Congressional Budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2005-Continued

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-CONTINUED

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I will say a few words about this budget resolution because it is an important document. As in any budget, we identified what our Nation's priorities are, and we have done the tough job that all budget writers have to do, whether it is the Senate, a small business, or a family, in trying to figure out how to live within our means, how do we make sure we are good stewards of the taxpayers' money.

I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from Oklahoma and the ranking member, the Senator from South Dakota, for conducting a very important debate about our Nation's priorities and how they are reflected in this budget and the civility with which that debate has taken place in the Budget Committee and in the Senate.

There is no higher priority in the Federal Government than our national security. Indeed, this budget does fund an increase in national security; it, likewise, funds an increase in homeland security funding-two items which would strike me as no-brainers in a post-September 11 world. Particularly when it comes to military spending with our troops in the field and with the Nation being at war, we have to keep our commitments to those troops in the field that we will give them the resources they need in order to get the job done.

As to the rest of the nondefense, nonhomeland security spending, this discretionary part of the budget is essentially flat. That represents the considered judgment of a lot of people who have this Nation's best interests at heart: How do we deal with this budget deficit and how do we meet this Nation's commitments without killing the burgeoning growth of the recovery of the economy while at the same time recognizing we are a nation at war, a nation that needs to harden its homeland security.

However, what we all need to realize when we hear amendments being proposed from the Senate to this budget, we are talking about spending more of the taxpayers' money, plain and simple. The American people are wise enough to understand when people talk about tax increases on the wealthy, if they begin to look at the numbers, ultimately what we are talking about are tax increases on the middle class and literally on all Americans.

I referred back to some figures and discovered that last year our Democratic colleagues offered budget amendments in the range of $85 billion additional spending to the budget over 1 year and it would have calculated $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

I don't know how anyone can stand in front of this group or anyone else and say those geometric leaps in spending could be accomplished without raising taxes across the board. We cannot do both. We cannot have the kind of huge increases in spending that our colleagues across the aisle would want to have without raising taxes across the board.

I know it is easier to make the class warfare argument, tax millionaires, but when we look at the people who are paying taxes, it includes small businesses that pay not as corporations but pay as an individual taxpayer would if they were a sole proprietor or a partnership or small subchapter S corporation. They essentially pay income taxes as if they were individuals.

What our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing when they talk about raising taxes against the wealthy, they are talking about raising taxes against the very engine that grows jobs in our economy. We have come off of a rough time in our history, the last 2½ years since September 11. Of course, we were starting into a recession when President Bush and Vice President Cheney took office. We suffered a body blow to our Nation's economy and to our consciousness on September 11. That had a devastating impact on our economy. Of course we saw the stock market plummet as investors lost confidence in corporate America because of some scandals which shook that confidence to its very core.

So we have had what some have called, many have called, the perfect storm. It is as a result of the tax relief and growth package we passed last year in this body, something our colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued mightily against, but it is as a result of allowing the people who earn the money to keep it, to keep more of it, and spend it as they see fit, to save it, and to invest it in their small businesses that we have seen the job growth.

We have seen the roaring back of the economy in a way we have not seen in the last 20 years. It comes to productivity; it comes to growth in the gross domestic production.

I fear if we were to accept this formula offered by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to tax more and to spend more, it would simply squelch the nascent recovery we are seeing in this economy.

There is a lot of discussion about jobs. Obviously that is a core goal we all share. We do not grow jobs by killing the profits, by taxing the engine of job creation-which our colleagues across the aisle would do by their proposals, including this one. The only way we get more in this economy is by letting people who earn the money keep more of it and invest it, save it, and create more jobs. That is simply the formula that we on this side of the aisle, as well as our President, have said is the philosophy we should approach.

Let the people who earn the money keep more of it. We have seen as a result explosive growth in our economy. We know over time we will reduce unemployment rates to the point that literally anybody and everybody who wants to work can find a job. Indeed, that is our goal.

While we have to make tough choices in writing a budget, just as anyone else does, what our colleagues by this amendment seek to do is to add to an already substantial increase when it comes to veterans benefits and services. I can think of no more sympathetic or deserving cause than our veterans.

My dad was a veteran of World War II. He flew B-17s in the Army Air Corps, was shot down after a bombing mission over Mannheim, Germany, was captured and served for a time in a German prisoner-of-war camp before General Patton and his Army came along and liberated him and his colleagues. As so many in this generation, he came back to this country, married my mom, and helped build this Nation into what is today the envy of the entire world. We owe a debt to all of our veterans to see that we address their needs, whether it is health care or other veterans benefits.

But at a time when this budget resolution proposes giving less money than the Commander in Chief has asked for in terms of current military operations, I am sure all of our veterans would understand why we say a 14.5-percent increase over last year is a reasonable increase in veterans benefits and services, and why they would say-at a time when we are looking at trying to balance the budget under tough times and actually giving the Commander in Chief, our Department of Defense, less than what has been requested because of our attempt to try to balance the budget, to meet our priorities to the soldiers and airmen and sailors and marines in the field and on the waters-that is an appropriate increase at this time.

Particularly for those veterans coming back from their military duty, they would want to make sure there will be, once they leave active duty military service, jobs for them to hold to provide for their families.

I think this is a good budget resolution. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma the best thing we could do to keep faith with both our troops in the field and our veterans is to make sure we are responsible, that we meet our priorities, that we do not overtax, that we do not overspend, and that we continue to grow this economy so anyone and everyone who wants to work can find a good job.

With that, I yield the floor back to the Senator from Oklahoma.