Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield on that point, the Federal Government could not account for $17.3 billion, with a ``b''. That means that $17.3 billion is just gone and the Federal Government cannot say what happened to it. Can we imagine? But this comes not from some story in some newspaper of doubtful authenticity, this comes from a report of the Department of the Treasury, the 2001 financial report of the United States Government. Mr. Speaker, $17.3 billion with a ``b'', and we do not know where it went.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) for that kind word of introduction. I have to observe what a refreshing contrast we have seen tonight between the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and those who occupied the previous hour of Special Orders on this floor tonight because of the great difference in the philosophy of government evidenced by all of the speakers tonight. The gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) has outlined a conservative philosophy of efficiency with the taxpayer dollars, not taking the first answer at face value but looking for savings wherever we can find them because that is what the taxpayers expect us to do. What we witnessed in the previous hour was an example of what we hear from our liberal Democrat friends year after year. I had to think as I was listening to them that these are the same arguments that we hear over and over again from the other side of the aisle. They say we are not spending enough. Regardless of the fact that Federal spending almost always increases, it is never high enough for our friends on the Democrat side of the aisle. They always, always want to spend even more. Whatever tax level the President and the Republicans propose, the Democrats always want to tax more. They want to raise taxes on the American people. However high taxes might be, we can always count on our friends to make the argument year in and year out that they want tax rates to be higher. They may shed crocodile tears about deficits, but their solution to deficits is always higher taxes, always higher taxation, and their solution to deficits is never ever to find a way to make savings for the American people. Their arguments are always the same, and I must admit more often than not their predictions are off the mark too, Mr. Speaker, their predictions about how the President's budget will affect the poor, the disadvantaged, the unemployed, the economy as a whole. We heard those predictions, those same dire predictions last year, and what has happened? As a matter of fact, what has happened is exactly what we on the Republican side of the aisle predicted: healthy growth in our economy, the gross domestic product of a sustained rate of now 4 percent continuing on now for several months, and the unemployment rate falling. Job creation is at a record high in the United States of America, and I am proud of that. It has come in spite of the dire warnings we had from our friends on the left who predicted last year when we tried to hold the line on budgeting that we would have all sorts of dire consequences for the American people. One argument that was made previously that cannot go unchallenged is this argument about the term ``withering on the vine.'' I think some people in this town believe if you say something often enough, it will take on truth. As a matter of fact, no Representative on this side of the aisle has ever advocated Social Security withering on the vine. It is just factually inaccurate to say such a thing. We were actually accused of saying that not with regard to Social Security but with regard to Medicare, and it was not true about Medicare. What a Speaker of the House at one time said should wither on the vine is this HCFA program which we have now renamed CMA that could command and control a health care system where government tries to manage each and every aspect of it. That is what he said should wither on the vine so Americans could have more choices about the way they get their health care. Mr. Speaker, I am going to challenge every time I can this allegation that Republicans wanted either Social Security or Medicare to wither on the vine; it did not. I want to applaud the President and my colleagues for saying tonight that we believe government can do better. We know there is waste and fraud and abuse in government spending. And every single penny that is wasted, every single penny that is subject to fraud is money that could go to programs that actually do benefit Americans. And it is money that could go to tax reduction. It is money that could go to deficit reduction. So central to the President's budget that he submitted to us this week is the fact that the President and Republicans in Congress are dedicated to providing stronger financial management and oversight for Federal programs. This should not be controversial. It ought to be a common-sense, bipartisan approach to Federal spending, and we invite all Americans to help us. I hope that Americans will be contacting Members of this Special Order after tonight's Special Order, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the phones will be ringing off the walls in congressional offices with Americans giving us examples of the way they know we can save money. My constituents instinctively know that this Federal Government is so big, so large, so unmanageable that there have got to be ways that we can effect savings. So I look forward to this Special Order tonight. We have got, I guess, around 40 or 45 more minutes. I intend to stick around, Mr. Speaker, and if the gentlewoman from Tennessee will recognize me again, we might be able to cite some very specific examples that I think she might find interesting about ways in which we believe that we can begin to look for additional savings for the American people. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. WICKER. Well, let me just say, and these will be my final remarks and then I will yield back to the two of my colleagues for whatever they might want to say; I just look forward to working with my three fellow Representatives who have spoken on this Special Order tonight, and with the President, to say that we can be more diligent in the way that we spend the taxpayers' money, we can be more efficient, and we can continue in our effort to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in our government.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would yield on that point, because I appreciate him making that very good point. There are programs which are designed to help those people that cannot help themselves or that are at a disadvantage for whatever reason. The gentleman makes an excellent point that when someone cheats on a program like that, they are not only cheating the government and the taxpayers, but they are cheating the neediest Americans, the most disadvantaged Americans. I wonder if I could go back to another point the gentleman from Texas made. Did the gentleman say that there is a 25 percent error rate in the earned income tax credit?

Mr. WICKER. Oh, my goodness. Okay, it is even worse than I heard. So 32 percent of the earned income tax credit is claimed erroneously or fraudulently, one or the other; is that what you are saying?

Mr. WICKER. The gentleman is an expert, and I am sure he can explain better than I can the purpose of the earned income tax credit, which is a worthy purpose.

Mr. WICKER. And it is designed for parents of children and for working poor parents to help give them an extra opportunity. So when almost a third of the earned income tax credit money goes to people who are not entitled to it, certainly it hurts the people who would be entitled to it. Perhaps we could give a more generous benefit to the EITC families. Perhaps we could give a tax cut to other working families, or pay down the debt. So I just appreciate the gentleman mentioning that very good point. And when he said it, I had to go back to the earned income tax credit, a program we are not proposing to cut in any way, but would it not be wonderful if we could find that one-third that is going to people who are not entitled under the law?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I probably interrupted the gentleman's train of thought, but I just had to jump in on that very excellent point he was making.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could interject one other thing at this point. We are about to run out of time, and I do not know if we have complimented the leader of this Special Order quite enough. She has been very generous in her remarks about us. Actually, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) has been quite a champion in the area, particularly, of credit card fraud within the Federal Government. I understand this amounts to almost $100 million a year in lost taxpayers' money. The gentlewoman, I think, has introduced, along with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), legislation to address this problem; is that not correct?

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I know also, I would say to the gentlewoman, that she finds as refreshing as I do the remarks of our new Member who came to us from a business background and who is determined to work with us on this type legislation, someone who knows of what he speaks when he says he has taken other people's money and had to invest it wisely and make sure that it was used efficiently.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution calling for Kofi Annan to step down as Secretary-General of the United Nations. Under his stewardship, the U.N.'s Oil for Food Program has become one of the largest scandals in world history. Saddam Hussein was able to dodge U.N. sanctions, embezzle billions of dollars intended for humanitarian aid, and strengthen his brutal rule of the Iraqi people-- all under the cover of this U.N. program. As a Member Nation that funds nearly a quarter of the U.N.'s annual budget, it is the United States' right and responsibility to press for a full accounting of this international embarrassment. Our government must help make certain the U.N. maintains the confidence and respect of the international community. With evidence mounting of bribery throughout U.N. leadership, it is imperative that Kofi Annan resign as Secretary-General so all current charges can be fully and independently investigated. These allegations of corruption and mismanagement have irreparably undermined Mr. Annan's credibility and his capacity to head the U.N. He should step down.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Delaware as well as my friend from California for their remarks so far in this debate. I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who, Mr. Speaker, has been enormously patient and helpful to me during this year-long effort to promote better knowledge of American history and civics. Thanks also goes to the ranking member of the full committee as well as the entire House leadership. I am very appreciative. Mr. Speaker, we meet today in a Chamber that exhibits a magnificent portrait of George Washington just to my left. We meet at a location actually selected by George Washington, the father of our country. Just above the Speaker's podium is a profound quote from another of our distinguished patriots, Daniel Webster. We are governed today by rules promulgated in part by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and another of our great founders. In that atmosphere, Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps hard for us to imagine that not everyone in our country shares our appreciation for this great system of government and this wonderful tradition and history of freedom and independence that we have in America or has even a rudimentary knowledge of that great system of government. Yet, sadly, as I talk to my colleagues about this issue, they have observed the same thing as they travel around the country that I have: an appalling, even shocking, lack of knowledge about American history and our American system. This is particularly true among our young people. Just a few facts, Mr. Speaker. Sixty-two percent of Americans today cannot name the three branches of the Federal Government. An examination was given to seniors in 55 of our Nation's top colleges and universities, including Brown, Harvard and Princeton. The exam contained 34 questions, multiple choice, testing a high school level of proficiency on American history. Some 81 percent of the seniors in these colleges received either a D or an F on these examinations. Seventy-five percent of our high school seniors are not proficient in American history and civics, and one-third lack even a basic knowledge of this subject matter. Part of the reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is that the curriculum at these same 55 elite universities does not require an American history course for graduation and 78 percent require no history credit at all to graduate from the best colleges and universities in our land. As a result of this fact, over one-half of our high school history teachers received their college degrees in subjects other than history. This is not their fault, Mr. Speaker. This is simply a fact which we are trying to address today. Simply put, what this bill does, as my friend from Delaware stated, is to authorize the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants from existing funds for summer academies that would promote civics and history education. The grants would be available to colleges and universities, to museums, libraries, nonprofit organizations, some of which are already engaged in this type of activity, and other entities that can demonstrate the capability to enhance the subject matter. The sessions for teachers would focus on new ideas and more creative ways to communicate the history and civics curriculum to students. It would not dictate a curriculum. Separate academies for students would provide a unique and more comprehensive look at the important subjects of civics and education. I would say to the Members in closing, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation has the support of a wide spectrum of Americans, from Paul Weyrich and Bill Bennett on the right, to Senator Ted Kennedy at the other end of the political spectrum. I think it simply demonstrates this: that knowledge and understanding of America and Americanism really has no ideology. I again express my thanks to the leadership of the committee and of House of Representatives, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 490 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote Nos. 457-465, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On Nos. 457-461, ``no''; on Nos. 462-463, ``yea''; on No. 464, ``no''; on No. 465, ``yea.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, as usual, the next 2 days of debate on the Labor-HHS education bill will be instructive. First, the basics. We will authorize in this bill spending of $142 billion plus for health, for education and for the American workers of this country in three major departments. This amounts to $3 billion more than we spent last year, Mr. Chairman, an increase in the discretionary spending in these 3 areas of 2.4 percent. At the same time, we are keeping it within the subcommittee allocation and the limits of the budget resolution, and I think the chairman is to be commended for that. I have enormous respect for the leadership of this subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, certainly for the chairman, but also for my friend on the Democratic side who just spoke and for the ranking minority member. What we will hear today amounts to sincerely held views and what it really comes down to, in the long run, is a difference in philosophy. I have been on this subcommittee for 10 years now, the 10 years that the Republicans have been in the majority in this Congress. And each year when this bill comes up, the majority puts forward a bill that spends an amount of money over and above the last year, and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle object to the bill based on the fact that they would like to spend more money and tax more. When they object to the bill, Mr. Chairman, they will often say that it is not really the fault of the leadership of this committee, not the fault of the chairman of the full committee or the subcommittee; that it is the underlying budget we adopted earlier which is at fault. What they really mean when they say this is that they wish a budget had been adopted so that taxes could be higher and that Federal spending could be higher, and indeed, that is the basic difference in philosophy on the two sides of the aisle. Beginning in 2001, when we realized we were coming into a recession, and then certainly after 9/11 and the tragedy and the cost of that event, this majority on the Republican side decided to reduce the tax burden on Americans, reduce the tax burden on families with children, reduce the tax burden on married couples by eliminating the marriage penalty, reduce the tax burden on lower income workers and on every American who pays income tax, and, yes, to reduce taxes on the job creators. What has that gotten us during this time? What it has gotten us, according to Chairman Greenspan's testimony before the Committee on the Budget just this morning? Chairman Greenspan said, We are in a period of moderate to excellent economic growth and the shallowest recession in postwar history. I would submit that this is the program we need, and is why we have adopted the budget and why we should adopt the bill today.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Kolbe for those words. I want to begin by agreeing with the gentlewoman from Michigan who just spoke about the bipartisan nature of this subcommittee and the product that we have come up with. Sometimes we are accused of partisan bickering on the House floor, and from time to time it is necessary to air our differences and raise our voices to bring attention to those differences in philosophy. But I just wish that the American people had an opportunity to watch my distinguished chairman and my distinguished ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the way they work together on this very important aspect of our national security program. I want to commend them both and the full committee for the bipartisan nature of the bill. A couple of things that I would mention about it. This bill addresses the AIDS pandemic by providing a total of $2.2 billion in global assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, as well as other very serious diseases. I think President Bush deserves to be commended for his world leadership in fighting HIV and AIDS. Mr. Chairman, in the year 2000, Mr. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, and some people smiled about that and doubted that. I think President Bush has shown his leadership and strength in the things that he has done with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq. But when it comes to HIV and AIDS, President George W. Bush has shown the world the level of his compassion in bringing people from the conservative side of the spectrum to support his worldwide effort to combat HIV and AIDS. This is the highest level of AIDS funding in the history of our Republic, and so I want to commend the subcommittee, but also the President of the United States for his compassionate leadership in this matter. The bill provides an increase in foreign assistance for Israel. As we move toward a peaceful resolution to the Middle East issue, it is important for us in America to remember that Israel is our steadfast friend and ally, that they are one of the few democracies in the region, and that they are surrounded by sworn enemies. So as we try to bring the Palestinians in and we try to make everyone a little more friendly in that area, we do not need to forget the fact that Israel is our faithful ally. The chairman mentioned that he and I have traveled together, and sometimes we do not like to talk about travel when we go back to our constituents. But I have had an opportunity as vice chairman of this committee to visit in Asia and Iraq and in Afghanistan, and, with the ranking member, in some of the poorest areas of Africa; and it is heartening, Mr. Chairman, to see the level of involvement of so many Americans. Certainly we are proud of our troops. It just takes your breath away to see the young men and women of America who volunteer to support our country in uniform. But also, when you go to Africa and you see the Peace Corps volunteers, highly educated graduates of universities who are willing to serve for very, very little pay; when you see the personnel of the USAID agency and realize the fact that they are willing to go in harm's way, though not in a military capacity, but to risk their lives in very, very hostile environments to advance the cause of the United States, and also to do some good in an altruistic way, it is absolutely astonishing. It renews my faith in the American people and in our spirit of volunteerism. This is a balanced bill. I commend both the ranking member and the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the previous speakers on behalf of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe). Between now and conference the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) will work with USAID to determine the needs of the government of the Dominican Republic with regard to this issue and to ensure the U.S. is being as responsive as possible. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a valuable member of our subcommittee.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 338 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for controlling the time tonight and affording us the opportunity even at this hour to pay tribute. Mr. Speaker, I too rise and join so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in paying tribute to Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th President of the United States. I agree with so much of what has been said here today and throughout the Nation in the past few days about the incredible legacy of Ronald Reagan and what he left to America and to the world. Ronald Reagan will always be larger than life to millions of people around the world who were freed from the shackles of Communism because he stood firm against what he so correctly called the Evil Empire. Ronald Reagan's determination and leadership forced an end to the Cold War. His philosophy of cutting taxes and easing Federal regulations brought about one of the largest periods of economic growth in American history. And his eternal optimism and hope for a brighter day lifted the spirits of a Nation. Much has been said about Ronald Reagan's charisma, quick wit and ability to put people at ease. He was also blessed with a great asset for anyone in public life, a sense of timing. Whether it was one of his famous one-liners or the ability to do just the right thing at the right time, he always seemed to disarm a tough national press corps or defuse a difficult political issue. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of witnessing an example of his instinctive timing and humor in 1980 in Mississippi when then-candidate Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy, came to the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, Mississippi. The Neshoba County Fair is called Mississippi's largest house party and has been the premier gathering for political speeches during the hot Mississippi summers for more than a century. Ronald Reagan's visit was the first ever by a Presidential candidate to this most celebrated political event in my home State. One of the issues that had surfaced in Mr. Reagan's Presidential campaign was the question of his age. He was 69 years old. Some questioned whether he might be too old for the job. At the Neshoba County Fair an incident occurred which could have potentially exaggerated the issue of his age. After Mr. Reagan's speech, a local craftsman, Gary Harkins of Mississippi, presented Mr. Reagan with a rocking chair. I am sure some of the candidate's advisers and staff were horrified to think of the prospect that the one image coming from this appearance was a picture of the 69-year-old former Governor sitting in a rocking chair. But without hesitation, Ronald Reagan sat down in the chair, grabbed his wife, Nancy, by the hand and pulled her onto his lap. They appeared at that moment to be the very picture of vitality and energy. The widely distributed photograph and film footage which followed went around the Nation and nobody seeing that image thought Ronald Reagan was too old to be President. Mr. Reagan's quick thinking probably boosted his candidacy and dispelled doubts in the minds of some voters. The incident also changed the life of Greg Harkins, the craftsman who made the rocking chair and whose fledgling business was energized by his short encounter on the national stage. Mr. Harkins soon began receiving hundreds of requests for chairs from across the Nation and around the world. His business is still going strong today nearly 25 years later, and Ronald Reagan provided the spark for that little bit of business success. Harkins was quoted recently as saying, ``What they did was give me a foothold on something that I can be able to carry on for the rest of my life.'' Mr. Harkins represents just one small example of how Ronald Reagan touched the lives of people in ways that are hard to quantify. We may not know all of their names or their unique stories, but his fellow citizens gained inspiration from Ronald Reagan's leadership and his attitude that it really was ``morning in America.'' Whether it was a young American answering a call to public service or becoming involved in the growing conservative movement or simply taking the initiative to exercise their rights and register to vote for the first time, Ronald Reagan energized many Americans to action. They followed him because they trusted this man of principled beliefs and because he captured their imagination, and they simply liked him. Ronald Reagan, some people said, would be limited because he was only an actor. He was perhaps the best example of an actor turned politician; but he ended up being the real thing, the true article, the genuine American; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe he will be recorded as being the greatest President of our time.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I can remember as a young boy, going to downtown Pontotoc, Mississippi, with my parents on Memorial Day to hand out poppies. I thought Members might be interested in a little history lesson about the origin of Memorial Day which began as Decoration Day. The facts, as I have come to understand them, are that in 1866 a group of Columbus, Mississippi, women met to decide on a way to honor the Confederate war dead in the local Friendship Cemetery. Once the ladies arrived at the cemetery, one of the women began placing flowers on the graves of Union soldiers, too, because they also had given their lives for their beliefs. Other women followed suit and soon all of the graves, Confederate and Union, had flowers. This generous gesture was told and retold and finally made its way to the New York Tribune where the short article was seen by a young attorney named Francis Miles Finch. He was so moved by the generosity of the Southern ladies and their Decoration Day that he wrote the poem ``The Blue and the Gray'' and it was published in the Atlantic Monthly in September of 1867. Mr. Speaker, other towns may claim Decoration Day or Memorial Day perhaps earlier than the one in Columbus, but Columbus, Mississippi, was the first to honor former enemies. Here is what the Library of Congress said: ``Columbus, Mississippi, thus can rightly claim to be not only one day ahead of Columbus, Georgia, in its observance of Memorial Day but more generous in its distribution of the tributes of honor and mourning.'' Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent Columbus, Mississippi, in the Congress, the place where Memorial Day first began.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, this is an instructive debate, and the debates that we will have throughout the day and on into the evening will be instructive because they will point up the stark differences in the two philosophies which exist here in this House of Representatives and in this Congress. I oppose the CBC budget because it increases spending by almost $30 billion in the first year. In the face of this increased spending, it proposes to reduce the deficit. Now, how does it do that? It does so by increasing taxes by over $35.5 billion in the first year. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House for 10 years. Previous to that, in the early 1980s, I was a staffer here for the House of Representatives. I am proud to have served here in both capacities. It is okay to have differences in philosophy. That is what makes democracy count, and it is a good thing. This substitute and this debate today does point out the difference that I have seen over time. If we look down through history and if we look at all of the debates that we will have today, basically, when the Democrats propose a budget, they propose increased spending and increased taxes. When the Republicans propose a budget, we try to hold the line on spending, as this budget does, and to have a lower tax burden on the American people; and this debate today will point that out very, very distinctly. Now, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention, Mr. Chairman, to a couple of charts. The Republican majority, since fiscal year 1996, has certainly been generous with those Departments that we have tried to invest in: a 156 percent increase in education spending, a 109 percent increase in HHS spending, a 48 percent increase in defense spending. Then, one area that is particularly near and dear to my heart--the NIH--the National Institutes of Health, during this Republican Congress, we have doubled the investment in research and health; and then even after we did that, we increased the investment a little more. So we have, I think, been very generous. But for some people in this House, and some people in this town, there is never enough spending. I submit there is just a point where we have to draw the line, we are going to try to be reasonable in what we have spent, and being generous ought to be enough. We are coming out of recession, Mr. Chairman. At a time when we are coming out of recession, the last thing we need to do is to do what this substitute asks, and that is to raise taxes on the American people. Please vote ``no'' on this substitute.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for yielding me the time. As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) noted in his statement, America's continued greatness comes from the unlimited opportunities that our freedom provides us. America is still the land of opportunity, and we must continue to remain the land of opportunity. We have placed opportunity as the third tenet of this budget because without the first two, strength, ensuring that America is free and remains free; and without growth to remain the world's most prosperous nation with an ever-expanding economy and job market, America's opportunities would quickly diminish. The opportunity for all citizens of this country to work their way up, to have a better life, to take advantage of all the chances and choices this Nation provides is why we are here. It is why our ancestors came here. It is also why so many from around the world continue to flock to this Nation, often risking their own lives to get here. This budget continues our commitment to strengthen the very foundations that have provided us with this wealth of opportunity. We have also enhanced and strengthened our commitment to a host of domestic programs, including those that educate us, help our people when they are sick, help those who are unable to care for themselves or their children, and provide for those who fought for us. First, let's take a look at Medicare. This budget fully funds for the next 5 years, by congressionally certified numbers, historic Medicare reform. Last year, this Congress and President Bush accomplished a feat that policy-makers have been struggling with for years. We have enacted legislation to strengthen Medicare and include a prescription drug benefit. It was a truly historic first step in strengthening a program which has lagged behind private health insurance since its enactment in 1965. As a result of this action, just a few months from now, all beneficiaries will have access to a Medicare discount card that will result in 10 to 15 percent savings for the average beneficiary and up to 25 percent savings on some prescription drug costs. Low-income seniors will receive a $600 subsidy in conjunction with their prescription drug discount card. As part of the improvements in benefits and in the way the Medicare program does business, this Congress and President Bush have also acted to expand opportunities for people to save for their own health care through health savings accounts. These accounts will allow for two very important changes: first, they will restore to consumers the ability to plan for and make their own choices about their own medical coverage; and, second, they will help to address the long-term demographic and financial problems facing the Medicare program. With regard to Medicaid, this budget continues our commitment to preserve and strengthen both Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP, which assists individuals and families who cannot afford health care coverage. Since 1995, Medicaid spending has grown 95.2 percent, including an 8.2 percent growth last year. Last year, we added additional funds to allow for Medicaid S-CHIP reform, to extend the availability of expiring fiscal year 2000 S-CHIP funds, and to give States the option of extending Medicaid coverage to children with special needs. Over the next 5 years, CBO estimates that Federal outlays for Medicaid will exceed $1 trillion. With this budget, we have continued our commitment to provide for this critical program, which provides to those most in need of necessary medical care. On the subject of welfare reform, we have further continued our commitment to assisting lower-income Americans, by funding such programs as the TANF block grants, (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), also child care funding, food stamps and child nutrition programs as well as Head Start. The successful TANF program is reauthorized at the President's level, $16.9 billion annually for the next 5 years. Since the program was enacted in 1996, welfare rolls have declined by 56 percent, and the vast majority of those who have left welfare since 1996 have done so for work. In fact, since that time more than 3 million single mothers who have gotten off welfare have been lifted out of poverty, mostly because of increased earnings. This is the kind of opportunity that we are providing. Since 1996, funding for child care assistance and assistance to mothers leaving welfare for child care expenses has been increased by nearly 50 percent. This budget also continues to fund HUD's three major rental assistance programs and accommodates the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP, providing $1.9 billion to assist low- income families in meeting heating and cooling expenses. Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct the attention of Members to this chart with regard to education. It indicates that since Republicans took control of Congress in fiscal year 1996, the budget for the Department of Education has more than doubled. In fact, education has received an annual average increase of 12 percent sustained over 8 years. No other cabinet-level agency has grown as fast as education over this period. Mr. Chairman, to take a look at the three large programs that now absorb about two-thirds of the agency's funds: title I funds to low- income schools have nearly doubled, Pell grant funding has more than doubled since 1996, and special education funding has more than quadrupled since 1996. In addition to increased funding, Congress also passed education reform, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This act demands results from schools in exchange for Federal dollars and works to forge a real link between education spending and classroom achievement, while focusing resources more sharply on underperforming schools. Many on both sides of the aisle believe that accountability standards in this No Child Left Behind law represent the greatest accomplishment in a generation in terms of K-12 education, and an even more important stride than the funding increases that I have talked about. This budget also continues our commitment to provide for and strengthen those principles. Concerning veterans, this budget increases veteran funding by $1.2 billion over the President's budget--funds that can be used for veterans medical care and medical and prosthetic research. I am pleased to say that over the past several years, we have shown a level of gratitude befitting the service of our Nation's 25 million veterans through hefty increases in funding and substantial increases in benefits and services. Since Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, great strides have been made in improving benefits for our Nation's veterans. Now, Mr. Chairman, sometimes we come down to the floor and we get a little carried away with our rhetoric. I have heard some of my good friends from the other side of the aisle talk today about the accomplishments that we have made with regard to veteran funding and calling them shameful, saying that they constitute glaring deficiencies and that they endanger services to veterans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's look at some of the most important improvements to our veterans programs. These are the facts: the Republican Congress expanded eligibility for veterans medical care in 1996 and in 1999. As a result, as Members can see by this chart, the number of veterans using VA medical care has increased from 2.5 million in 1995 to 4.7 million veterans today, a tremendous accomplishment for which this entire Congress can take pride. My next chart, this chart indicates that since 1995, total spending on veterans has increased from $38 billion to $60 billion. That is a 58 percent increase compared with a 36 percent increase during the previous 10 years of Democrat control of this Congress. Is this a shameful record, I ask my colleagues? And payments per veteran have risen by 79 percent. With regard to my final chart, this indicates that since 1995, monthly education payments under the Montgomery GI bill, named after former congressman G.B. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, these benefits have increased from $405 to $985, an increase of 143 percent. Is this a shameful accomplishment? Under the 40 years of Democrat control of Congress prior to the Republicans taking over, there was no progress whatsoever on the concurrent receipt issue. But as a result of action taken by this Congress last year, military retirees injured in combat, while training for combat, or who are more than 50 percent service disabled are able for the first time in over a century to receive retirement benefits concurrently with veterans disability compensation. I submit this is a proud accomplishment and far from the accusations we have received from some of our friends on the other side. With this budget, we have continued our commitment to ensuring that those who have served our Nation with pride, valor, and dignity receive the best of America's appreciation.