. But the reality is we do have a gap. We know that. That is why this amendment is so important.

This amendment basically says that in order to address this gap in funding that comes after 2052, we want to put Social Security first before extension of or any new additional revenue losses, before new tax cuts or any new mandatory spending, that we secure Social Security, that we close that gap for the next 75 years, that we put it at the front of the line before we talk about revenue spending on new things, that we put it at the front of the line.

If in fact this issue has such a high priority for the President, traveling around the country for 60 days to 60 cities, all the effort and debate going on, you would think we would have universal support for this amendment; that it would be a bipartisan vote for this amendment. The only reason not to do it is if you do not support Social Security. If you do not support Social Security as it stands as an insurance policy, then you won't like this amendment. You will not want this amendment. If you prefer to privatize the whole system, then you won't like this amendment. But if you support Social Security as being there for all of our families, if you believe, as I do, that it is a great American success story and we should celebrate it, strengthen it, and secure it, then this amendment is the right amendment for you.

I will go back to the very beginning and say this is always about values and priorities. In fact, the budget resolution is our value document. Just as looking at our own personal checkbooks tells us a little bit about ourselves, looking at the budget resolution of the Federal Government, tells us something about all of us and the people we represent.

Right now this budget resolution is out of balance. This budget resolution is reckless because it adds to the national debt. It does nothing to pay down in a real way the deficit that doesn't even include all of the expenditures. And it is out of touch with American families. It is plain out of touch.

When we are talking about a third of those cuts being in education and workforce development and vocational education, we are talking about massive cuts in Medicaid to our families and our children and our seniors in nursing homes, this does not represent the values of the majority of Americans. We need some balance. That is not reflected in this budget resolution.

I will go back to the final point, that this is about values and priorities. As an example, if we were to look at the next 75 years and the costs without new tax cuts that are being proposed, the current costs of the tax cuts for the next 75 years, it is $11.6 trillion, and to save Social Security is $3.7 trillion.

I would say to ask those most blessed in our country, receiving the majority of the benefits, to be willing to share in some way and to leave Social Security secure is the right thing to do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 147

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I again thank my colleague from North Dakota for his incredible leadership on this issue and speaking about what is responsible and what should be the priorities for our country.

I understand the senior Senator from Iowa is also waiting to speak. I appreciate him allowing me to offer this amendment first.

As we are talking about priorities, of course our first priority is to keep Social Security secure for the future. Putting Social Security first is one of the very first amendments we will be voting on today. But we also have another priority which is to keep Americans safe. And that is what my amendment will do.

My amendment will restore the $1.6 billion in cuts to first responder services that are included in this budget resolution as proposed by the President. It also will put $1.6 billion towards paying down the national debt. These are two worthy goals: pay down the national debt and restore the resources we need at a minimum to keep us where we are in terms of the resources for our communities to keep us safe.

I am very concerned that 4 years past 9/11/2001 when I visit my police chiefs around the State of Michigan and I speak with fire departments and first responders, almost all of them tell me they have fewer officers today than they did on 9/11/2001. I think the public would be shocked to understand that. I know I was shocked. They expect more from us than that, with all of the alerts and codes and concerns that have been raised--and legitimate concerns that have been raised--about what is happening in terms of terrorism, to know that we have fewer police officers on the streets now than before the attack on 9/11 is simply reckless and irresponsible.

I am very concerned that we are seeing cuts in a number of very important programs.

I am told I need to send the amendment to the desk. I apologize for not having done that sooner, Mr. President. I send the amendment to the desk, and then I will continue. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Levin, Mikulski, Kerry, Corzine, Harkin, Biden, Pryor, Clinton, and Akaka as cosponsors of the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am so concerned about this. I appreciate being reminded that I needed to send the amendment to the desk. This is so serious.

This morning I had a meeting with our city council members from around the State of Michigan. I hear stories about the fact that one police department cannot talk to the city next to them or, in some cases, the police department cannot talk to the fire department. The whole question of communications and interoperability and the training that is needed to go with that is absolutely critical.

This is not the time to be cutting first responder dollars to our communities. We ought to be, in fact, increasing those dollars because when the terrorist experts talk to us, they do not say if we are attacked in the future, they say when we will be attacked in the future. So it is absolutely irresponsible to be cutting the dollars for our local police, fire departments, and emergency responders. We need to make homeland security a priority. That is what my amendment does.

I remind my colleagues that 2 years ago, we received a report that was authored by a blue ribbon panel chaired by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman. Their findings were daunting about the inadequacies in our homeland security efforts. They indicated that we needed a total of $98.4 billion over the next 5 years to truly be able to tell the families we represent that we have done everything possible to keep them safe. But instead of adding those dollars to make sure the radio equipment is there and the officers are there and to make sure the training is available, what is happening is we are seeing a $1.6 billion cut. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

We should not be ignoring this panel's recommendations. We should, in fact, be following them. As I said before, after 9/11, I did meetings all around Michigan. To a person, I was told that they did not have the resources they needed, and then coming back to them in the last year, I have asked, How is it going? They said we are worse off than we were before, which makes absolutely no sense.

I will add one important point, given the current situation as it relates to violence in our courthouses, that we should recognize is in this budget cut. The Byrne grants, which my amendment restores, can be used to hire, equip, and train additional law enforcement personnel in our courthouses. With the recent tragedy in Atlanta, GA, now is not the time to be cutting resources to our courthouses. All we have to do is look around, look at the headlines day after day, watch the news on television, listen on the radio and we know there has been a series of ongoing violent efforts in our country. Now is not the time to be cutting back on police or fire, whether it is to prepare for a terrorist attack or to keep our citizens safe today. When the President talks about overwhelming cuts, basically eliminating the COPS Program which has been so important in putting police officers on the streets, this makes absolutely no sense.

I have supported funding for our military men and women who are serving us so bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan because we said it is important that we come together and provide the resources that are necessary. We have done that on a bipartisan basis. We need to do the same thing for our men and women who are on the home front who are working hard every day to keep us safe. That is what my amendment will do.

I would like to provide several examples of the deficiencies the Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders detailed in the Rudman report:

On average, our fire departments have only half the number of radios needed on a shift, and only enough breathing apparatuses for one-third of their firefighters.

Police departments across America do not have the protective gear to respond to a weapons of mass destruction attack.

Our public health laboratories lack the basic equipment to respond to a chemical and biological attack and most report that they are overwhelmed with testing requests.

Finally, our first responders do not have the equipment they need to determine what kind of hazardous material they may be facing.

Why have we ignored this panel's recommendations? The administration's support for first responders has been on a steady decline. For example, last year funding for Michigan's State Homeland Security grants program dropped from $47 million to $29.7 million, In this budget, the administration eliminates the Law Enforcement Terrorism Training Program, cutting another $400 million from our first responders.

I have spoken with police and fire chiefs across my State, and to a person they all tell me that they have fewer police officers and firefighters on their forces than they did before 9/11 because of funding cuts.

During a series of 11 meetings in the summer of 2003 I met with first responders and community leaders in Michigan. They told me in no uncertain terms that they are woefully underfunded and underequipped. Over the last year and a half, they have continued to remind me of that fact. The situation in Michigan is of particular importance to me but this is not solely a Michigan problem. This is a national problem and one that has been ignored for far too long.

My amendment would restore the cuts to the first responder services in the President's Department of Homeland Security budget. The amendment is fully offset and will also help reduce the deficit. The amendment is paid for by closing tax loopholes that were originally included in the Senate version of the FSC/ETI bill, but were taken out in the final conference bill. Closing these loopholes will generate $3.2 billion in revenue, half of which will be used to restore the $1.6 billion in first responder program cuts, and the remaining $1.6 billion will be put towards reducing the deficit.

The assistance to firefighters grants, the State Homeland Security grants and the Urban Area Security Initiative are critically important. Also important are the COPS Program and the Byrne justice assistance grants. While some may not think these services help keep our homeland secure against terrorism, I believe that every police officer we put on the street with the proper training is one more set of eyes that could stop a terrorist attack from ever happening or respond to one, God forbid we are attacked again.

The President's cuts to these programs not only impair our ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, but are a more fundamental assault on the safety of our communities.

These programs help in unexpected ways. For example, Byrne grants, which my amendment restores, can be used to hire, train, and equip additional law enforcement personnel in our courthouses. With the recent tragedy in Atlanta, GA, now is not the time to cut the resources that keep our citizens safe.

The COPS Program has brought results in Michigan and the rest of the Nation. COPS grants have put more officers on our streets and in our schools to make our communities safer. These officers have helped reduce crime throughout the country. According to the Department of Justice, every $1 increase per resident of COPS grant funding contributes to a decline of 10 violent crimes and 27 property crimes per 100,000 residents.

When it comes to providing funding for our military men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have provided the resources necessary. Unfortunately, we have not done the same when it comes to protecting us here at home. When it comes to protecting our communities, we should not be penny wise and pound foolish. Therefore, we must strengthen our resolve and do whatever it takes to keep us safe.

Can we tell our fellow Americans that we have provided our first responders with the equipment and training they need to respond quickly to a terrorist incident and prevent loss of life? If we cut $1.6 billion from the men and women on the front lines of our homeland security, the answer must be no.

I remind my colleagues that when you call 9-1-1, you do not get someone at the Homeland Security Department in Washington, DC. You get your local police or fire department. Local police and firefighters are ready and waiting to try to stop a terrorist attack or help save lives if one happens.

If we do not adopt this amendment, I believe we are not doing everything we can to keep our country safe.

I urge my colleagues, before they vote on this amendment, to ask themselves are we doing enough here at home to keep us safe?

BREAK INTRANSCRIPT

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very proud to be joining my colleague on this amendment. For all of us who have talked about Social Security, this is the way to put it first in the budget process. This is the way to secure it for 75 years.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this amendment is about keeping our families safe and our communities safe. It would restore the $1.6 billion in cuts to first responders, our police, firefighters, and emergency workers. These cuts are included in the President's budget and in this mark.

With this amendment, we would restore those funds, as well as add $1.6 billion to reduce the deficit. There is an offset we are proposing that we close tax loopholes that were dropped from last year's FSC bill in order to pay for this.

In my State of Michigan, and I am sure in your States as well, every police chief told me they have fewer officers on the streets today than on 9/11/2001. This is wrong. They are counting on us to provide them the resources in partnership with them to keep our citizens safe. Also, the Byrne grants we restored will provide for additional law enforcement personnel in our county courthouses, where we have seen recent violence.

I urge that we adopt the amendment.

http://thomas.loc.gov