[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8485-H8486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BUDGET CUTS THAT MAKE SENSE FOR ALL AMERICANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman 
who preceded me in the well was speaking to the issue of paying for the 
disaster, not borrowing or obligating future generations to borrow. 
This House, in fact, 2 weeks ago, with 40 minutes of debate, 40 minutes 
and no amendments allowed, borrowed $51.8 billion for the beginnings of 
hurricane recovery efforts, on top of the $10 billion borrowed the week 
before.
  Now, she said one thing I do disagree with, which is you cannot ask 
the rich people to pay for any share of this. Now, it is true they live 
on high ground, I understand that; so, for the most part, they are not 
affected by disasters. They have private security, they fly on private 
jets, they live in a different world than most Americans. But she and 
the majority are saying, there is no way they should be asked to pay 
for a share of these disasters, unlike working Americans who are paying 
day in and day out for the money that is being borrowed.
  If Katrina cost, she said $100 billion, let us say $200 billion, if 
we just did not extend the tax cuts for people who earn over $300,000 a 
year and limited estate tax relief to estates worth less than $6 
million, that is most small businesses where I come from, and family 
farms and tree farms, then that would pay for Katrina over the next 10 
years 5 times over.
  Well, okay. She says that is off the table. Well, let us look 
elsewhere. They have an interesting list of cuts. As we saw the abject 
poverty of the inner city folks in New Orleans, they are talking about 
trimming on medical care for poor people, food assistance for poor 
people, education for middle class and poor people; those are the 
things that are being targeted on that side of the aisle to pay for 
this.
  I would suggest a couple of other places we might cut. Now, we cannot

[[Page H8486]]

even build levees that can withstand a category 3 hurricane; we do not 
have new energy efficient forms of transportation which puts us in 
enthralled to the Saudis and other enemies of the United States, and 
the President wants to borrow $1 trillion to go to Mars; and NASA, 
which was mentioned just previously, is going to spend $100 billion to 
go back to the moon. They want to get some more dust and rocks.
  Well, how about we cut those programs and devote that money, the $100 
billion to go back to the moon. That would pay for Katrina, according 
to the numbers previously given, and the $1 trillion would pay for that 
and a lot of other things in America if we did not go to Mars. I do not 
think we can afford that now. Until maybe we can build levees that can 
withstand a category 4 and maybe even a category 5 hurricane, and we do 
a few things about the areas in the Pacific northwest that are not 
earthquake proof, and other preventive measures around the country. 
But, hey, maybe people do not want to cut NASA because it is based in 
Texas.
  So, okay. How about then the redundant, useless Cold War fighter 
called the F-22, which is now 5 times over its original cost estimates 
and is not needed. That would pay for Katrina relief 3\1/2\ times over, 
and we could depend upon the F-16 until the joint strike fighter, a 
little more economical version of a fighter plane, is developed for 
future enemies and wars, but I am sure they would not want to do that. 
Well, okay. We cannot cut that.
  Well, let us talk about something else. How about subsidies to farms 
where farmers earn over $100,000 a year. I really do not have very many 
farmers in my State who earn over $100,000 and, guess what, most of the 
farmers in my State could not get subsidies. But those farmers in the 
midwest who earn over $100,000 a year in the northern Midwest get very 
substantial subsidies under the Freedom to Farm Act. If we limited farm 
subsidies to farmers and families on family farms who earn less than 
$100,000 a year, in 10 years, we could pay for 1\1/2\ Katrinas.
  So, instead of cutting the medicaid program, putting the burden on 
the States and depriving poor people of health care, instead of cutting 
food stamps, instead of cutting education programs that are important 
to average Americans, instead of stupid, across-the-board cuts that cut 
abysmally wasteful programs the same as essential programs, that is how 
we got in trouble with FEMA, they are cutting an essential program, we 
could do a few different things. But that would mean maybe a little 
rethinking on that side of the aisle. Ask the wealthy to carry their 
fair share of the burden, eliminate the redundant return to the moon, 
put off the mission to Mars, cancel a Cold War-era fighter designed to 
have air superiority versus the Soviet Union in Europe, and/or, maybe 
just cut back on subsidies for farmers who earn over $100,000 a year. 
That would more than pay for Katrina.
  If we do all of those things, that would be 15 times what we need to 
pay for Katrina, and then we could begin to reinvest in FEMA, education 
and health care, and things that are essential to all Americans, and 
maybe even veterans' benefits too.

                          ____________________