[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 43 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1568-H1578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 376, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 766 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 766
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2007 and setting forth appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. The first reading
of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the concurrent
resolution are waived. General debate shall not exceed four
hours, with three hours of general debate confined to the
congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget and one hour of general debate on the subject of
economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by
Representative Saxton of New Jersey and Representative
Maloney of New York or their designees. After general debate
the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No
further consideration of the concurrent resolution shall be
in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
{time} 1030
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 766 is a rule that provides
for general debate of House Concurrent Resolution 376, the bill
establishing the congressional budget for the Federal Government for
fiscal year 2007, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels
for fiscal years 2008 through 2011.
[[Page H1569]]
As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, I
am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for consideration.
This rule provides for 4 hours of general debate, with 3 hours equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Budget
Committee, and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies,
again equally divided and controlled by Representative Saxton of New
Jersey and Representative Maloney of New York or their designees.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
concurrent resolution, and it provides that after general debate the
Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further
consideration of the bill shall be in order except by subsequent order
of the House.
This rule allows the House to begin consideration of the
congressional budget. The budget is an important tool of the Congress,
allowing us to establish our priorities for the coming year. I am proud
that this budget responds to the Nation's complex challenges with the
straightforward principles of strength, spending control, and a
continued commitment to reform.
The budget resolution continues policies that have helped to
reestablish a strong United States economy. We have included savings
for working Americans to the tune of $228 billion. We extend the 2001
and 2003 tax reforms, preventing what would otherwise be an automatic
tax increase from their scheduled expiration. The budget also assumes
the extension of other expiring tax provisions, including the
alternative minimum tax relief, a House-passed pension bill, and other
important economic growth measures.
While working to give Americans back some of their hard-earned
dollars and letting them keep more of their hard-earned dollars, we are
also working to enact a responsible spending plan that exercises
control and restraint. I am proud that once again this House has
delivered a budget that practices conscientious spending. Our goal is
to stem the ever expanding outflow of Federal dollars.
House Concurrent Resolution 376 has an overall discretionary spending
level that is equal to the President's budget request of $873 billion.
It allows for the President's requested 7 percent increase in defense
and a 3.8 percent increase for homeland security. As always, the
discretion lies with the House Appropriations Committee to determine
the final allocation of these funds. This budget essentially freezes
nonsecurity discretionary spending, with only a 0.1 percent increase
over last year's level, a tenth of a percent. As an additional savings
method, the budget caps advance appropriations, spending that is for
the year after the budget year.
In the area of mandatory spending, entitlement spending, we provide a
total of $1.5 trillion. In an effort to control the automatic effusion
of dollars, the budget resolution calls for mandatory spending reforms
from several committees. These savings, these mandatory spending
savings, total $6.75 billion over 5 years.
This is an important distinction. This is one of the first times in
the history of modern budgeting that there has been back-to-back
reconciliation instructions in the House budget. Today, over half of
Federal spending is essentially on autopilot. Fifty-five percent of
Federal expenditures today are going into what is known in budget
parlance as mandatory accounts. So all of the discretion that lies
within this body and lies within the Senate is not even half of the
Federal budget. And within 10 years, if these reconciliation
instructions are not implemented, that are embedded in this budget for
the second year in a row, then within 10 years it will consume two-
thirds of the Federal budget, two-thirds of the Federal budget being on
autopilot if we don't implement the reforms that this budget calls for.
Last year was the first year since 1997 that we had made the effort
through passage of the Budget Act to get our arms around mandatory
spending through reconciliation instructions. This year we do that
again. This is an important reform effort. Again, it is one of the few
times in modern history where there has been back-to-back
reconciliation instructions that allows us to reduce the size of the
Federal deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this year the Budget Committee
included an emergency reserve fund to help Congress plan for unforeseen
costs that may arise in the future. We have set aside $50 billion
toward an expected wartime supplemental, as well as $4.3 billion for
unanticipated emergencies, such as natural disasters, and $2.3 billion
for potential avian flu costs.
As a Congressman from the great State of Florida, I can tell you with
a great deal of certainty that the last several years have been very
active in the Atlantic hurricane season. We know, without being able to
see into the future, we know that somewhere in the next year there is
likely to be a hurricane that will make landfall in the United States.
Somewhere in the United States this year there will almost certainly be
devastating wildfires. Somewhere in the United States in the coming
fiscal year there will almost certainly be an earthquake or devastating
tornadoes.
Hopefully, we will not have a natural disaster that reaches the
catastrophic level that Hurricane Katrina reached. But nevertheless,
just like responsible businesses and responsible homeowners who set
aside money in their savings accounts for when the hot water heater
breaks or when the car needs new tires or when the transmission goes
out, the Federal Government, a little bit slowly, but nevertheless has
come around to the notion that we should plan for emergencies,
particularly those types of very expensive natural disasters that do
frequently strike our shores.
With increased spending control, tax relief, and these important
budget reforms, this budget makes a sizable dent in our deficits. Under
these policies, the deficit will fall by more than half, from $521
billion, which is projected in fiscal year 2004, to $191 billion in
fiscal year 2009, which is below the President's planned budget
achievements.
I am proud of the work of the Budget Committee this year. I thank
Chairman Nussle for pushing forward with fiscal discipline and bringing
us this excellent budget for our consideration, and I urge Members to
support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from
Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have seen this movie before. Just like
last year and the year before that and the year before that, the budget
resolution put forward by the House Republican leadership today is an
awful piece of legislation. There is no other way to describe it.
It is a budget that hurts American families. It is a budget that
continues to create a government without a conscience. It is a budget
that punishes the poor and the middle class and rewards the very
wealthy and special interests. It is a budget that explodes our
Nation's deficit and passes mountains of debt onto our children and
grandchildren. It is a budget that deliberately misleads the American
people about the cost of our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In
short, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that deserves to be defeated
soundly by every Member of this House.
The details speak for themselves. This budget includes a deficit for
2006 of $372 billion and a deficit for 2007 of $348 billion. In fact,
if this budget is approved, the five largest deficits in the history of
the United States of America will have occurred in the past 5
consecutive years, all during the period when the House, the Senate,
and the White House are totally under Republican control. What in the
world has happened to the party of fiscal discipline? They have become
the party of runaway spending and reckless tax giveaways.
Even worse than this unchecked spending binge is the Republican
leadership's deliberate misleading of the American people. We are at
war, Mr. Speaker, and every day our brave soldiers patrol the most
remote areas of Afghanistan and the most dangerous neighborhoods in
Iraq. Every day the American people learn of more roadside bombings,
insurgent attacks, and
[[Page H1570]]
death in Iraq. Every day the Iraqis seem more and more unable to form a
functioning government, and every day Iraq slips further and further
into chaos and civil war. And every day our credibility around the
world gets lower and lower. And every day our Nation sinks deeper and
deeper into a violent quagmire.
But with all of this, Mr. Speaker, how do you explain only $50
billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year
2007, and after that no funding at all? Now, if the Republicans
actually carry out what they are promising in this budget, the United
States won't be spending a penny in Iraq or Afghanistan after 2007.
Maybe they have miraculously stumbled upon an exit strategy, which
would be just fine with me. But last year, the United States spent over
$100 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all told we have
spent $357 billion over the past 4 years on fighting these wars.
President Bush recently announced that the American troops will be in
Iraq until at least 2009. The truth, of course, is that the Bush
administration will be back before we know it asking for tens, if not
hundreds of billions of dollars more in so-called emergency funding to
pay for their failed foreign policy. But then, Mr. Speaker, why should
we expect the Republicans in Washington to start telling the truth
about Iraq now, given the fact we have been lied to, deceived, and
misled from day one.
What will happen is that the Republican leadership will write a blank
check without asking the tough questions, without demanding the
straight answers, and without conducting the kind of oversight that is
our responsibility as Members of Congress.
And while we are on the subject of war and its aftermath, Mr.
Speaker, let us examine how this budget handles our veterans. Now, my
Republican colleagues will pat themselves on the back and crow about
how they have increased funding for veterans in fiscal year 2007, but
once again the devil is in the details. The truth is that over the next
5 years, the Republicans actually cut the same funding by a total of $4
billion.
Do they think our current and future veterans are just going to fade
away? Talk about cutting and running. At a time when America is
creating hundreds, if not thousands of new veterans, and when thousands
of those veterans are going to need significant health care support for
the rest of their lives because of their service in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it is shameful that the Republicans in Washington are
blatantly ignoring our veterans. Sending our brave servicemen and women
to war without providing for their care when they return is not an
American value.
Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you
are going to send our servicemen and women into war, you have an
obligation to them, a moral obligation to them that when they return
home as veterans that they will be cared for. To do otherwise is to
disrespect their service. And that is what this budget does. How does
anyone in this Chamber vote for this budget and then go back to their
districts, look their veterans in the eye and say with a straight face
that we have done our best for you? You can't.
The list of misplaced priorities in this budget, Mr. Speaker, goes on
and on. This budget slashes critical programs in the areas of
education, job training, environmental protection and conservation
funding, public health programs, medical research, and social services.
It fails our responsibility to protect America by allowing $6.2 billion
worth of cuts to homeland security programs.
And where is the money for port security? Didn't my Republican
friends say that they were concerned about our ports when joining with
Democrats in opposing the President's selling of our port security to
the United Arab Emirates?
{time} 1045
Maybe I need new bifocals, but I cannot find the necessary funding to
make our ports secure in this budget.
This budget cuts programs that helps low-wage workers and vulnerable
families. In fact, the Republican leadership cuts into these programs
even more deeply than President Bush's proposal.
To top it all off with a Nation at war, with desperate priorities
that need to be met, with veterans who need our help and the gulf coast
still devastated from last year's hurricanes, the Republican leadership
still has the audacity to give the wealthiest Americans $228 billion in
new tax cuts while passing the cost of those tax cuts onto our
children. It just takes my breath away.
My friends on the other side of the aisle will say this budget
reflects necessary tough choices. My question, however, is this: Why do
all of the tough choices hurt average families? Why don't some of the
tough choices include forgoing tax cuts for wealthy people or ending
subsidies in tax breaks for oil companies that are gouging families at
the pump, or no more giveaways to pharmaceutical companies until they
provide cheaper drugs for our citizens? Why is it all of the Republican
tough choices spell tough choices for working families, senior
citizens, students, veterans and the most vulnerable?
Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. Democrats have a plan that works,
a plan that reestablishes fiscal discipline by implementing a pay-as-
you-go strategy, a plan that provides our veterans over $8 billion more
in assistance than the Republican budget, a plan that balances the
budget by 2012, a plan that properly funds our domestic priorities
including homeland security, a plan that gives our veterans the care
and the respect they deserve, and a plan that provides fiscally
responsible tax relief to millions of hardworking middle-class
Americans.
What the Republicans have proposed today is out of step with the
American people. Indeed, it is way out of the mainstream. This is a
budget that reflects a heart of stone. I can only say to my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle that the day has come for a new direction, a
new set of priorities, a new commitment to the American people. The day
has come for us to recreate a government with a conscience.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it is always fun to have these debates. We
ought to at least start out with our facts straight, though. For the
last 10 years, spending per veteran under Republican leadership has
doubled. In the last 10 years, spending budget authority for veterans
medical care nearly doubled going from $16.2 billion to $31 billion.
Facts are stubborn things, my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, the
elder statesman, Mr. Putnam, and I as a Member of the House can say
that to my good friend, Mr. Putnam.
Today I want to quote from the ranking member on the Budget
Committee: ``A budget is a statement of moral choices, and this budget
makes the wrong choices, cutting education, Medicare and Medicaid and
barely funding the bold initiatives that the President set out in his
State of the Union. Its greatest moral fault is that it leaves our
children a legacy of debt and an even heavier burden to bear as the
baby boomers begin to retire.'' That is from the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the House Budget
Committee.
The fault in his quote there, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not cutting
education. We are not cutting Medicare. We are not cutting Medicaid.
These things are absolutely off base. What our budget does say to the
American people, these are our moral choices so Congressman Spratt
should be commended for saying that a budget is a moral choice, and I
agree with that.
But what we do with this budget is say boldly that we will set out
the fences around which government spending should be held within. That
is a positive thing.
I ask my colleagues on the left wing of this body, the Democrats and
the liberals here, to come and support this budget because what we are
saying is our children should not be left with a legacy of debt. We
need to control wasteful government spending.
What this rule provides for in this budget document is a restraint of
spending. It does not hurt people. It takes out and gives the
opportunity for the policy-making committees of this
[[Page H1571]]
House and the appropriating committees of this House to reform much-
needed government services and programs.
I ask my colleagues to join with us in supporting this rule to
provide for a reasonable debate and reasonable amendments to this
budget document that will constrain spending and provide for priorities
for all Americans.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam). Facts are indeed a stubborn thing. The fact is
that this budget that the Republicans have put forward cuts funding for
veterans. Over 5 years, the budget cuts funding for veterans health
care by $6 billion below current services.
Republicans will tout the fact that the budget raises discretionary
spending for 2007 by some $2.6 billion, but these apparent gains are
quickly reversed with a cut for 2008 of $59 million below current
services, and cuts of increasing amounts in subsequent years
culminating in a cut of $4 billion for 2011.
One other fact: a couple years ago, the VA itself testified it needed
a 13 to 14 percent increase each year to maintain what it is doing.
This budget in no way reflects what this Veterans Administration has
said.
So facts are a stubborn thing. This budget is not good for veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution. The
impact this budget will have on families demonstrates how misguided it
really is. Our Nation has had a long-standing commitment to investing
in medical research. We all know someone, a friend or a relative, who
has fought breast cancer. Each one is an inspiration as they exhibit a
reservoir of strength and perseverance.
This is an issue that is very close to me as members of my family
have been diagnosed with the dreadful disease.
When I am home in Sacramento, I make it a priority to meet with
survivors. As each woman shares her personal battle with me, the one
thing they all reiterate is how appreciative they are that research and
technology exists to help them win their fight with cancer, and they
ask me to express their appreciation to my colleagues for their
continued support of the medical research programs that have driven the
development of life-saving techniques and technology.
One example is innovative advances that the UC Davis Cancer Center
located in my district has made. Last year, its researchers discovered
a new method to improve early detection of breast cancer. As that group
of survivors has emphasized, early detection is essential to surviving
breast cancer.
Tragically, this budget underfunds critical medical research. As a
result, dynamic institutions like the UC Davis Cancer Center will not
have access to the same level of Federal resources as they did in last
year's budget.
What do you tell the children or the spouse of a woman who may have
benefited from additional cancer research, but will not now because of
this budget?
The fact is this budget chooses tax cuts for the very, very, very
wealthiest instead of investing in medical research. This is a choice
that Congress is making.
We need a budget that makes sense for America's families. I think
about my 2\1/2\-year-old granddaughter, Anna. It is Congress'
responsibility to invest the resources today so that Anna and her
friends have at least the same opportunities that you and I have had.
To accomplish this goal, we must devote long-term resources to health
care, education, and scientific discovery. Yet with this budget, we are
reducing our capability in these areas while continuing to run a
massive deficit. So not only are we not investing in Anna and her
friends, but we are passing our debt to them.
Congress cannot continue to run this government in the same selfish,
shortsighted manner that we have over the past 5 years. Congress risks
breaking America's foundation of opportunity and prosperity and
imperiling the quality of life for our children and our grandchildren.
When we talk about the quality of life, that means your grandchildren
and those of you who may hope for grandchildren. They may not have
access to world-class education. It means that the Annas of our country
may not benefit from the world's best health care system or be a part
of the most innovative and productive economy. It means that citizens
of the United States may look at foreign countries and see people who
have better opportunities and better lives.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and vote in favor of Mr.
Spratt's alternative.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman raises an important
point about the need for us to continue to invest in research and
development, in health care initiatives that allow us to remain a
Nation on the cutting edge of technology both in biosciences, basic
research, and the whole gamut of diseases and disorders that afflict
the human condition.
This majority takes a back seat to no one on investments in health.
The National Institutes of Health are preeminent research institutions
run by this Federal Government that are making great strides against
cancer, against juvenile diabetes, against HIV/AIDS, against a whole
host of orphan diseases and disorders that only afflict a small number
of Americans, but nevertheless in a huge, huge way to that individual
family.
Since 1998, NIH funding, because of the investments that this
majority has made, has more than doubled. More than doubled since 1998.
Funding in 1998 was at $13.5 billion. Today this Nation invests nearly
$28.5 billion in the National Institutes of Health.
We take a back seat to no one in recognizing that it is fundamentally
important that America remain on the cutting edge of innovation, that
it is fundamentally important that we continue to produce graduates in
the health sciences, in engineering, in mathematics to keep us on that
cutting edge. We take a back seat to no one in recognizing that it is
important to have in place economic policies, tax policies that
encourage people to make those investments in this country instead of
in other countries; that we have in place incentives to people to add
new lines of scientists at their workbenches and their laboratories in
Silicon Valley, California, or at the CDC in Atlanta.
We recognize it is important to have a growing economy that allows us
the luxury of being able to invest in research that may not bear fruit
for decades to come. And we take a back seat to no one in the
commitment we have made for the last dozen years in funding the
National Institutes of Health.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the major Jewish
community service providers in our country, and they ask all of us to
oppose this Republican budget resolution because it will force, in
their view, harmful cuts in education, health care, nutrition, housing
and other services critical for children, families, seniors, and people
with disabilities.
I ask my colleagues to listen to the plea of these faith-based
groups.
April 5, 2006
Dear Representative: The Jewish community has long
demonstrated a commitment to economic and social justice. We
have been vigorous in advocating policies and programs to
fight poverty and to help address the needs of
disenfranchised vulnerable populations, including the
elderly, working poor, disabled, youth, and refugees.
The budget process is one of the most important actions
taken by our government each year and is an integral part of
allocating funds for important human needs programs. While we
recognize that deficit reduction is critical to the economic
stability of our country, we believe it is essential that it
be done in a fair and balanced manner. Over the past months
we have spoken out against cuts that we believed would
disproportionately hurt those in most need.
The budget plan passed out of the House Budget Committee
would make huge cuts to domestic discretionary programs.
These cuts would be extremely harmful both to our social
service agencies that are dependent on public funding as well
as the vulnerable populations we advocate on behalf of.
Programs such as the Older Americans Act, the Social Services
Block Grant, the Community Services Block Grant, and the Low
Income Heating Energy Assistance Program are critical
[[Page H1572]]
to the elderly, refugees, children, and persons with
disabilities, and all would likely face severe cuts if this
budget proposal is enacted.
We believe that budgets are documents which reflect the
values and priorities of those who create them. With the
increase in hunger in American households; housing costs
rising faster than wages; and more than 45 million Americans
lacking adequate health care coverage, funding for social
services to assist these individuals is more critical than
ever. This budget does not accurately reflect our values.
As you consider the Budget this week, we ask you to oppose
this Resolution that will force harmful cuts in education,
health care, nutrition, housing, and other services that are
critical for children, families, seniors, and people with
disabilities.
Sincerely,
Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America.
Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies.
B'nai B'rith International.
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
International Association of Jewish Vocational Services.
Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Jewish Labor Committee.
Jewish War Veterans of the USA.
National Council of Jewish Women.
Union for Reform Judaism.
United Jewish Communities.
Women of Reform Judaism.
Women's American ORT.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, later today the Committee on Rules will
decide what modifications to the budget bill Congress may consider. In
the spirit of the remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam)
with respect to how we need to concentrate on research, I want to offer
these remarks. I hope that the Rules Committee does not deny this House
the opportunity to correct the mistreatment of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration which is occurring in this budget.
{time} 1100
I am not as optimistic about this rule, so I rise to draw Members'
attention to the underlying issue. NASA's contributions in the field of
research, in the field of aeronautics to this Nation and the world are
profound. From surveillance systems that monitor aircraft flight paths
to the development of secure communications systems, NASA's research
has been instrumental in improving our national security.
NASA's research and NASA's aeronautics programs have also contributed
substantially to the Nation's economy. Civil aeronautics is the major
contributor to this sector's positive balance of trade, more than any
other industry. We have a positive balance of trade in aeronautics, and
we can attribute that directly to the work of research and development
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and this enables
a new generation of service based industries, like e-commerce to
flourish by performing the research that leads to inexpensive and
reliable flights.
Congress recognizes the value of aeronautics, which is why it
restored cuts that were proposed in the administration's fiscal year
2006 budget. Once in the CCJS appropriations bill, and again in the
NASA reauthorization bill, Congress protected aeronautics with strong
bipartisan support bringing funding back to fiscal year 2005 levels.
And I am proud to have played a role in that and working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in focusing in on the necessity
of protecting our ability to do basic research and research which leads
to developments in aeronautics.
Now, in spite of this, this administration is proposing an even
bigger aeronautics cut, $179 million, or 25 percent of the aeronautics
budget they are trying to cut. I mean, if this was farming, it would be
like throwing away your seed corn.
This shortfall is a direct result of the administration's consistent
and inexplicable failure to fund the very vision for space exploration
that it launched. Now, in order to keep this vision alive, NASA is
forced to take the money from other essential programs like
aeronautics.
About a month ago our colleagues in the Senate passed a budget
amendment with four Republican cosponsors that increased funding for
aeronautics at fiscal year 2005 levels. I tried to introduce the same
amendment with bipartisan support, but it has not been approved by the
Rules Committee. We cannot afford to stand by and watch the erosion of
research of aeronautics and the erosion of these NASA programs that are
connected. If the Rules Committee produces a rule that lets Congress
have the ability to focus on protecting NASA's aeronautics research,
then we ought to support the rule.
However, if the Rules Committee denies Congress the ability to debate
the mistreatment of NASA, then I will ask that we vote ``no.'' And
later, at the appropriate time, I will ask my colleagues to urge
conferees to agree with the Senate's position on the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. This is about our ability to grow
America's future, and vitally connected to that is the work of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. And let's not forget
national aeronautics, aeronautics, aeronautics, research, research,
research. Fund it.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues join me in complimenting your
selection of neckwear this morning.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell),
one of our newer members of the Budget Committee and a CPA.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I have to say the course of
this budget debate is somewhat perplexing. My friends on the other side
of the aisle here, the Democrats, are consistently railing about the
deficit and the evils of the deficit and how bad the deficit is and how
big the deficit is, and I confess that I concur. I have problems with
this deficit and that we ought to be reducing this deficit.
But it seems like their solution to reducing the deficit is to spend
more money. My friends, this is like saying that we have a boat and our
boat is sinking, and the way to fix the boat is to punch holes in the
bottom of it.
Spending more money does not reduce the deficit. You don't need to be
a CPA to know that. You only need second grade math to know that.
Spending more money does not reduce the deficit. In the Budget
Committee the vast majority of the amendments to the budget offered by
the Democrat side were amendments that spent more money.
Now, to be fair, they do propose to close the deficit by raising
taxes, and that is their argument and their proposal. But they claim
that the tax rate cuts, and I want to point out that they were tax rate
cuts, that happened in 2003 have increased the deficit. Except, since
those tax rate cuts went into place, the income to the Federal
Government, the revenue coming into the Federal Government has
increased by an average of nearly 7 percent a year because tax rate
cuts stimulate the economy, and tax rate cuts, these particular tax
rate cuts, allowed capital to move to where it is best used and it
resulted in more revenue. So you can't say that tax rate cuts have
worsened the deficit when the revenue has gone up by higher than
historic averages since the rates were cut.
Now, this budget that is before us increases spending. That is
another thing. You are hearing about all the cuts in this budget and,
sure, some things go up and some things go down. But overall it
increases spending by 3\1/2\ percent. My friends, that is not a cut. An
increase of 3\1/2\ percent is not a cut.
It spends $2.7 trillion. That ought to be enough to make things work
around here, you would think. And it reduces the deficit because the
revenue by this stimulated increased economy will go up by more than
that 3\1/2\ percent.
So this budget does not cut spending. It increases it. It does not
increase the deficit. It reduces it. And it does not raise taxes. It
maintains the stimulative tax policy that currently exists in our
economy.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
California's comments. But I will tell you, most CPAs that fudge the
numbers in real life go to jail. And the fact of the matter is in this
budget, the numbers are fudged.
$50 billion for Iraq for the next 5 years? Give me a break. You know
what is going on. You know what is going on. The bottom line is you are
going to be coming back and back and back for more and more money.
Look, the gentleman raised the Democratic budget proposal. Well, let
me just elaborate a little bit and suggest that he read it. The
Democratic budget proposal would return the budget to balance. We reach
balance by the
[[Page H1573]]
year 2012, and we also have smaller deficits than the Republican budget
and accumulate less debt.
By contrast, the Republican budget never returns to balance and even
refuses to show how big the deficit will be after 2011. Our proposal
includes fiscally responsible budget enforcement rules. The Democratic
budget backs the two-sided pay-as-you-go budget enforcement rule that
requires that the cost of any new mandatory spending or revenue
legislation be fully offset.
This is the way families operate. They pay as they go. They can't
accumulate the debt that you have accumulated. There is no way that
families could operate the way the Republican majority has operated
here.
During the 1990s, the two-sided PAYGO rules played a critical role in
turning record deficits into record surpluses. Do you remember those
days?
The Democratic budget also requires a separate vote to increase the
debt limit. You used to be concerned about that, but no longer. Now we
sneak the increase in the debt limit through without having to put
Members on record, and it prohibits using fast track reconciliation
procedures to make the deficit even worse.
We invest in education, and we keep our commitment to veterans. I
mean, to me one of the most egregious elements of the budget that the
Republicans have proposed is that you turn your back on America's
veterans. We have sent them to war. There will be more veterans in the
future, not less, and you did not put aside the adequate funding to
make sure that these men and women who have served our country with
great honor get the respect that they have earned and that they
deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman of two points.
First, spending per veteran and spending for veterans' medical care
both have nearly doubled in the last 10 years. I remind the gentleman
of that.
Second point, with regard to the procedure around here for changing
the debt limit, it is known as the Gephardt rule. The process for
adjusting the debt limit was put in place when your team was in charge.
So the gentleman takes issue with a process that was invented by his
team.
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this Democrat budget
alternative is laughable in the extreme. They want to balance the
budget on the backs of the taxpayers. They want every American citizen
to pay more in taxes next year than they did this year, and they call
that rolling back the Bush tax cuts. That is a tax increase, and that
is how they want to balance the budget.
On top of that, they don't want to eliminate wasteful government
programs. They don't want to look at government programs that have long
outlived their usefulness and effectiveness for people. They just want
to keep spending, and they want more money for Washington, more money
for Washington bureaucrats, more money for Washington government
programs. And they do that, and they nod and wink and laugh to
themselves that they are balancing the budget. Right.
What we have done, what this Republican Congress has done through
President Bush's tax cuts, through the stimulus to the economy, is we
have let people keep more of what they earn. And by keeping more of
what they earn, they spend, they employ people, the economy grows. And
when the economy grows, Mr. Speaker, tax revenues increase with
economic growth. With tax increases it stifles economic growth, and in
the end the Treasury doesn't net out as much as it would with pro-
growth tax policies.
Just this year, Mr. Speaker, tax receipts have gone up 15 percent.
Yet the Democrats want more money for Washington bureaucratic programs.
Then they scream and hem and haw that we are cutting. We are not
cutting, Mr. Speaker. And as a conservative, I believe we should cut.
But I think this is a reasonable budget, a reasonable budget that funds
much needed national defense and homeland security programs while
freezing government spending in other areas. That is not a cut, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of veterans
funding again. The gentleman from Florida keeps on bragging about how
the Republicans have been so good to our veterans and have increased
dramatically veterans funding over the last decade.
First of all, let me just say that I don't know of a single Member of
Congress who have gone back to their districts and heard from veterans
and people who work in VA facilities and other veterans health benefit
facilities that somehow, boy, you have given us all we need. We don't
need any more. What you have handed us is enough to meet the demand. I
mean, in fact, what you hear is the opposite. And I am going to just
say one thing to the gentleman. Over the past 10 years, all this
bragging he is doing about increasing the veterans budget, from 1996 to
the year 2000, the number of unique patients increased by $2.4 million.
And on a per capita basis, veterans health care funding increases
average only 0.1 percent per year, a level well below inflation for
medical care.
So we are not meeting the current needs of our veterans, and in this
budget there is no way we are going to meet the future needs of our
veterans when we are creating more veterans because of the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are creating
thousands of new veterans. That is an undeniable fact. Thousands of
these men and women have been severely injured, and most will need
medical services and benefits for the rest of their lives. And even
without the influx of this new generation of veterans, the fiscal year
2006 and fiscal year 2007 spending for the VA doesn't even meet the
health care needs of our current number of veterans and military
retirees. According to every major veterans organization in the
country, we are still about $1 billion short each year. But the
Republican budget before us actually decreases the discretionary
funding for VA benefits and services each and every year over the next
5 years. So FY 2011, just 5 years away, is actually $4 billion less
than FY 2006. That is their budget.
So I ask, is this how we honor our troops? Is this how we support
them when they come home? I hope not. And I would urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the gentleman's
concerns about funding for veterans, and I would remind him again that
since 1995 veterans medical care spending has increased from $16
billion to more than $31 billion, an increase of 92 percent. The
funding increase for next year, over this one, year-to-year increase is
nearly 4 percent, a substantial jump, especially relative to other
discretionary programs who will see a tenth of a point cut.
{time} 1115
They are getting a 4 percent increase.
We recognize the sacrifices that veterans make. We recognize our
lifelong commitment to them for the sacrifices that they have made and
continue to make. This budget builds on that strong foundation. It
accommodates general veterans funding at $75 billion, and it is $800
million above even what the President requested. This Congress is
meeting the needs of America's veterans. In addition to increasing over
the President's request, it does not increase the fees that were called
for in his request.
Frequently on this floor we get sucked into these debates based on
what the President's proposal is, and that is not the document that we
are debating here this morning. This is the House budget. In fact, in
the budget markup, we had an opportunity to vote on the President's
budget, and we chose to go a different path with the document that this
House is producing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
comments. Again, I would simply say that the spending he is bragging
about for the last 10 years didn't even keep up with inflation.
But putting that aside, let's talk about the next 5 years. Let's talk
about your budget, the budget you have. I have got the numbers here. In
fiscal year 2007, it goes up by $2.6 billion.
[[Page H1574]]
Then in fiscal year 2008, you go down by $100 billion. In fiscal year
2009, you go down by $1.4 billion. And in fiscal year 2010, you go down
by $3.1 billion. And then in fiscal 2011, you go down by $4 billion.
And I would just remind the gentleman, maybe he has not been reading
the newspapers lately, but we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thousands of new veterans are going to come into this system. And your
budget shortchanges not only them, it doesn't even meet the needs of
the current veterans. So from the veterans' perspective, this budget is
deeply flawed. I think it shows a disrespect for the service of those
men and women whom we have sent over to fight for our country. We owe
them more than this.
And I would urge my colleagues if you want to support veterans, this
is not the way to do it. This is the place you take a stand. You say no
to this budget, send them back, and let them do what is right by our
veterans. There is no way we should be shortchanging our veterans, and
this budget does that.
Mr. Speaker, I would at this time like to submit into the Record a
letter from the Interreligous Working Group on Domestic Human Needs,
representing the major Protestant and Catholic churches and faith
organizations. They state that ``as communities of faith . . . we are
called upon to hold ourselves and our communities accountable to the
moral standard of our Biblical tradition. We speak together now to
express our concern about our national priorities.'' The letter is
called a ``Faith Reflection on the Federal Budget,'' and it opposes
what is before us today.
Interreligious Working Group on Domestic Human Needs
A Faith Reflection on the Federal Budget
As communities of faith, we are grounded in a shared
tradition of justice and compassion, and we are called upon
to hold ourselves and our communities accountable to the
moral standard of our Biblical tradition. We speak together
now to express our concern about our national priorities.
In the year that has passed since this reflection was
originally written, this concern has deepened as we have
watched poverty, food insecurity, and the number of people
without health insurance climb for the fourth year in a row.
Across the country, churches and faith-based organizations
who care for our most vulnerable people are straining under
increased demand for services due to cuts in federal funding
for critical safety net programs. Devastating hurricanes have
underscored real problems of racism and inequality in our
country and along the Gulf Coast, and scattered throughout
the country survivors are struggling to provide for their
families while waiting for the bold action that has yet to
materialize from our national leaders.
These circumstances make it necessary to even more closely
examine our government's decisions, particularly those
concerning the budget, through a moral lens. The federal
budget remains a fundamental statement of who we are as a
nation. The choices we make about how we generate revenues
and spend our shared resources reveal our true allegiance. As
people of faith we must continue to ask: Do these choices
uphold values that will strengthen our life together as a
nation and as part of the global community?
We offer this reflection as a starting point for such a
dialogue and to make clear the values to which we hold
ourselves and our nation accountable.
Community and the common good
``But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you .
. . and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare
you will have your welfare'' (Jeremiah 29:7, NRSV).
Our nation's well-being is dependent on the well-being of
all its members. In order to form a more perfect union, the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution commits this nation to
promoting the general welfare. In faith language we would
call that the ``common good.'' The budget should reflect a
commitment to the common good by ensuring that the basic
needs of all members of society are met. At this time, when
Gulf Coast communities are still struggling to recover from
last year's hurricanes, when nearly 46 million Americans are
uninsured, 37 million live in poverty and one in five
children lives in a household experiencing food insecurity,
additional cuts to critical human needs programs cannot be
justified.
Investments in education, job training, work supports,
health care, housing, food assistance and environmental
protection strengthen families and communities and promote
opportunity for all. These should be budget priorities.
Budget decisions must be evaluated not just in the short
term, but with respect to their long-term effects on our
children's children, the global community and on all of
creation.
Concern for those who are poor and vulnerable
``Give the king your justice, O God . . . May he judge your
people with righteousness, and your poor with justice . . . .
May he defend the cause of the poor of the people and give
deliverance to the needy (Psalm 72: 1-4, NRSV).
As a nation we have a special responsibility to care for
the most vulnerable members of society. All budget decisions
and administrative procedures must be judged by their impact
on children, low-income families, the elderly, people with
disabilities and other vulnerable populations.
Whatever one's position on the war in Iraq or on the tax
cuts, these policies are driving the deficit. Attempting to
pay off the deficit by cutting programs that affect needy
populations, when these programs did not lead to the deficit,
is unjust.
Economic justice
``Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue
oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and
withhold justice from the oppressed of my people'' (Isaiah
10:1-2, NIV).
God has created a world of sufficiency for all; the problem
is not the lack of natural and economic resources, but how
they are shared, distributed and made accessible within
society and throughout the world.
Our government should be a tool to correct inequalities,
not a means of institutionalizing them. The federal budget
should share the burdens of taxation, according to one's
ability to pay, and distribute government resources fairly to
create opportunity for all.
Endorsing organizations
National: American Baptist Churches USA; American Friends
Service Committee; Bread for the World; Call to Renewal;
Central Conference of American Rabbis; Church of the Brethren
Witness/Washington Office; Church Women United; Conference of
Major Superiors of Men; The Episcopal Church; Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America; Friends Committee on National
Legislation; Institute Justice Team--Sisters of Mercy of the
Americas; Jesuit Conference USA; Jewish Council for Public
Affairs.
Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Maryknoll Office
for Global Concerns; Mennonite Central Committee U.S.
Washington Office; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of
the Good Shepherd; National Council of Churches of Christ in
the USA; NCCC Justice for Women Working Group; NETWORK, A
National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Pax Christi USA;
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office; Union for
Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association of
Congregations; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness
Ministries; The United Methodist Church--General Board of
Church and Society; Women of Reform Judaism.
State and Local: Arizona--Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in
Arizona. California--Lutheran Office of Public Policy--
California; Pacific Central West Region of Union for Reform
Judaism; Sisters of the Good Shepherd, San Francisco.
Colorado--Lutheran Advocacy Ministry--Colorado. Delaware--
Lutheran Office on Public Policy, Delaware. Florida--Union
for Reform Judaism--Southeast Council. Illinois--Lutheran
Network for Justice Advocacy; Lutheran Social Services of
Illinois; Protestants for the Common Good. Minnesota--
Institute for Welcoming Resources; Minnesota Council of
Churches. Missouri--Sisters of the Good Shepherd--St. Louis,
MO.
New Jersey--Church and Society Committee, Sparta United
Methodist Church (Sparta, NJ); The Crisis Ministry of
Princeton and Trenton; Family Promise; Lutheran Office of
Governmental Ministry in New Jersey; Union for Reform
Judaism, New Jersey-West Hudson Valley Council. New Mexico--
ELCA-Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry-New Mexico.
Ohio--Union for Reform Judaism, Northeast Lakes Council/
Detroit Federation. Pennsylvania--Roots of Promise/Thomas
Merton Center; Social Action Committee at the Lutheran
Theological Seminary in Gettysburg. Washington--Washington
Association of Churches; Lutheran Public Policy Office of
Washington State. Wisconsin--Lutheran Office for Public
Policy in Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the gentleman's stack of letters
that we are entering into the Record, he could find the thank you notes
from the veterans who thank us for finally, after decades of inactivity
under the previous leadership, acting on concurrent receipts giving
veterans what they need; doubling funding for veterans in 10 years; a 4
percent increase next year over this.
We budget year to year, and the gentleman knows it. Every year this
majority has come through for our veterans. Every year we have been
there, and we will continue to be there for America's veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions), my good friend from the Rules Committee and the
Budget Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from
Florida and the Rules Committee, Mr. Putnam, the chairman of our policy
committee
[[Page H1575]]
here in the House Republican Conference.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule for this
budget resolution, which strikes a delicate balance between fully
funding our priorities and exercising restraint of spending.
Mr. Speaker, already we have heard the debate and the dialogue here.
I have known this a long time. Every Member of Congress understands
this: needs outpace resources. It has always been that way. That is why
we have a Budget Committee. That is why we have Mr. Putnam here on the
floor today and other Members who are going to say, golly, we could
spend as much money as we really wanted if we could come to some
resolution of how much was enough. But the fact of the matter is that
the insatiable appetites that continue to be fed in this House and in
this government for more and more and more spending will not be ever
satisfied; so we have to strike that balance.
We know that we have had devastating challenges that have faced this
country, terrorists attacks of 9/11, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and
yet our economy has demonstrated strength and resiliency. It is
Republicans who come to the floor of the House of Representatives in
the majority and every year defend what we do. And, Mr. Speaker, I want
to tell you that I am proud of what we did last year for this year and
what we are doing proudly to make sure next year will work properly, we
are doing this year.
This last year our economy grew at an impressive rate of 3.5 percent.
The greatest, most vibrant economy that is in the world that we know
today from a G-8 country. This was no accident, but it came as the
direct result of Congress's planning, planning for growth and tax
relief, planning for giving Americans more of their own money, and
planning to make sure that we had investment that was made here in
America.
Since comprehensive tax relief was passed in 2003, 5 million new jobs
have been created. At just 4.8 percent, the unemployment rate remains
at the historically low figure, below the averages of the 1970s, the
1980s, and the 1990s. This rapid economic growth has also generated
rapid Federal tax growth.
We are pro-growth Republicans. We do not want to run a deficit. But
we must make sure that we look at both sides of the equation, that is,
growing the economy as well as being careful by what we spend.
Treasury figures show our booming tax receipts grew by 14.5 percent
in 2005, the fastest pace in 25 years. However, on the flip side, Mr.
Speaker, since 2001 our government has expanded in spending by 45
percent. We are saying with last year's budget this spending spree has
got to end. And that is what we did last year for this year and what we
are going to do this year for next year.
Jim Nussle, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has led this House
to an important conclusion, and that is what Mr. Putnam is here selling
to the Members today, and that is we are not about politics in this
budget. It is about structure. It is about saying how much money we are
going to make available and then we are going to let other important
committees, our appropriators, be able to understand where the present
needs are, and then we are going to give them the authority to go and
spend the money based on priorities.
This is the right way to run the railroad, Mr. Speaker. This is the
right way to do things. But we must have the responsibility by passing
a responsible bill, or this House will fall to the whims of every
single person who wants their own special project to be passed.
Spending will be out of control.
So I urge my colleagues to recognize and understand that the process
that the Budget Committee has been going through has been very
important, and it has produced a winner. It has produced the ability
that we have in a framework to put the needs and priorities into
balance for this United States Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what we have done. I am proud of what Mr.
Putnam supports today. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and
the budget.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from
Texas, my colleague on the Rules Committee. He says he is proud of this
budget. Quite frankly, I am ashamed that this budget is coming out of
this Congress with the cuts that are contained in this budget that I
think are going to hurt working families and also be devastating for
our veterans.
I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side that in 1995
the VA treated 2.6 million people. Last year it was 5.4 million people.
And that number is going to go up and up and up. And yet in this
budget, we see over the next few years a $4 billion cut. That to me
makes absolutely no sense. We know that the demand on the VA is going
to become greater and greater, and yet we are deliberately
shortchanging veterans health and veterans benefits. We know what the
future is going to hold, but we are fudging the numbers here. I think
that that is not only irresponsible but, Mr. Speaker, it is dishonest.
The gentleman from Texas talked about planning. Well, boy, the
planning that the Republicans have done here has just led to such great
success. We have the biggest deficits in the history of the United
States of America. Boy, that is great planning. More of our debt is
owned by foreign countries than at any other time in our history. I
don't know too many people who feel good about that.
Your planning has done such a great job that, quite frankly, it is
pushing our country towards bankruptcy.
And he talked about the insatiable appetite of people who want to
spend money. Look, I am all for fiscal restraint. We want to pay as you
go. We want to make sure that every new program that we talk about,
every new revenue initiative that we talk about is paid for. That is
the way families do it. That is not the case with Republicans.
But when you talk about insatiable appetite, I can't help but think
of your energy bill, which provides these incredible tax breaks and
subsidies to oil companies that have never made more profits than they
are right now, that are gouging American taxpayers at the pump, and you
are giving them billions of dollars. Talk about insatiable appetite. Or
the drug companies that can't provide our senior citizens a decent cost
for prescription drugs and you are sending more and more subsidies and
tax breaks and liability protections to these industries that, quite
frankly, need to respect our citizens more.
So that is the kind of insatiable appetite that has gotten us into
this mess, and we have had enough of it. We need new priorities; and I
hope that my colleagues, again, will turn down this budget.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend from Massachusetts
in the conversation about insatiable appetites that nearly every
amendment offered by the Democratic minority on the Budget Committee
spent more money. There was no amendment offered by the Democratic
minority that changed the Tax Code in any way. In previous years they
had sought to raise taxes. They have learned that lesson, that it does
not fly with small business men and women across the America, that it
is not particularly popular, and it is terrible economic policy to
raise taxes. So they dropped that. But nearly every amendment offered
in the committee markup was to spend more money and to pay for it using
the mythical potential of what is called the ``tax gap,'' which is the
difference between taxes owed and taxes collected. That is money that
may or may not appear based on an aggressive IRS. That was their pay-
for to feed their insatiable appetite for more spending.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to the gentleman, in
case he has not read it, the Democratic proposal actually balances the
budget by 2012, which is something that the Republican budget does not
do.
What we have a problem with is giving tax breaks to Donald Trump at a
time when you are shortchanging veterans. We think those are misplaced
priorities.
At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
[[Page H1576]]
Massachusetts on the Rules Committee for yielding.
I heard my colleague from Florida (Mr. Putnam) talk about it being
terrible economic policy. I am curious, does that mean terrible
economic policy to balance the budget?
I also heard you in your comments say that the Democrats' budget is
mythical. Well, let me tell you what is not mythical. When you make bad
deficits worse, that simply is not mythical. The Republican budget
resolution has no plan to bring the budget back to balance and, in
fact, makes the deficit $410 billion over 5 years, compared to current
deficit estimates.
{time} 1130
It calls for a mounting legacy of debt.
Since this administration took office, it has requested and the
Congress has provided four increases in the statutory debt ceiling
totaling $3 trillion. Under this budget as proposed by the Republicans,
the statutory debt by the year 2011, footnote there, the baby boomers
hit at 2009, the statutory debt will increase by another $2.3 trillion,
for a total increase of $5.3 trillion. It will leave the statutory debt
at a record level of $11.3 trillion. What part of that is mythical?
What we are talking about is something that is going to destroy the
economic base of this country.
This budget that the Democrats propose makes sure that this budget
comes into balance. It does not cut, as does the Republican budget,
funds for public health programs. It does not cut new money for
transitional Medicaid assistance. The Republicans cut low-wage workers
and vulnerable families. They cut nutrition assistance. They slash
education, education, by $2.2 billion. They cut veterans care by $8.6
billion. It cuts budget functions that fund homeland security.
I am curious, what is the myth that you would perpetuate upon the
public when we are about to go down the drain?
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, the myth is this: in your plan, you assume
that the $200 billion tax gap will magically appear tomorrow. If we
knew where the $200 billion was, we would find it now. You assume that
the $200 billion in uncollected taxes are available to be collected and
then be spent under your budget plan the day your proposal passes. It
wouldn't be uncollected if we knew where it was. It wouldn't be
uncollected if we could go get it. Somebody has to go hassle these
people to pay their taxes.
That is the myth. Does it need to be done? Absolutely. Should we
close it? Absolutely. But that is a crap shoot. You will not have 100
percent collections of all income taxes due by the day that your bill
passes, if it were to pass tomorrow. That is the myth.
You point out that our deficit is different than the CBO baseline.
You are correct. The CBO baseline assumes, and your budget assumes,
that you will allow the tax reforms that passed in 2001 and 2003 to
expire. So capital gains taxes go up; dividend taxes go up; taxes on
middle-income brackets go up; the 10 percent bracket disappears; AMT
relief, no action.
You allow those things to expire. The CBO assumes those things will
expire. We assume they will stay in place because we believe that those
are the drivers of the economic engine that is giving this country 4.8
percent unemployment, which is lower than the average of the 1970s, the
1980s and the 1990s. It is what allows this government to collect 15
percent more revenues, more money from the taxpayers this year than
last year, even though the tax rate is lower.
That is the difference. That is the myth. That is the problem with
the competing budgets as ours stacks up against yours.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying there are
numerous reasons to oppose this budget. Education funding goes down,
health care funding goes down, environmental protection money goes
down, and I go on and on and on. But what particularly I find
astounding is the way our veterans are being disrespected in this
budget.
The gentleman mentioned before all these veterans groups that are
thanking him for what they are doing. The fact of the matter is, I am
hearing the opposite from every major veterans organization in this
country. I have a letter here from the Disabled Veterans of America
asking us to end the cycle of the constant cutting of benefits, that
people right now are waiting in lines. And we have more veterans that
are going to be produced as a result of this war in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
I have been to Iraq, and I have seen those men and women serving our
country. I have a disagreement with our policy, but they are doing an
incredible job. And you on the majority are doing a disservice to these
veterans by not providing the necessary funding not only to meet the
needs of the veterans that currently exist, but you don't even account
for the veterans, the thousands of veterans, that will be produced as a
result of this war. It is wrong, it is immoral for us to pass a budget
that doesn't respect our veterans.
Vote ``no'' on this budget. Vote ``yes'' for the Spratt substitute.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it has been a good debate. We have 4 more
hours to go. We need to pass this rule.
The gentleman has grabbed the veterans issue by the horns, and
appropriately so. We will stand by our veterans funding. It is a 4
percent increase in an era when the rest of the budget is assumed to be
reduced by a tenth of a point.
This is a two-step process, and the gentleman knows it. The budget
lays out the fences, the appropriations process decides what is spent
within those fences. We have doubled spending per veteran, not spending
on veterans, spending per veteran in the last 10 years. We have doubled
spending on veterans medical care. These are issues that are hugely
important.
I am proud of the way this debate has been conducted, because this
budget lays out the competing visions for America, one that inspires
economic growth through sensible tax policies, and one that wants to
spend, spend, and spend some more based on the myth of the tax gap
collections that would miraculously appear tomorrow under the
Democrats' proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, I move the previous
question on the resolution and urge the adoption of this rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 199, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 91]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
[[Page H1577]]
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--7
Crenshaw
Evans
Hayes
Price (GA)
Smith (NJ)
Tanner
Watson
{time} 1159
Messrs. McDERMOTT, RUPPERSBERGER, FORD and KENNEDY of Rhode Island
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LEWIS of California and Mr. HALL changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 196, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 92]
AYES--225
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--196
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
[[Page H1578]]
NOT VOTING--11
Ackerman
Crenshaw
Evans
Gohmert
Hayes
Latham
Lewis (GA)
Price (GA)
Smith (NJ)
Tanner
Watson
{time} 1206
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 92. I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________