Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman and dispute the comments of the gentleman from Indiana, and particularly the material he provided to his colleagues which said do not spend money for NIH panda research in China. In fact, the research has to do with population dynamics, the pressure on an ecosystem that supports the pandas, and the development of a population, including how those people can provide fuel and food for their children. It is a study of pandas; it is a study of human development. There is a fundamental nexus between environmental quality, human health, and population pressures that impacts the world profoundly. The gentleman fails to recognize that and deceives his colleagues with the title of his amendment.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raises a perfectly legitimate point about the family foresters. The bulk of the family foresters in my district would be perfectly well covered under the $6 million exemption. I have met with them. I meet with their association. They would be covered under the Pomeroy exemption. What they would not be covered under is any relief from sales tax which is unjust. And the gentlewoman ought to join me in that effort and fix that.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague from California. I think he raised a number of good points, which is why I strongly have supported reform of the estate tax. We need to do it to support small farms and small business. The question is, how do we go about it? My belief is that the majority party proposal here will benefit the extremely wealthy but will not necessarily help the small businesses and farmers who would benefit more, quite frankly, from the Pomeroy substitute. We need to remember, and it is caveat emptor here, that the Republican bill does not allow for a step-up in basis and there will be many people who think this is a great thing when it passes today, but who will suffer. Secondly, the gentlewoman from Washington has repeatedly reminded us how much money has left various States. I would remind her with great courtesy that $500 million a year leaves her own State because Washington State, like six others, is not allowed to deduct the sales tax. She has focused on a tax reform that will benefit 2 percent of the population or less, neglecting a reform that will benefit 47 percent of the population. $500 million leaves Washington State every single year. We should reform that first and establish justice through that mechanism.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue and also the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. What we are about here is about as serious as it gets. We are contemplating the possibility that everyone in this building and most of the Federal Government officials in this city would be killed. It is not pleasant to contemplate, but I view it as a sign of the strength of this great democratic Republic that we are able to contemplate it because what we are saying is this: We are proud to have been elected and serve in this great body, but there is something bigger than us as individuals. There is an institution that we love and hold dear called the House of Representatives that assures the people of our States and our districts that they will have a voice in the Federal Government as it deliberates the most weighty matters that come before this Nation. Should we all be killed and not have a mechanism to replace this institution, we would leave this great Nation, indeed the world, without the system that has served us so well, the system of checks and balances to ensure that a self-appointed executive would not emerge with no checks and balances, to ensure that an unelected Cabinet member could not exercise extra constitutional powers without the checks of a representative body. That is what we are about. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has done an outstanding job, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) on the working group. Norm Ornstein is certainly to be credited, as is Tom Mann for the gift they gave this body yesterday with the Commission on Continuity. But we have important work to do. It is now almost 2 years since September 11 happened. We just lack a few months from that tragic date. In this time, we have the opportunity to ensure the continuity of this great body. I hope we will act on that. The entire Constitution was written over the course of a few months by very wise individuals who got together and, as this select committee will do, set aside partisan differences. There were no parties at the time. They simply said: What is good for this country? What will help preserve our liberties? How can we establish a system that will learn from the mistakes of the past and persevere through the challenges of the future? We have met new challenges, and we understand now we must adapt the ways we do business. This committee will help us learn to do that and will establish the procedures we need to move forward. I commend the two leaders for setting this up.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, what the responsible gentlewoman from Washington failed to say is that this bill does nothing to return $500 million to the people of her own State of Washington by reinstating sales tax deductibility.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) for yielding me time. I have spent a great deal of time on this legislation studying it. I have friends on both sides of the aisle, and I respect and understand the general intent of this. I sincerely do. We have a huge problem in the Pacific Northwest forests. But I have a great concern about the provision regarding the insect assessments. Apparently, there has been an amendment that allows for the Secretary to no longer have sole discretion on the reviews, but she would still appoint the panel that makes the reviews of these assessments. Frankly, this administration has a dismal record of appointing objective panels. I introduced an amendment that would have offered a National Academy of Science provision that would have allowed a truly independent body within 60 days to review these. Had that passed, I would have been very inclined to support this amendment or this legislation. But it did not. We must address this problem of fuel overload and insect infestation in an expeditious manner, but we need to make sure it is not used as a cover to engage in intents that it was not designed for. So I would hope that when this legislation goes to the other body we can address that. There is no need to give the Secretary such broad latitude. We can have independent assessments, and I would encourage this body to insist upon those.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, this has been an exciting discussion. We have talked about responsibility, common sense, about jobs, about health care, and about getting this budget back on balance.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I agree. When the President asked rhetorically in his speeches, if a little bit of a tax cut is a good thing, what about a big tax cut, well, the answer is we have already had a pretty big darn tax cut; and the second answer is, most people are not going to get that tax cut. And the third answer is, that big tax cut comes with an awfully big debt, and there is something desperately wrong with an awfully big debt. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a member of the Committee on the Budget, and an individual who has led efforts in this body on education, on health care, on social justice, making sure that all Americans share in the American dream and have an opportunity to benefit from the economic policies of this Congress.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. What a clear-cut explanation of the situation we are in. When I had those forums and town hall meetings back home, people asked me precisely the kind of questions the gentleman was addressing. What does this tax cut do for jobs? What does it do to provide prescription benefits for our senior citizens? When I asked people, which would you rather do, a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country, or invest in our transportation infrastructure and put people back to work? They said put people back to work. When I asked which would you rather do, a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country or invest in a prescription drug program so our seniors can stay healthy and actually lower the cost of health care in the long run, they said take care of our seniors. One of the Members of this body who has done as much as anyone to keep the cost of prescription drugs down is my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). I yield to the gentleman, who will not only talk about job growth and the tax cuts, but also about the fundamental principles of values and how those are manifested through the decisions we are making, and, unfortunately, through the decisions this body is not making.

Mr. BAIRD. If the gentleman will yield, when I look at that chart, you look at the graph where the numbers are going up, that is putting people back to work. That is helping people take care of their families, buy homes, invest in this economy. When you see that chart going down, which has happened in this administration, that is people losing their jobs, losing hope, losing health care, losing the ability to take care of their families. These are not just numbers. As the gentleman knows, these are real life stories of people whose lives are being ruined by the economy.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about fundamental principles, principles of responsibility, integrity and common sense as they apply to the Federal budget and to tax policy. Over the past 2 weeks, we had the opportunity to go home and hear from our constituents, and we hosted an event with the Concord Coalition. We had people in several of my communities get together to try to balance the Federal budget, and we learned some very interesting things from that process. We learned, among other things, that in spite of the majority's recent claims that deficits do not matter, the American people say that common sense says deficits do matter. We cannot, year after year, run enormous deficits, pass those on to our kids and not expect somebody to have to pay the piper. With several of my colleagues tonight, we are going to talk about how we got into that deficit, how we ought to get out of it, and how the policies put forward by the majority and this administration will actually make the situation far worse rather than better. The first speaker this evening is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). He said to me tonight he has to speak first because he has to go home and tuck the kids in. It occurred to me that is really why most of us serve here, we want to create a better America for our kids. And part of that way we create a better world is facing up to fiscal responsibility and not passing on an enormous burden of debt to those children in order to gain easy election or political advantage in the short term. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for such an articulate presentation and a clear-cut explanation of what is wrong with the tax proposals and the budget plans of the majority party and the administration. The gentleman was, I think, astute in observing that when the Democrats controlled the White House and the House of Representatives, it was literally about 10 years ago, almost 10 years ago today, they had the courage to step forward and confront budget deficits, not to pooh-pooh them, not to say this does not matter, but to confront budget deficits and say we must enact fiscally responsible policies. The other party, the majority party, claimed that if we did that, we would lose jobs, we would see interest rates skyrocket, we would see inflation go through the roof. What in fact happened? The longest economic expansion in the history of this country. More jobs were created. Unemployment went down. Healthcare was improved. Our education system was improved. If my colleagues want to make a judgment by history, look at the recent history. When the Democrats set the fiscal policy of this country, we saw sustained economic growth. In the Republican administration, we have seen sustained unemployment and economic decline. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is a member of the Committee on the Budget and will address precisely those issues now. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman has summarized it so well. The irony is, and let me just ask the gentleman to respond to this for second. You had that chart up there that showed that the vast bulk of the tax breaks go to the very wealthiest. The majority party, the Republicans, say we are engaging in class warfare. Not at all. I admire and respect people who have made wealth in this country. But it is interesting, when I talk to those folks, they often say to me, ``You know what? We are not asking for the tax cut.'' This assumption that everyone is venal and self-serving and does not put the country before their own immediate needs, I am not sure I buy it for most Americans. I do not think so. I think most Americans say, we have to invest. I do not know about my colleagues, but I hear small business people saying, give me a little break so I can make ends meet, take care of my family and provide health care. I hear Mom saying, make sure that I have a job that pays a decent wage. I hear Dad saying, make sure that I can provide for my family and give my kids an education. I do not hear most Americans saying, let us make sure the people who have the most in this country get the most in the tax cuts. Is the gentleman hearing that from his constituents?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. One of the issues this budget does not address that I know is important to the people of Wisconsin, as it is to my own State of Washington and, in fact, to the Committee on the Budget chairman's State of Iowa, is Medicare fairness. Many of our States are desperately underfunded in terms of Medicare compensation rates. This budget does nothing to fix that. My own State of Washington faces a terrible injustice, that we cannot deduct our sales taxes like other States can deduct their income tax. This budget does nothing to fix that. There are a host of problems with this budget. It was passed at 2 a.m. in the morning. The majority of the Members of this body who voted for it had never read it. They had seen summaries perhaps, but I guarantee they had not read it because there was not time. When you pass a budget that spends $2.2 trillion, that takes 24 hours to debate it and you have not read it, we have a problem on our hands and, unfortunately, our country has a much bigger problem. We have heard from people from Maine tonight, from Texas, from my own State of Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia. The distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget hails from South Carolina. I think it is arguable that very few people, if anyone, in this Congress have more knowledge about the intricacies and the importance of the budget process than my dear friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. BAIRD. When I talk to those folks, they do not tell me, ``What I would like the President and Congress to do is give me a tax cut.'' What they say is, ``We want jobs and we want health care.''

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have to go back home now to their districts and pass the commonsense test. They have to explain to their constituents how it is that they passed a $2.2 trillion budget that will increase the deficit in the next 10 years by $4 trillion; and they did it without sufficient time to even read it, they did it with inconsistent and dishonest manipulation of numbers, and they have to explain that to their constituents. The Democrats will not have to, because we will say we voted ``no.'' We will pass the commonsense test, and those who vote ``yes'' will fail the commonsense test. My colleagues on the other side will also have to explain this: for the last several years they promised on television, in their mailers, in their speeches on this floor that they would put Social Security and Medicare in a lockbox. But when they talk about the deficit and they talk about their balanced budget, the fact is, you have raided the lockbox, you have broken your promises, you have broken your faith with the American people, and you will have to explain that. We will not, because we will vote ``no'' on this budget. And those of you from States like Washington and Iowa and Wisconsin and Oregon who suffer from unequal and unfair imbalances in Medicare payments, you will have to explain to your constituents why this budget does nothing to correct the unjust and imbalanced Medicare payment structure. In Washington State, 50 percent of physicians will not accept new Medicare patients. This week, I have had physicians in my office saying, I cannot afford to treat Medicare patients because the compensate rates in Washington are too low. We have an opportunity to fix that. This budget does not fix it, and you will have to explain that to your constituents over the next 2 weeks. I would give one bit of counsel to those who vote ``yes'' on this budget resolution. Cancel all town halls. Those who vote ``no,'' I encourage you to have many town halls, and let the American people see just what this Congress is up to. It is not pretty.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time, and my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). As the proud Representative of America's Vancouver, as our Mayor Royce Pollard likes to describe it, I am privileged to represent Fort Vancouver itself. As the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) explained, the chief factor of Fort Vancouver in its early years was none other than John McLoughlin. He distinguished himself in numerable ways. His help to the American settlers of this region was invaluable, and many, many people described his hospitality. Narcissa Whitman, the wife of frontier evangelist Marcus Whitman, whose statue resides in this very building, described Vancouver at the time as the ``New York of the Pacific Ocean.'' Now, mind you, it was a pretty small New York. It was a stockade-type fort. But for those who had traveled that long journey across the Oregon Trail, it was a beacon of friendship, of health care, of food and of protection. Without John McLoughlin, that would not have been possible. I am proud to represent Vancouver, I am proud to represent Fort Vancouver, as we call it, ``Vancouver, not B.C.; Washington, not D.C.'' Madam Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) for her initiative, and our ranking member and the Chair of the committee for their initiative in preserving this valued historical site. I urge its passage, and I urge people to come visit the birthplace of American history in the Pacific Northwest, Fort Vancouver, Washington.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for her comments and her leadership on dealing with the nursing shortage. Our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, captured the White House and held the majority in this body and retook the Senate based in part on a slogan of compassionate conservatism. Based on what we have heard tonight on cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and cuts to veterans benefits, I am not sure I see the compassion; and based on earlier comments about their budget having a $4 trillion deficit, I am not sure where I see the conservatism.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his leadership on the Committee on the Budget, and I want to thank my friends who spoke so eloquently about the needs for veterans health care. Having worked in a Veterans Hospital, I know well the needs of these fine individuals, and I know their sacrifice to this country. Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the war today, there is no question in my mind that the two most important priorities with the American people would be the economy and health care. Fifty percent of physicians in my home State of Washington have said that they will not take new Medicare patients. There were doctors in my office today saying, Congressman, we cannot afford to see Medicare patients because in Washington State, as in Iowa, as in Wisconsin, as in Oregon and many other States, the compensation rates for our doctors are lower than elsewhere. And doctors are leaving. These doctors cannot only not afford to see patients, but we cannot even attract doctors to Washington State. Sadly, the Republican budget does nothing to remedy this. In the Committee on the Budget, the Democrats offered an amendment to correct the inequities in rural hospital payments to try to fix this. The Republicans voted this down universally. We also face Medicaid problems. Not just Medicare, but Medicaid problems. What is the Republican solution? To propose a $107 billion cut in Medicare spending. Now, admittedly, Medicaid spending will go up. But the problem is it will not go up sufficiently to keep pace with the demands of the people in need and with the demands caused by inflation. Washington State alone would stand to lose $1.7 billion over the next 10 years. Our State has been ravaged by budget cuts already. That $1.7 billion is not just a number. It is children who cannot see a doctor, and it is working parents who have no health care for their families. That is fundamentally what is wrong with this budget. Now, I could understand and support the need to control increased costs, and I have supported that all along; but not for the sake of passing some of the largest tax cuts in history that will go to the people least in need at the expense of those most in need. Someone who has worked so hard and so diligently on the health care issue is my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin); and if the gentleman will yield to her, I know she would like to make a few comments.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from South Carolina would continue to yield, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, who has been so eloquent in her comments about why we need to provide health care and the damage that can be done by the Republican budget. I mentioned earlier the challenge we face in our State and so many States finding and retaining qualified physicians to treat the patients. Someone who has been a champion of another critical issue dealing with the nursing shortage that is harming our health care system throughout the country is the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps); and if the gentleman from South Carolina would be willing to yield to her, I know she can add to this colloquy.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time. We have talked a lot about what is in the budget. I would like to talk about two things that are not in the budget. The first particularly should be of interest to people who live in Washington State, my home State, Tennessee, Texas, Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida or South Dakota. Residents of those seven States are unjustly treated in the Tax Code, and this budget does nothing to correct it. Those States rely on sales tax to fund their State governments, but they are not allowed to deduct their sales tax from their Federal tax return as one is allowed to deduct their State income tax. What that does is it disadvantages our State. The Federal Government essentially tells our States how we should tax our citizens. I believe it is an issue of State rights. The Democratic Party introduced an amendment to the budget bill to fix this. Regrettably, the other side voted that down. The second thing that is not made allowance for in this budget is fixing the Medicare payment imbalance. Forty-seven percent of physicians in my home State, in Washington, will not see new Medicare patients. Why? Because the fee-for-service rates under Medicare are unjust. This is the case in the Committee on the Budget chairman's home State of Iowa. We had an opportunity to provide language in this bill to fix it. We managed to provide language to protect tax cuts, but we do not seem to be able to provide language to protect people for tax fairness, and we do not seem to be able to provide language to assure fair Medicare compensation rates. I urge the people from those States to ask their Representatives, why have they left us out in the cold? Why have they not solved the sales tax inequity? Why have they not fixed the imbalance in Medicare payments?

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank my good friend from the State of Virginia. It is appropriate that I follow him because, whereas the journey of Lewis and Clark began in his great district, it ended in mine, at least the first half of it. They went back home afterwards. But it is a great privilege and honor to represent the great State of Washington where Lewis and Clark, almost 200 years ago now, arrived at the coast, looked out across that ocean, hoping they would find a ship. They saw none, and they had to winter over across the river in the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. Wu) district. But this commemoration is a chance not only to celebrate the accomplishments of Lewis and Clark but also the contributions of the Native Americans who helped them along their way to reinvigorate this Nation's spirit of adventure at a time when we sorely need it. By changing the nickel temporarily in this fashion, we can honor Lewis and Clark and also honor that great man, Thomas Jefferson, who sent them on the way. I rise in strong support of this, thank my colleagues for their leadership on it, and hope the American people will find new inspiration when they use this nickel with the new design.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this body and for our President to level with the people of the United States of America. Just a couple of years ago when people ran for office, we were all talking about the Social Security and Medicare lockbox. We need to be honest with the American people and say that that lockbox has been opened up. It has been turned upside down and every penny's been shaken out of it. When we hear talk these days about the budget deficits, those deficits are masked and artificially lowered because we are unfortunately, once again, borrowing from Social Security and Medicare. My colleagues will hear various talks about what the deficit is. Often times they will hear that the unified deficit is, let us say, for example, $304 billion for next year or $307 billion for the following year. The only way we arrive at those figures, which are admittedly very substantial, is by borrowing from Social Security and Medicare. Were it not for that borrowing, what would the real deficits be? The real deficits for next year or for this year would be $468 billion. For next year, they would be $482 billion; and that is without budgeting for the cost of occupation of Iraq, nor is it for budgeting for the cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax, which this body should do. We need to be honest. We cannot run for office 1 year and say we are going to establish a lockbox and the next year pretend that we have not opened it as we have. Our friends on the other side are going to try to say that it is not so much deficits that matter. These, by the way, are the folks who have previously talked about a balanced budget amendment in which I think we need to balance the budget. They will say it is not deficits. It is deficits as a percentage of GDP. The trouble with that is our own Treasury Secretary Mr. John Snow in 1995 said, and here is the quote, that a credible sustained reduction in Federal deficits will bring about major economic benefits. He was right, and he suggested that if the government spends less and borrows less from investors to cover the climbing deficits, more capital will be available for investment in the private sector of the economy. Inflationary pressure would ease and interest rates would respond by declining as much as 2 percentage points. Today, Mr. Snow and many of his colleagues are saying it is a matter of deficits as a percentage of GDP; but when he said this in 1995, the budget deficits at that time were about where they are now as a percentage of GDP. In other words, deficits mattered in 1995. Deficits matter in the year 2003, and deficits are going to matter in the year 2013 when our kids have to pay off the debt we are creating today, and those kids are going to have to pay the debt tax. We have heard a lot about the debt tax. The death tax is the tax on estates that are passed on to people, and it affects about two percent of the population. The debt tax, D-E-B-T, debt tax affects every member of this population from the day they are born. It is over $4,000 a year for an average family of four and it is rising. We need to return to fiscal responsibility. That was a concept once embraced by conservatives. I still believe it is a conservative concept. Unfortunately, it is not a concept that is shared by many erstwhile conservatives. So what is the take-home message? The take-home message is if we are going to put Social Security and Medicare in a lockbox, we should do so and we should be honest with the American people. Let us look again at what the deficit really is. The projection for 2004 is $482 billion. One final note. People will say we could solve the problem of deficits if only the Democrats or the Congress would hold down spending. There is some truth to that, but the combined nondefense discretionary spending projection for 2004 is $429 billion. The deficit is $482 billion. If the nondefense discretionary spending is only $429 billion, this means we could eliminate every nondefense discretionary program, and that includes Head Start, environmental protection, agriculture, transportation, many veterans benefits, the National Institutes of Health, not hold the line on inflation, eliminate these programs and countless others entirely, eliminate law enforcement from the Federal Government to support, et cetera. We would still then have a deficit. This deficit is not caused solely by any means by spending. It is caused to a significant degree by the exorbitant tax cuts that have been passed and the increasing tax cuts that are proposed; and if we are going to pass those, we need to at least level with the American people and tell them what the true costs are today and the true costs are in the future. Four Keys to Contextualize the Bush Budget The ``On-Budget'' Deficit projections for the next five years are listed below along with the corresponding figures for the Projected Non-defense Discretionary Outlays. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On-budget deficit.................................................. -468 -482 -407 -412 -406 Non-defense discretionary spending................................. 416 429 440 447 455 Net if all non-defense outlays were eliminated..................... -52 -53 +33 +35 +49 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Numbers in $billions, not including any projections for costs of Iraq war and occupation or adjustments to fix the AMT. Source: Table S-2, page 312 OMB Budget. Key Points 1. Democrats should only refer to ``On-Budget Deficits'' and not let Republicans mask the true deficit by borrowing from Social Security and Medicare. The President, most Republicans in Congress, and many members of our own caucus were elected based on the ``lockbox'' pledge. If those pledges were honored, the deficits, as shown above, are far higher than the Administration or Republican Members of Congress acknowledge. 2. When Republicans say we could achieve balance if only Democrats would limit spending, they are lying. As the chart shows, even if all non-defense spending were completely eliminated, not simply reduced slightly, we would still face on budget deficits. Furthermore, the on-budget deficits in the chart above are based on Republican revenue and spending proposals. If the Republicans truly wanted to reduce deficits, they could make the cuts or increase revenues, but they have refused to do so and instead prefer to borrow from Social Security and Medicare to mask their policies. 3. The Republican dodge of expressing deficits as a percentage of GDP is clearly a ruse because the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, vigorously called for deficit reductions in 1995, a time when deficits as a percentage of GDP were almost identical to levels projected for 2003. Republicans may counter this argument by saying the projections at that time showed a widening deficit problem over the projected 5 years and the Administration's current deficit projections are shrinking. However, the Administration's present budget forecast includes no cost for a war in Iraq, no AMT fix and rosy growth forecasts. These costs will certainly add significantly to the growing deficit over the next 5 years. 4. The consequence of such borrowing to pay for the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy is an increase in the ``Debt Tax''. Simply put, the ``Debt Tax'' is the average amount every American must pay each year simply to service the interest on the national Debt. The difference between the ``Death Tax'' which the Republicans want to repeal, and the ``Debt Tax'' which they are covertly increasing, is that the former only affects the wealthiest two percent of our citizens when they die. By comparison, the ``Debt Tax'' confronts every single American from the moment they are born and for the rest of their lives until we pay down the debt.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3394, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act. I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for his outstanding leadership on this bill, and commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for his leadership as well. I am tremendously honored that H.R. 3316, a computer security bill that I authored along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), are included in today's bill. Essentially, H.R. 3394 is the same as the version that was passed by the House back in February. This legislation will address the long-term needs to secure the Nation's information infrastructure, as well as strengthening the security of the nonclassified computer systems of our Federal agencies. Since September 11, attention has been focused in an unprecedented way on increasing our security against terrorism. Today, security has to mean more than locking doors and installing metal detectors. In addition to physical security, virtual information systems that are vital to our Nation's security and economy must be protected. Telecommunications and computer technologies are vulnerable to attack from far away by enemies who can remain anonymous, hidden in the vast maze of the Internet. Examples of systems that rely on computer networks include our electric power grid, rail networks and financial transaction networks. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the former chairman of the subcommittee, have had the foresight to begin hearings on this matter, even well before September 11. It is that kind of forward thinking that we need to protect our Nation's security and to secure our information infrastructure from cyber attacks. Our vulnerability to Internet-based computer viruses, denial of service attacks, and defaced websites is well known to the general public. Such widely reported and indeed widely experienced events have increased in frequency over time. These attacks disrupt business and government activities, sometimes resulting in significant recovery costs. While we have yet to face a catastrophic cyber attack thus far, Richard Clarke, the chair of the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, has said that the government must make cyber security a priority or we face the possibility of what he termed a digital Pearl Harbor. Potentially vulnerable computer systems are largely owned and operated by the private sector, but the government has an important role in supporting the research and development activities that provide the tools for protecting information systems. An essential component for ensuring improved information security is a vigorous and creative basic research effort focused on the security of networked information systems. Witnesses at our Committee on Science hearings last year noted the anemic level of funding for research on computer and network security. Such lack of funding has resulted in the lack of a critical mass of researchers in the field and has severely limited the focus of research. The witnesses at the hearings advocated increased and sustained research funding from the Federal Government to support both expanded training and research on a long-term basis. H.R. 3394 meets those needs. It authorizes $903 million over 5 years to create new cyber security programs within the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Under the bill, the NSF will create new cyber security research centers, undergraduate grants, community college grants, and fellowships. The legislation also includes language I authored pertaining to NIST. The bill requires NIST to create new program grants for partnerships between academia and industry, new post-doctoral students, and a new program to encourage senior researchers in other fields to work on computer security. I believe the legislation before us today will provide the resources necessary to ensure the security of business networks and the safety of America's computer infrastructure. I thank the staff of the Committee on Science for their tireless work on H.R. 3394, and I urge all members to support this important measure. Mr. Speaker, I invite the chairman of the Committee on Science to enter into a brief colloquy to ask for two brief points of clarification. Section 16(c) forbids the NSF from awarding grants or fellowships to institutions of higher education or nonprofit institutions that materially fail to comply with record-keeping requirements under certain sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act. This section does not have an effective date at present. Many of these record-keeping requirements have yet to be written or promulgated. Therefore, the effective date for this subsection cannot be the date of enactment. In bringing the bill forward for consideration by the House, what is the gentleman's intent concerning the effective date for this provision?