Mr.
LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a far more serious matter. I
listened to the speech the President gave at the Coast Guard Academy a few
days ago. I must say that this Democrat agrees with so many of the things
the President said. I was especially pleased to hear him speak about the
importance of foreign aid to America's security. But I became concerned
after I looked behind the rhetoric of the President's speech. I wanted to
see if the President's own budget request reflected his words. It does
not.
At
the Coast Guard Academy, the President spent a good deal of time talking
about the global AIDS crisis, the worst public health threat in human
history. I commend President Bush for that. He has shown great leadership
on AIDS, although a bipartisan group in Congress has been pushing for
action on AIDS for years.
The
bill we passed last week, an authorization bill, authorized $15 billion
over 5 years to combat AIDS , tuberculosis and malaria. It is an important
step forward. It showed that we are beginning to take the AIDS pandemic
seriously. But before we all applaud ourselves and pat ourselves on the
back, let's have a dose of reality. This was an authorization bill. It
does not appropriate any money.
For
all intents and purposes, it is like writing a check without enough money
in the bank. I can recall a meeting on a different subject where someone
was offering a pledge of close to $1 billion to fund an initiative.
Kidding around, I said: I will double that. I will give you my check for
$2 billion. In fact, I had $138 in a checking account.
That
is what we have done here. By passing the AIDS authorization bill, we have
promised to write a check without enough money in the bank.
Let
me explain. The President's budget request contains only about half of the
$3 billion authorized for AIDS for fiscal year 2004. It remains to be seen
whether the promise of that bill--a promise with which I agree--will be
fulfilled. To do that, the President is going to have to submit a budget
amendment for the balance of these funds.
It
also remains to be seen whether the Foreign Operations Subcommittee will
get the allocation that supports that amount.
The
bill we passed also authorized $1 billion for the global fund to fight
AIDS and TB and malaria. Again, another promise. For fiscal year 2004, the
President has only budgeted $200 million for the Global Fund, that is
one-fifth of the amount we authorized. In addition, it is a cut of $150
million from what was appropriated last year.
There
is another problem. While the President's fiscal year 2004 budget for
foreign operations does include approximately $1.2 billion to combat
HIV/AIDS, it robs Peter to pay Paul to pay for increases in HIV/AIDS
programs, as the President's budget cuts other essential international
health programs anywhere from 5 to 63 percent.
Let's
take a look at the chart. The information on this chart, incidentally, is
from the United States Agency for International Development.
Child
survival and maternal health programs are cut by 12 percent. These are the
programs that provide lifesaving child immunizations. They also help to
reduce needless pregnancy-related deaths each year. People will be
astounded when they hear how many of these types of deaths occur each
year. Six hundred thousand deaths. Many of these deaths could be easily
prevented if we just put more resources into these programs. Instead, the
President's budget cuts these programs by 12 percent.
It
would cut programs for vulnerable children by 63 percent.
It
would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases such as measles.
Measles kill 1 million children--not 100,000 or 200,000--but 1 million
children a year. Again, this is something which is easily preventable.
Every one of us can just go to the doctor's office and get our children
and grandchildren immunized against measles. In many poor nations, parents
and grandparents do not have that luxury. They need our help.
Does
the President's budget show leadership on this issue? No. It cuts the
programs which help combat measles, as well as polio, SARS, and other
deadly diseases by 32 percent.
These
are not my numbers, these are the administration's numbers. These numbers
are in the President's budget.
Are
we in favor of stopping children in poor countries from dying of measles?
Of course we are. Are we in favor of fighting SARS? Of course we are. Are
we in favor of fighting polio? Of course we are. Who is going to say they
are against it? No one.
But,
when you look at this budget, there are cuts to these and other critical
international health programs. These cuts also include programs for
disease surveillance. In the past, these funds for disease surveillance
have been used to strengthen the World Health Organization's ability to
respond quickly to outbreaks like SARS.
Everybody in this Chamber knows we will have another outbreak of either
SARS or, perhaps, something far worse. There is no question that we need
disease surveillance programs, because every one of these diseases is just
one airplane trip away from the United States. Why would we want to cut
funds for these programs?
The
President's budget would also cut funds for drug resistance, which is a
looming public health crisis. Many lifesaving antibiotics are already
virtually useless because of resistance caused by the misuse of these
drugs. The President's budget cuts funds to combat drug resistance.
While
the President's budget would increase funding to combat AIDS--although
nowhere near the amount promised in the bill we passed last week--it does
so by cutting the budget for other global health programs.
These
cuts will hurt children the most in countries where vaccines costing a few
pennies make the difference between life and death. That is not
acceptable.
If
somebody said to us, look at those five children, you can save their lives
by spending a dollar, would we do it? Of course, we would do it. Why then
does the President's budget do the opposite by cutting these programs? I
find this deeply troubling.
These
are not Democratic or Republican programs. I have been joined time and
again by colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support these
initiatives in both the Senate and the House.
Mr.
President, anyone who knows anything about public health knows that
building the health infrastructure in developing countries is essential if
you are going to effectively combat AIDS. It is the same thing with child
nutrition. It is the same thing with maternal and reproductive health. You
don't fight AIDS in a vacuum. It isn't an either/or proposition. People
who are malnourished, who are in poor health, who have weak immune
systems, who are at risk of other infections, are far more vulnerable to
AIDS. It is common sense.
In
addition to helping to combat AIDS, these international health programs
are vitally important for their own sake. They save millions of lives for
very little money.
They
fight diseases that we eradicated in the U.S. years ago. When I was
growing up, the municipal pool would close in the summer because of polio.
You never hear of such things anymore. We should be doing the same thing
overseas with these types of diseases--making them a thing of the past.
Over
the past 5 years, we have built up these global health programs, and each
year they yield more and more results. It would be unconscionable to cut
these programs. But that is exactly what the President is asking Congress
to do--cut these programs.
Last
week, Republicans opposed our amendments to correct some serious problems
in the AIDS bill--problems they acknowledged. They said we could not take
time to get the bill right, because we needed to act quickly so the
President could point to this bill as a sign of U.S. leadership at the
Group of Eight meeting in France next month.
Let's
be serious. If the White House had wanted, they easily could have
supported those amendments and made this a better bill. We also could have
made sure that this bill got to the President's desk in plenty of time. It
is clear to me that the other side's opposition had a lot more to do with
political ideology than the President's travel schedule. And, that is
simply not enough to justify the provisions in the bill that are going to
make it more difficult to prevent the spread of AIDS. As a result, the
President will go to France with an AIDS bill that is only half funded.
In
addition, he is going to use that bill to urge other nations to do more to
fight AIDS. Now, I agree that other nations should do more. This is not
something the U.S. could or should do alone. But the world should ask the
President, the leader of the wealthiest nation on earth, whether he is
going to back up his own words with deeds.
When
he asks others to do more, as he should, his own budget should not slash
funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS and for other international
health programs. The world should also ask why the United States is
spending less than 1 percent on programs to combat poverty, including
global health. After all, we are the wealthiest Nation on Earth. It is not
only in our security interests, but also our moral responsibility, to do
more.
Mr.
President, at the Coast Guard Academy, President Bush spoke about other
important foreign aid programs, such as the Peace Corps, Famine Fund, and
the Millennium Challenge initiative. Not surprisingly, these are some of
the programs his foreign aid budget favors.
But
he did not mention that his budget not only slashes funding for global
health but also for development assistance, which pays for everything from
children's education, to agriculture research, to democracy building. His
budget cuts food aid and assistance to refugees--the world's most
vulnerable people. And, we have all seen the images of refugee camps
around the world. People pushed from their homes because of famine or war
or natural disasters often end up living in horrendous conditions.
This
is not compassionate conservatism. It may conserve money, but it is not
compassionate. It is shameful.
More
to the point, the President's national security strategy recognizes the
essential role of foreign aid. While we read about the importance of
foreign aid in his national security strategy, we don't see it in his
budget request.
Look
at this chart. Food aid is cut by 17 percent. International disaster
assistance for floods and earthquakes and wars is cut by 18 percent.
We
hear a lot of speeches on the floor talking about our moral responsibility
to the rest of the world.
While
we may feel good about giving these speeches, I do not feel good about the
lofty rhetoric that bears little resemblance to reality. And,
unfortunately, we have another great example of this in the President's
budget request. Great speeches, bad reality.
The
President should do what he says. He should do what he is asking others to
do. He should submit a budget amendment for the $3 billion authorized to
fight AIDS. He also should request the funds to prevent the cuts to other
vital global health programs.
Most
importantly, he should start treating foreign aid for what it is: a
critical investment in America's security. Less than 1 percent of the
Federal budget is used to combat the conditions that cause poverty and
conflict around the world. This is woefully inadequate. It shortchanges
America's future. It invites insecurity.
One
would have thought that if September 11 taught us anything, it was that
business as usual is no longer tolerable. As I have said before, the
President deserves credit for his Millennium Challenge initiative. It
provides some additional foreign aid funds.
But,
I ask Senators to look behind the curtain to see how it is funded. Some is
new money. Sadly, the rest is from cuts to other essential programs.
And
let's keep things in perspective. Before we congratulate ourselves too
much, let's remind everyone that the Millennium Challenge, on an annual
basis, amounts to less than what my own little State of Vermont of 600,000
people spends on public education. That is not a serious response to the
challenges we face.
I
also credit the President for his famine fund initiative, but I question
what the real point is. He already has the authority he needs to respond
to famines. The problem is that his fiscal year 2004 budget would cut
title II food aid by more than the amount the famine fund would add.
Again, robbing Peter to pay Paul. Unfortunately, both Peter and Paul are
starving.
If we
are going to lead, and especially if we are going to ask others to do
more, we are going to have to stop playing shell games with the foreign
aid budget. Leadership is good policy. Leadership means resources.
Leadership means ideas. Leadership is not a press release.
Senator Feinstein, Senator Hagel, Senator Smith, and
so many others, Democrats and Republicans, have spoken out about the need
for substantially more resources to protect America's interests abroad.
When are we going to stop talking and start acting?
As I
have told the President before, I would strongly support him on these
issues. But, I am not going to support empty rhetoric. I want to see the
money. It is one thing to go on foreign trips and talk to leaders and say:
Look at this AIDS authorization bill I have. But, it does not make much
sense if the money is not there. And, in this budget, the money is not
there.
I
call on the President: Let's forget the politics. Let's come up with the
right ideas on AIDS. Let's come up with the right ideas on the Millennium
Challenge Account. But, once we have the right policies, let's put real
resources behind these policies. And, to pay for these increases, we
should not cut programs for global health, disaster assistance, refugees,
food aid, development assistance, and immunizations.
Let's
get rid of the rhetoric. Let's put some reality in there. If we do that,
then the United States can show the promise and the moral leadership a
great Nation should show.
Mr.
President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
