Senator Akaka Supports the Schumer and Hollings Amendments
IN SUPPORT OF THE SCHUMER AND HOLLINGS AMENDMENTS TO S.CON.RES. 23, the FY 2004 BUDGET RESOLUTION
March 21, 2003
Mr. President, I rise today to voice my disagreement with the priorities set forth in the budget resolution we have been debating, and support for the amendments offered by my colleagues from South Carolina and New York, Senators Hollings and Schumer. With our nation at war, we must do all we can to support our troops, ensure that our homeland is secure, and continue our emphasis on significant domestic priorities, such as education and health care. This is why, Mr. President, I feel that it would be unwise to enact further tax cuts that would pit these priorities against each other for limited federal dollars and lead us further down the path to fiscal irresponsibility.
Mr. President, we have commenced military operations against an enemy who has defied efforts at international diplomacy. Without a doubt, these efforts will come at substantial cost which is not reflected in this budget. Proponents must rely on budget tactics to show that we can allow additional tax cuts to be passed. I would like to associate my comments with those of my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, who rightfully attempted to enforce patriotic pause on this very point.
Mr. President, this budget repudiates our commitment to fight the evil of terrorism within our own borders. It fails to adequately fund homeland security, which is why I am a cosponsor of the amendment offered by my friend from New York, Senator Schumer, who has requested that $88 billion be provided over 11 years for urgent homeland security needs, including immediate funding for those on the home front - First Responders, firefighters, port, border and transportation security. I also applaud the provisions for bioterrorism preparedness and threat and critical infrastructure assessment. At a time when threats to U.S. civilians within our borders are very real, we must not abandon, for the sake of tax cuts, our resolve to ensure the peace of mind of families at home and individuals in their workplaces - many who are praying for loved ones fighting in our armed services abroad.
Mr. President, this resolution calls for tax cuts that will do nothing to stimulate the economy, but would worsen the progressivity of the tax code. It would also rob our most important investment of required resources, and that is the investment in the education of America's children. We should be sending the message to our children that we will do all we can to give them the knowledge and tools to be able to meet future challenges that will face this country, when we in this body are long gone, Mr. President. Instead, if we pass additional tax cuts, we are saying that we will place political gain over a solid start in life for young Americans. This is why I voted for the amendment proposed by my colleague from Washington state, Senator Murray, along with others, that would have provided an $8.9 billion increase in education funding, as well as $8.9 billion for deficit reduction out of funding designated for tax cuts. This funding increase sought to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. We only began to fulfill some of the promises we made in passing this sweeping education reform law through the FY 2003 appropriations process. We cannot let this investment waver in FY 2004.
Finally, Mr. President, I oppose efforts to decrease Federal revenues sorely needed to ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries have access to the comprehensive prescription drug program that they deserve. Far too many seniors are currently unable to afford the costs of the prescription drugs that their doctors prescribe. Seniors must be able to obtain meaningful prescription drug coverage through the traditional Medicare program. I supported the amendment sponsored by my colleagues, Senators Bob Graham, Dorgan, and Stabenow, which would have made sure that a Medicare prescription drug benefit is adequately funded, by increasing the Medicare reserve fund by approximately $220 billion. The amendment would also have guaranteed that participants in traditional Medicare receive the same prescription drug benefit as beneficiaries that enroll in private Medicare health plans. The funding should be included in the budget resolution to adequately protect our nation's seniors against the increasing costs of prescription drugs instead of to accommodate additional tax cuts. The Graham-Dorgan-Stabenow amendment would have reduced the size of the tax cuts in the budget resolution by approximately $400 billion and provided a clear choice between additional tax cuts or a meaningful prescription drug benefit.
The time has come to face our fiscal responsibilities honestly, Mr. President. Tax cuts are not the answer at this point in our nation's history. I join with Senator Hollings and other colleagues in opposition to the passage of additional tax cuts that would steal much-needed revenues at a time of great need. I owe it to the people of Hawaii, Mr. President, and we owe it to the people of America.