[Page: E420]
---

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the concurrent resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 290) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005:

• Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this resolution, for two reasons. It fails to do what should be done, for our country and for all Americans. And, it would insist on doing what should not be done for our economy and for future generations.

• It does not extend the solvency of either Social Security or Medicare, which we need to do as the first step toward preparing those vital programs to meet the challenges of the years ahead when the ``baby boom'' generation retires in large numbers.

• It does not properly provide for measures to make affordable prescription drugs available to Medicare beneficiaries and other senior citizens.

• It doesn't adequately fund essential education programs including Head Start, Pell grants for college students, and special education--in fact, it cuts their purchasing power.

• It does not protect programs that are vital for many working families--such as child care subsidies, emergency heating and cooling assistance, or affordable housing--or to improve their access to health insurance. It also does not adequately assist our communities to respond to the problems of growth and sprawl and fails to provide enough funds for saving open space. And it does not provide enough for veterans' programs.

• And it does not give the proper priority to reducing the public debt.

• But what it does do is to mortgage the future to pay for excessive, unfocused tax cuts that would wipe out almost all of the expected surplus outside of Social Security.

• It does cut funding for energy research and conservation programs, even as increased prices for gasoline and heating oil are again showing the importance of reducing our dependence on petroleum, while allowing dangerous erosion of funding for many other important scientific research activities.

• And it does lay down a blueprint for going back to budget deficits.

• For all these reasons--and more--we should not make the mistake of passing this budget plan. We can do better, and we should.

• That's why I voted for the alternative plan proposed by Representative JOHN SPRATT and other Democratic members of the Budget Committee.

• The Democratic alternative would have extended the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, while making a downpayment on a plan to let the parents of children who are eligible for Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance program gain health-care coverage under these programs. It also would have provided for Medicare prescription drug coverage, beginning next year, while maintaining the funds needed to crack down on Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse. It also would have provided more funds for veterans programs, and would have assisted retirees and people who lose their jobs to keep health insurance.

• The Democratic alternative would have increased funding for energy research and development, including energy conservation and the development of alternatives to petroleum. And it would have provided more for science, space, and technology programs.

• It also would have provided fund to continue assisting local school districts to hire more teachers for overcrowded schools, would have provided nearly $5 billion more for special education funding, would have provided for tax credits and funding for better school buildings. It would have provided for increases in Pell grants, Head Start, special education, and other educational programs.

• The Democratic alternative would fully fund the Lands Legacy Initiative, to save endangered open space and to assist our States and local communities in acquiring parks, conserving wildlife habitat, and protecting sensitive areas.

• And while the Democratic alternative would have provided for cutting taxes by some $200 billion over the next decade, it still would have dedicated $364 billion over the next decade for paying down the publicly held debt, more than could be done under the flawed plan put forward by the Republican leadership.

• Mr. Chairman, after I compared the Republican leadership's budget and the Democrat alternative, my choice was clear. I think that when the American people make the same comparison, they will agree that the Republican leadership's plan is a collection of wrong choices for the House and for our country.

  END