[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 43 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1591-H1609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIRMAN
The Acting CHAIRMAN. For clarification, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) had 2 minutes remaining of his 6 minutes. As he may not
reserve time, the Chair presumed that it was yielded back to the
gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining on his original
allocation of time?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It has returned to the gentleman from South
Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Texas back his 2
remaining minutes.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) is now
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that cutting health care
for veterans during a time of war by over $5 billion compared to
present services and putting nearly a $1,000 a year military health
care tax on military retirees' premiums is not a way to say thank you
to our servicemen and women who have risked their lives to defend our
country.
And if that weren't insulting enough, to add insult to injury, this
budget resolution would say to those people that are making $1 million
this year in dividend income you don't have to give up one dime of your
$220,000 tax cut. That makes a mockery of the principle of shared
sacrifice during a time of war.
Military retirees' health care premiums. Let's say ``no'' to stopping
the tripling of those premiums. Let's allow the administration to go
through with its proposal to triple those health care premiums, to
veterans' health care services over 5 years, and it is in the budget.
If you look at the numbers, over a $5 billion cut in present services
to veterans. That is okay, but let's not ask those people making $1
million a year in dividend income to give up one dime of their $220,000
tax cut. That is more money than a private serving in Iraq will make
over the next decade. The American people understand tough times. And
in tough times, they ask for fairness and they ask for shared
sacrifice.
{time} 1415
This budget resolution is an insult to the American principle of
shared sacrifice during time of war, and that is why we should vote
this budget resolution down.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I cannot find anything of what the gentleman from Texas just said in
the budget. I am still looking. None of those policies exist. All of
that is just kind of created out of whole cloth. I have looked through
it. There is no tax on veterans. My goodness, what kind of rhetoric is
that, taxes on veterans. My goodness. Not in here. You cannot find it.
I defy you to find it. I don't see a tax on veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Ryun) and a member of the committee.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this budget
process that creates greater priority than what we do as a Nation. When
it comes to this budget, Congress has no higher priority than providing
for our national defense.
This Congress remains unwavering in support for our troops, both here
and abroad. After 9/11, we spent quickly to rebuild New York and the
Pentagon. We spent deliberately to enforce our Nation's defenses to
prosecute the war on terrorism. Over the past 4 years, the budget for
the Department of Defense has grown by $22 billion, or roughly 6.3
percent per year. This figure excludes the money we have committed to
fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is an additional $317
billion if we assume the most recent supplemental.
So when you add DOD's base budget with the additional funding for the
war, the defense budget has increased by an amazing 70 percent since
2002. So, clearly, this Congress has had no higher budget priority than
providing for the security of this country, and that is the way it
should be.
Even prior to 9/11 and the war on terrorism, the need for a military
transformation was evident. So, now, DOD and our Nation as a whole must
confront the challenges of waging a very unconventional war, even in
the midst of massive transformation.
One of the challenges we confront here today is to provide funding
for our country's safety. This budget fully accommodates the
President's request for the Defense Department, which increases funding
to $439.8 billion in discretionary spending, an increase of 7 percent.
We will also see, as we have in the past two budgets, we have
included a $50 billion placeholder for the ongoing operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq. That is probably not the right figure, and as we
go through the year we will probably write another one; but it is a
reasonable place to start and help provide for those fighting for our
freedom overseas.
Now, as I said a moment ago, there is no higher priority in this
budget than providing whatever is needed to protect and defend our
Nation. That said, all the taxpayer dollars should be spent wisely with
proper planning and oversight. I urge my colleagues to support the
budget for fiscal year 2007.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for a unanimous consent.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank Mr. Nussle and
Mr. Spratt, especially in the realm of transportation.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank Budget
Committee Chairman Nussle and ranking member Spratt for their
assistance during last year's Surface Transportation Reauthorization.
The budget title of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Effective
Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA LU) contains the
vitally important funding Firewalls for the Federal Highway, Transit,
and Highway Safety Programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
My committee is grateful for the Budget Committee's recognition of
these important guarantees and their codification in the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
I understand that the budget resolution incorporates certain
assumptions for Function 400 Transportation Activities.
First, all mandatory funding is assumed to meet the Congressional
Budget Office's baseline.
[[Page H1592]]
This is good news for the portions of our Highway, Highway Safety,
Transit, and Aviation programs that are funded out of the Highway Trust
Fund or the Aviation Trust Fund--it means that the authorized levels
are assumed under the budget resolution.
However, discretionary budget authority is assumed for these programs
at the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request levels. This is
not very good news for transportation programs.
The President's budget request for surface transportation programs is
almost completely consistent with the funding levels in SAFETEA LU,
with only one major exception.
The 2007 funding level for the Federal Transit Administration is $100
million lower than what was authorized in due to the Administration's
failure to fully fund the ``Small Starts'' program. If the fiscal year
2007 appropriations bill fails to restore this $100 million shortfall,
that bill will be subject to the house rule XXI point of order against
a bill or conference report that would cause obligation limitations to
be below the guaranteed level set forth in section 8303 of SAFETEA LU.
Unfortunately, the administration's budget request does not make a
similar commitment to meeting our Nation's aviation infrastructure
investment needs.
Under the President's budget, aviation capital programs would receive
$5.25 billion, which is $1.6 billion, or 23 percent, less than the
level guaranteed by the Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization
Act. This reduction is extremely shortsighted, and will only serve to
accelerate the impending crisis of congestion and delays in our
Nation's aviation system.
Unless we make the necessary investments in our airport and air
traffic control infrastructure, delays will increase significantly as
air travel continues to increase.
To ensure that our aviation system remains safe, reliable, efficient,
and able to accommodate the increased number of passengers anticipated
in the near future, the transportation and infrastructure committee
recommended in its fiscal year 2007 views and estimates that Aviation
Capital Programs be funded at least at the $6.81 billion level
guaranteed by Vision 100.
The administration's budget request cuts funding for Amtrak from $1.3
billion in 2006 to $900 million in 2007.
Over the years, proposed cuts in Amtrak funding have been repeatedly
rejected by Congress.
If the budget resolution assumes just $900 million for Amtrak, but
Amtrak funds are subsequently restored during the appropriations
process, other important programs will have to be cut in order to make
up the difference.
If the budget resolution assumes the President's budget request
levels for the portions of these three programs that are funded with
discretionary budget authority from the general fund, it could have a
very negative effect on all the agencies and programs that are funded
under the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, The Judiciary, District of
Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill.
I am gravely concerned that the underlying assumptions in this
legislation could force a painful choice among programs that are
vitally important to the continuing economic well-being of our country.
I sincerely hope that, when the appropriations committee makes
funding allocations among its 11 subcommittees, the discretionary
budget authority allocation to the Transportation-Treasury subcommittee
reflects the full authorized levels for these transportation programs.
This is not only for the sake of the Federal Highway, Aviation,
Transit and Rail programs, but also to reduce the painful funding
constraint on other domestic discretionary programs that receive
funding under that subcommittee's annual appropriations bill.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I would say to the chairman of the Transportation Committee, we do
better by transportation than your colleagues on that side of the
aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas to
respond.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, to respond to Chairman Nussle's comments
on veterans cuts in this program, I just point out, and his silence
perhaps answers my question, it is in the budget. The veterans cuts in
present services will be over $5 billion over the next 5 years. It is
right here if you would like to see the printout.
Secondly, the chairman knows we voted for a Republican amendment to
say ``no'' to the $250 enrollment fee for veterans getting the VA
system, but yet you voted on a party-line vote against my amendment to
say ``no'' to a thousand dollar increase per year for military retirees
health care cost for their premiums. So I would like to ask the
chairman in his time to explain what a devastating cut $5 billion in
present services would be to the 5 million American veterans who depend
on the VA system. I do not know who came up with that proposed cut, but
I think it is mean spirited and wrong and will hurt military morale and
will not serve our country well. I would hate to put my name on a bill
that will cut veterans health care during a time of war.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have to put on my glasses, these numbers are so small. I have to
tell you, on page 63, I have it right here: veterans goes from $71.9
billion to $74.6 billion. $71.9 billion to $74.6 billion. I am trying
to think now, mathematically that sounds like an increase. Maybe I am
missing something, but 71 to 74. Let's see, that's a bigger number; 74,
bigger, not a cut. That is an increase.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bonner), a distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, it is early in the debate but one thing is
clear: our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to want to have
their cake and eat it, too. They want to blame the majority for the
national debt and the rising cost of Federal spending, but the only
solution they seem to offer is more spending or more taxes.
Increased spending or increased taxes. How can either of those two
solutions be the right prescription for getting our fiscal house in
order? There is no better example of the challenges we are facing than
the need to secure our homeland. And as you know, in the aftermath of
the terrorist attacks on September 11, our administration and this
Congress responded in a bipartisan way to create a centralized agency
to coordinate our Nation's homeland security efforts. But creating an
entirely new agency, particularly following September 11, was no easy
task. At that time, the organization of the Department of Homeland
Security marked the largest single agency opening in nearly four
decades, dating back on the creation of the Department of Energy.
It also required the reshuffling of 180,000 employees and the
transfer of some 22 Federal agencies from one area of government
control to another. A department of this size and scope certainly needs
a sufficient level of funding to carry out its goals and objectives;
and, initially, $50 billion was set aside just for this purpose.
The overall fiscal year 2006 budget for the Department of Homeland
Security, including nonhomeland defense spending, totaled $40.3
billion. President Bush requested in his fiscal year 2007 budget $42.7
billion, an increase of $2.4 billion or 5.8 percent. Overall spending
in the homeland security component of DHS has increased from $10.7
billion in fiscal year 2001 to $25.7 billion in fiscal year 2006, or an
average of 19 percent increase per year.
Mr. Chairman, while we have made substantial progress in getting DHS
up and running, I think it is very fair to say that this Department,
while securing our Nation's homeland, is not yet where it needs to be
or where it must be. Needless to say, however, this budget moves us on
the right path.
At the outset I said that our friends on the other side were looking
to have their cake and eat it, too. I went to the House cafeteria to
find a piece of cake I could bring to use as an illustration. The only
cake I could find was a slice of angel food cake. Now angel food cake
tastes good, it sounds good; but it is squishy in the middle, just like
their budget proposal.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards) to respond further to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Nussle, the chairman of the
committee, talked about the VA budget line, what he didn't do is tell
the full story. The full story is if you take out the mandatory
spending in that VA budget level, what you end up with is going from VA
discretionary spending, which covers VA health care, from $36.9 billion
in 2007 to $34.4 billion in 2011. That is just not a cut after
inflation; that is a cut before you take into account inflation.
So the bottom line is that this budget as proposed will require a
massive cut in VA medical services during time
[[Page H1593]]
of war. That is not right for our veterans; and he can show all of the
charts he wants to about the past, but he knows that you take out the
mandatory spending, you are cutting VA discretionary spending. And to
try to hide that fact is creative at best and dishonest at worst.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a member of the committee.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time and thank him for his leadership and service here
in Congress in bringing this budget to the floor.
I rise in support of the budget. I would like to point out, really, a
historic aspect to this budget. For the first time I am aware of, we
are actually budgeting for emergencies.
Most families understand that it is important and prudent to set
aside money for a rainy day. Even some States budget for emergencies in
their annual budgets. Congress, however, rarely if ever budgets for
emergencies, despite the fact that we spend taxpayer dollars on
emergencies every single year.
I am afraid this is not just an oversight; it is a back door means to
exceed our resolution every year because after allocating all of the
available resources, somehow Members can find unforeseen emergency
needs that require us to break the budget many times without
justification. But in this year's resolution, we are actually starting
to clean up that process by bringing transparency and accountability to
the process.
We are setting aside an emergency reserve fund for natural disasters
and budgeting money we know we are going to spend. Any emergency
spending that exceeds the reserve would have to be brought back to the
Budget Committee for clearance. It ensures that the committees work the
way they are supposed to work. The Appropriations Committee can
allocate the resources against competing priorities, and the Budget
Committee can set limits on spending and ensure that those limits are
enforced.
Mr. Chairman, budgeting for emergencies will help expedite the
delivery of funds for those people in need, it will deter breaking the
limits of the budget with routine spending, and provides a more honest
presentation of the Federal budget to the American people.
I support this budget, I support this provision, and I encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, in the area of health care, there is a major difference
between us. Some 6 or 7 years ago we got together on a bipartisan basis
and agreed that every year we would try to increase the budget of the
NIH such that over 5 years it would be doubled.
We achieved that goal, and now every year the Bush administration is
marching us right back down the hill. This year in their budget
submission over 5 years they have proposed short-funding public health
and medical research programs at a level of $18 billion below current
services. The programs at risk range from the National Institutes of
Health to the Centers for Disease Control to graduate medical education
at children's hospitals to rural health. The Democratic budget
resolution, by contrast, spares these programs from deep cuts and
restores them, fully funding them to the level of current services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), the dean of the House and the ranking member of the Energy
and Commerce Committee, to discuss further the impact of these cuts and
ask that he be allowed to yield the time that is granted him.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Foley). The gentleman is recognized for 8
minutes.
The gentleman is reminded that any time yielded, he will have to
remain on his feet.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend and distinguished
colleague who has done such a fine job on the Budget Committee.
We are talking about the Republican budget, and it does not address
two pressing health care problems of peculiar and special importance to
our people, amongst the other things that it does wrong.
First, thanks to this Republican Congress, new part D of the Medicare
program is complicated, impossible to navigate, and the benefits
confusing, indeed. And they vary from plan to plan. Plans can even
change the drugs they cover after seniors have signed up, bait and
switch, if you please. But seniors cannot change plans for a year,
while the HMO can do so.
All too often this confusion has resulted in seniors leaving
pharmacies without their medication or paying more than they should for
their medications. Pharmacists are going broke because of nonpayment or
late payment by Medicare. These problems and many of the others which
infest part D are in no way corrected by this budget. They are not even
giving seniors enough time to sign up; and as a result, these seniors
will have to pay a 7 percent penalty for the rest of their lives for
this Medicare part D.
Our Democratic substitute would allow seniors until the end of the
year to identify and sign up for a plan that meets their needs. It also
enables citizens to know that HMOs and private-plan bureaucrats are not
going to be able to continue bait and switch, stopping coverage for
drugs that a senior's doctor has prescribed and that were covered when
the senior signed up.
Second, the Republican budget does not even try to protect the most
vital relationship the senior has, that which they have with their
doctor.
{time} 1430
Even though doctors in Medicare are facing deep cuts in their
payments, the Republican budget does nothing to stop this.
Not paying adequately for physician service is going to undermine our
entire health care and Medicare program. The Democratic substitute
would not permit that to happen. It is another reason for voting with
us.
Republicans are content to permit traditional Medicare to erode,
while steering unneeded billions of dollars to their HMO and insurance
company cronies. Democrats want to protect Medicare as we know it and
to spend the money to help seniors and those with disabilities, not to
shower it unneeded upon greedy health maintenance organizations and
others who deserve no assistance.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth),
my distinguished colleague and friend.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
his leadership, as well as the gentleman from South Carolina for his.
As I travel throughout the State of South Dakota, the number one
issue my constituents raise with me is health care. For thousands of
families in my State and millions across the country, health care is
their top priority. But this budget not only fails to make health care
a national priority, it makes the crisis worse.
This budget ignores the 46 million Americans without health
insurance, and it actually eliminates the transitional Medicaid
assistance program that encourages families to leave welfare for the
workforce. This budget actually punishes families trying to create a
better future by choosing work over welfare.
The budget cuts funding for health research at the NIH and disease
prevention at CDC. It eliminates the National Children's Study to
improve the health and well-being of children, the kind of common sense
research that will pay dividends in the future. We ask the American
people to recognize the cost savings that comes with prevention, but
this budget fails to make disease prevention and the research that
leads to cures a priority.
This budget cuts Urban Indian Health Centers which serve Native
Americans across the country, including in a number of communities in
South Dakota. And as has already been noted, it cuts funding for
veterans health care by $6 billion over the next 5 years, and it shifts
the burden of health care costs for our troops and their families from
a grateful nation to the very families with loved ones serving in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
And this budget is particularly hard on seniors. As Mr. Dingell
already noted, by allowing a cut to physicians under Medicare it will
make it harder for millions of seniors to find quality health care
services, particularly in already underserved areas.
[[Page H1594]]
And for the millions of seniors struggling to navigate the Medicare
drug benefit bureaucracy, this budget does absolutely nothing to solve
that problem. For seniors forced to deal with the poor planning and
implementation of CMS and the private drug plans, this budget does
nothing for them or the community pharmacists who have shouldered most
of the burden.
Congress can do better. We owe it to the American people to do
better, and I urge my colleagues to demand that the committee either
bring us a new budget, one that makes health care a national priority
or, better yet, support the Democratic substitute, which does just
that.
Mr. DINGELL. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps), my dear friend.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I am getting really tired of
hearing proponents of this budget argue that drastic cuts to health
care are a result of difficult choices.
It is quite apparent that the choice being made is a simple one,
further tax breaks for the wealthy instead of real investment into the
health care needs of our Nation, the most urgent needs, as our
colleague from South Dakota expressed, in her State, and also in mine,
the most urgent need that our constituents want us to address in their
time of need at home.
At such a time of remarkable breakthroughs, for example, in medical
research, it is appalling that this budget cuts 18 of the 19 institutes
of the National Institutes of Health. Again, proponents of this budget
will argue that in the late 1990s we doubled NIH's budget, and it is a
good thing we did. But that just shows how little is understood about
scientific research, how much they are minimizing our country's need
for true investment.
If this budget passes, the NIH will have 13 percent less funding than
it did in 2003. That will mean that we will take giant steps backward
in our efforts to eliminate cancer deaths by 2015, a doable goal if we
were to stay on track with NIH. It means that our efforts will be
hampered to combat the number one killer in this country, heart
disease. It means that our ability to remain globally competitive in
the development of new treatments is threatened.
Not only is our health research infrastructure under attack by this
budget, so are our health professionals. Funding for title VII health
professional training is eliminated in this budget. Despite our nursing
shortage crisis, funding for nurse workforce training programs is
actually less today than it was 30 years ago.
Mr. Chairman, our national security is very much dependent upon our
ability to sustain a healthy and viable work force to respond to
emergency situations. This budget ignores those needs. So I urge my
colleagues to oppose this illogical and immoral budget.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield that back with great gratitude and
appreciation to my distinguished friend from South Carolina.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the committee.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Budget Committee
chairman today, we have heard it, has mentioned a number of times
something that is captured in this budget, reducing waste, fraud and
abuse. Now, our friends from the Democratic side also have a consistent
theme, spend more money regardless if a lot of it is wasted.
But you see, Mr. Chairman, billions of dollars are lost each year to
waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government. Not only does waste,
fraud and abuse steal from the American taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, it
also burdens those who rely on the government for their services.
Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they are
consistent in, again, spend more money, without measuring efficiency or
effectiveness of the programs. It is evident, obviously, that some on
the far left measure success of government programs by the level of
spending, not on results. Again, just spend more of the taxpayers'
money, no matter what.
We cannot excuse programs that, through waste, fraud and abuse, are
cheating the taxpayers out of billions of dollars of their hard-earned
money. We owe it to the people that sent us here to Washington to
ensure that their hard-earned tax dollars are protected through good
oversight, performance evaluations and sensible funding decisions.
While the far left is endlessly attempting to increase taxes without
any form of accountability and spend more money, I urge you to support
the Republican budget that helps make our government programs more
efficient, reducing waste, fraud and abuse, while funding our Nation's
priorities.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, budgets are moral documents, and one measure of a
budget is how it treats the least among us. The House Republican budget
resolution severely weakens the safety net for the least among us,
cutting income security programs by some $14.9 billion over 5 years
below the level of current services.
Among the programs cut, actually totally eliminated, would be the
Commodities Supplemental Food Program, which provides nutritious food
to 420,000 elderly people every month and to 50,000 mothers. HOPE VI
would be eliminated for repairing and refurbishing public housing.
Supportive housing for the disabled would be slashed by 50 percent,
housing for the elderly cut by 26 percent, and, in addition, $4 billion
in reconciled spending cuts that are directed to the Ways and Means
committee, implying cuts in the Earned Income Tax Credit, TANF, SSI,
unemployment insurance, these programs within their jurisdiction.
Here to discuss further the implications and consequences for
families and communities is the senior member from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, to whom I
yield 8 minutes.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank Mr. Nussle and the
Republican leadership for bringing up an important bill and allowing us
to discuss it during the daytime hours. It is so unusual that I just
wonder when the vote is going to take place, but I do hope it is in
time for America to see how we work.
Also, I want to thank Mr. Nussle for giving me the opportunity to
explain some of the language that he has been using, because when he
talks about entitlements there are so many people that get angry and
they have to be against entitlements, too. They have to really be angry
with America spending such a large amount of our budget on
entitlements. But it is strange, they talk about entitlements and we
talk about people in need. They talk about entitlements, we talk about
the Social Security system that has lasted this country and given so
much self-esteem and pride for our older people, those who became
disabled, and things that we like to do.
Don't cry. Don't just bring us these doggone private accounts. Don't
send it to commissions. Bring it on the floor. Take it to the American
people. Ask the older people and their kids and their grandkids, how do
you measure self-esteem and dignity?
Entitlements. What does it mean? Who are the least among us? Is it
the poor? And if you are poor and you are sick, is it asking too much
in this great country of riches to say you are entitled to health care?
And if you are older, and you want to get a prescription drug, is it
wrong for you to be outraged because we believe that they are entitled?
Or how about a kid from the neighborhood? Most of us here came from
families that never got a college education. Were we entitled to an
education? No. We were lucky we were able to get it. But I think that
now that our Nation is at war, a war that we shouldn't be in, I think
that our Nation is at war in terms of competition with foreign
countries, that our people should be entitled to educations. They
should be entitled to compete. They should be entitled to self-esteem,
and every American should have an education and a decent place to live
and health care.
But no, we can't afford it. We can't afford it, one, because $400
billion for
[[Page H1595]]
Iraq. We can afford it for them. Oh, they will be entitled to decent
health and decent housing and anything else, and we are not going to
leave there until they get it, and they will have the victory and we
will have the deficit.
And so what I am saying is that let's not talk entitlements. If you
really want to kill the education programs, the health programs for the
aged and for the young, let's call it what it is. It is called Social
Security. Say it with me. Social Security. It is called Medicaid. It is
called Medicare. And these are programs for the disadvantaged.
Now, if you can't afford it because you have some friends that are in
the highest income, and I have not received one letter from any of
them, and I don't think those from the rural areas, there aren't too
many of them there either. They may be included on the contributors
list, but they haven't called and asked for this tax cut. They haven't
called and asked for it.
But the people that are out there when we get back home during this
work period, they will thank us for fighting to save what they think,
what they used to be entitled to.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the time to the
gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Ways and
Means Committee.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, when I read through this budget, they
are back again, folks. They are back again.
Just a few months ago the Republicans called a final vote on the
budget bill that slashed funding for child support enforcement, foster
care, student loans and health care coverage for low income families.
Today, the nightmare continues. They are back again doing the same
thing within 3 months.
{time} 1445
Republicans propose another round of pain for Americans already
suffering. The committee on which I serve is required by the Congress
to cut $4 billion from the budget. Now, it will come out of my
subcommittee, the one I am the ranking member on, because that is where
the children are and that is where the weak and the old and the sick
are. They are not going to take it away from the taxpayers. They are
going to take it away for the poor and the weak.
When the Republicans send the high-income earners to the trough for
more tax cuts, they will starve the Federal programs to help the poor.
I know it is Lent; so I am sure this is a faith-based initiative we
have here, and the Republicans certainly understand the idea of
sacrifice. This budget sacrifices one-third of the Social Services
Block Grant, which funds assistance for abused kids, child care for
working families, and vital services for the disabled and the seniors
in this country. I asked the Rules Committee to allow an amendment to
restore these cuts, but the Republicans said no. Mr. Chairman, why will
you not allow this House to actually consider the effects of slashing
programs to help the sick and the poor?
Now, I know some key Republicans have left, but the fix is still in
in this joint. The Republican Congress will rubber-stamp the Bush
agenda and provide for those who need it least. It is Lent, and the
Republican majority is ready to sacrifice common sense, common decency,
and common dreams.
The Republicans' budget sacrifices morality and a balanced budget for
tax holidays for the rich, for the 1 percent. The party of the 1
percent is in charge in this House. Only the 1 percent at the top
matters.
They're back, Mr. Chairman, and the Republican budget is no
apparition. It is a real assault.
There is an irony that maybe some of you out on this floor may not
think about, but some Members are running for higher office in State-
level jobs. Some of those people are cutting the very programs that
they, if they win their election in November, will have to go out and
deal with the problems. If you are running for a State governorship or
any kind of State office, think very carefully about how you stab
yourself, because you are going to meet this when you get there after
the election.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee from
Massachusetts, Mr. Neal, who serves on our committee as well as the
Budget Committee.
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Rangel
for yielding me the time.
But let us clear something up immediately. Let us not demean the
intelligence of the American people when we hear waste, fraud, and
abuse. Where has the spending gone? They are bragging on one hand about
increasing military spending by 70 percent. Seventy percent for the
military. We are fighting two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan. Have we
forgotten about that? What about Katrina? Have we forgotten about
Katrina? What about their prescription drug bill? Now, which of those
qualifies for waste, fraud, and abuse? That is where the money has
gone. The problem we have today in this House is their tax cuts that,
by the way, went to the top 1 percent of the wage earners in America.
The millionaires were taken care of with their largesse.
This budget takes the word ``compassionate'' out of ``compassionate
conservatism.''
The Republicans would have the country believe that the budget cuts
do not have any impact on Americans. There is not a family in America
that will not be harmed by this budget. The President's budget was bad
enough. I was honored as a Democrat to present the President's budget
at the budget meeting. Do you know why? Because not one Republican
would present the President's budget. The result, 39-0, we knocked down
the President's budget.
But let us talk about what this budget does. It calls for freezing
child care funding. It will eliminate a program that provides food for
420,000 poor elderly people, 50,000 poor mothers and their kids. It
even ordered a 50 percent cut in housing assistance for people with
disabilities. Their budget before us today takes an additional $100
million in cuts beyond what the President's budget proposed.
At a time when we ought to be concerned about families in America,
this budget turns its back on those people. This budget is the polar
opposite. Instead of throwing doors open for the American people, they
offer less vocational training, fewer small business loans, less
financial aid for colleges, less support for our veterans.
This budget lacks vision.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the committee.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was
absent from this House for 16 years, and I came back longing for some
familiarity, but also hoping for some change. But as Yogi Berra said,
when we have these budget debates, it is deja vu all over again. The
same words I heard 18 years ago from the other side of the aisle still
prevail: ``weaken,'' ``starve,'' ``slash,'' ``stab,'' ``kill,''
``attack,'' ``assault,'' ``inflict pain.'' So I looked at the budget to
see how much less it is than when I left here 18 years ago. It is so
much larger now it is unbelievable.
When we had the head of the OMB, now soon to be the new chief of
staff at the White House, appear before us, he said that if we do not
start to control entitlements, mandatory spending, by the time my
children are ready to retire, we will have no ability, he said, to
spend anything on discretionary spending including the military. Think
of that. We have come to a position now where the burgeoning of the
entitlement programs is such that in another generation what the
Constitution calls our first obligation, common defense, we will have
no money for it. Now, how can this budget be so terrible? How can it be
stifling?
[[Page H1596]]
When I left here before, if we had just frozen spending for a year,
receipts would have caught up with spending. Now we are in a position
that it would take 3 years of a freeze to catch up. This budget is not
slashing, cutting. We are doing a little bit of trimming. Many
Americans do not think we are doing enough.
And the whole idea on the other side is all we have to do is tax
more. Look at what these tax policies have given us. We have a robust
economy. We have lower unemployment rates. Our rates of unemployment
now are below what economists told us when I was here before we could
ever sustain. They talked about 6 percent unemployment being full
employment. Now we are below 5 percent.
We should not sacrifice jobs on the mantra of increasing taxes, as my
friends on the other side would have us believe.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, the President sent us a budget that was woefully
deficient when it came to homeland security, which is a pressing
concern for all of us. The Republican budget, I will give them credit,
to some extent corrects that woeful deficiency by $11 billion. But over
5 years that funding level for homeland security, a pressing, critical
domestic need, is still $6 billion below current services.
We restore homeland security at least to the level of current
services. Thus we would be funding programs that are critically needed
to deal with what most of this House recognizes is a tremendous
deficiency, namely, seaport security, which pales in comparison to what
we have done for airport security; and it is one of the reasons for the
outcry over the Dubai ports deal.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee,
to discuss the consequences and the differences between our budget and
theirs when it comes to homeland security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong
opposition to the fiscal year 2007 House budget resolution, a
resolution that shortchanges our critical homeland security programs.
The funding provided under this measure leaves dangerous gaps in our
Nation's border, ports, mass transit, aviation, and critical
infrastructure security. It also fails to address the preparedness and
response deficiencies laid bare by Hurricane Katrina.
When Katrina struck the gulf coast, it was a frightening wakeup call
to our Nation that we could not handle a response to a major incident,
regardless of whether it was a terrorist attack or natural disaster.
Regrettably, the House budget resolution, like the President's budget
request, continues a 4-year trend of underfunding the Department of
Homeland Security and homeland security programs across the Federal
Government.
The most egregious cuts and eliminations are to programs that assist
our local and State officials in preparing for and responding to
emergencies. The budget slashes first responder funding by $570
million. The Local Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program is
completely eliminated. Communities across the Nation have come to rely
on the program to help with information sharing among local law
enforcement agencies as well as counterterrorism and security planning.
Like the President's budget, this budget unjustifiably cuts critical
firefighter grant programs. The SAFER Act firefighter hiring program is
eliminated. The FIRE Act grant program is cut by 50 percent. Together
these programs are critical to ensuring that our local fire departments
can recruit and retain firefighters and give them the tools they need
to respond to emergencies and disasters. These programs should be
increased, Mr. Chairman, not decimated.
Another grant program that is slashed under the budget is the
Emergency Management Performance grants. This program is the singular
Federal program for State and local all-hazards preparedness and
readiness. Communities use this money to develop disaster plans,
sheltering strategies, and evacuation routes.
In 2004, even before the name ``Katrina'' became synonymous with
misery and loss, NEMA reported that this program faced a $260 million
shortfall. Just 2 days ago, expert hurricane forecasters told America
to prepare for another bad hurricane season. They predicted that the
east coast chances of being hit this year had doubled to more than 60
percent. Yet here we are today considering a budget that slashes
Emergency Management Performance grants. I hope the forecasters are
wrong; but if they are right, Mr. Chairman, I for one do not want to be
standing here 6 months from now if New Jersey, Long Island, or some
other populated east coast center is hit, saying we could have done
something.
Not only does this budget shortchange our communities, Mr. Chairman,
but it also turns its back on them when it comes to covering the cost
of keeping dangerous and criminal aliens incarcerated. The President's
budget calls for the elimination of the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program. This resolution before us today does nothing to remedy that.
With all the President's tough talk on border security, you would think
that he would want to at least keep the most violent and dangerous
illegal immigrants off our streets. Instead, this budget cuts the one
program dedicated to helping our local cops and sheriffs put behind
bars those who are breaking laws. Even Republicans last year disagreed
with the President and joined Democrats in approving $405 million for
the SCAAP program.
What has changed this year? They no longer want the criminals off the
streets?
The budget also ignores the wakeup calls that came in 2004 and 2005
when terrorists executed coordinated rush hour train and bus bombings
in Madrid and London. The budget does not provide dedicated funds to
close known gaps in rail and mass transit systems to protect 14 million
Americans, who use nearly 6,000 public transportation systems each day.
Under this budget, State and local transit agencies, which have
already spent $2 billion to enhance security and emergency preparedness
since 9/11 attacks, continue to be left largely to fend for themselves.
We are shortchanging the Coast Guard in this budget. That agency,
which did the right thing in Hurricane Katrina, is using ships from the
Vietnam era. In using these Vietnam-era ships, we put our Coast Guard
at risk. This budget will ensure one thing: that the Coast Guard with
need a lot of bubblegum, bailing wire, and buckets to stay afloat if it
is approved.
Speaking of maritime security, this budget does little to ensure that
ports can make the physical security improvements they need for high-
risk containers coming to America.
I call on my colleagues to reject this budget for these reasons.
Congress should no longer ignore the fact that homeland security begins
at home, in our communities, towns, and in our cities. Let us do the
right thing by the American people. Let us put a budget together that
protects our Nation.
{time} 1500
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished
chairman of the Education Committee, my friend from California (Mr.
McKeon).
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2007
budget, and I would like to thank Budget Committee Chairman Nussle for
his hard work and leadership, as well as the work of his committee and
staff, in putting together this blueprint. This budget maintains our
commitment to funding our national priorities while exercising fiscal
restraint on behalf of American taxpayers. I think that is the thing
that they should be doing.
This commitment is one that the Education and Workforce Committee has
taken and continues to take seriously. As part of the last budget
process, we placed our student loan and pension insurance programs on a
more solid financial foundation. We expanded benefits for those
attending college and saved taxpayers billions of dollars in the
process. Just like last year, we fully intend to be key players once
again.
My colleagues know that there is no higher priority for the Education
and Workforce Committee than our Nation's students. In this Congress
alone, this House has passed legislation to reform our early childhood
education
[[Page H1597]]
programs, expand college access, and strengthen our job training and
vocational education systems. These reforms have been backed in recent
years by an equally impressive record of funding for our Nation's
education priorities.
As you can see in this chart, over the past decade Federal education
funding has increased by about 150 percent. Breaking these numbers down
further, funding for No Child Left Behind has increased by one-third
since it became law a few years ago, Pell Grants are funded at an all-
time high, and Federal aid to low-income schools is consistently high
as well. Those who claim that we are shortchanging any of these
programs may have rhetoric on their side, but they do not have reality
on their side. The reality is our education priorities are well-funded,
and this budget continues that practice.
But we also must not lose sight of the fact that today's students are
tomorrow's taxpayers, and it is unfair to leave them with exploding
budget deficits. That is why this budget's ability to balance
priorities and restraint is so important.
Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers have a right to know that our top
priorities are well funded, but they also have the right to expect a
return on their massive annual investment in Federal programs. This
budget strikes a responsible balance between the two, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican
budget which, of course, continues to take our country in the wrong
direction. Not only does the Republican budget make harmful cuts to
critical services for working families, it fails to live up to really
any standard of morality.
By eliminating programs like HOPE VI and the Community Services Block
Grant, and by slashing education training and social services funding,
the Republican budget really is an all-out assault on millions of hard-
working Americans.
Further, the issue of economic security which, of course, does not
exist in this budget, economic security is really a critical component
of national security, and the Republican budget even fails to
adequately support homeland security priorities.
I represent one of the largest ports in the country, and I know
firsthand how important port and container security is. Though the Port
of Oakland achieved the ability to screen all cargo coming through last
year, how many other ports are adequately funded to do this? Economic
security and homeland security are put on the back burner in this
budget, and that is simply unacceptable.
So I urge my colleagues to reject this budget resolution, because it
is not a budget that we should be supporting.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget resolution, I want to emphasize
again; is exactly the same when it comes to dollar funding for national
defense-national security, function 050. We are at the very same level,
exactly the same as the House Republican resolution. That includes the
$50 billion they provide toward the cost of operations in 2007 in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
Our resolution also funds foreign affairs, function 150, a bit above
the House Republicans, but below the Senate and below the President's
request.
Though the funding levels are the same, the Democratic budget
resolution calls for a better distribution of the defense budget. The
Democratic budget resolution calls for, among other things, forgoing
higher TRICARE fees on retirees under the age of 65, as the President
and Pentagon have requested; not granting that request; increasing pay
and reenlistment bonuses, badly needed to ensure recruitment and
retention; increasing family support center funding, badly needed for
troops who are deploying now, some for their third tour of duty,
leaving their families behind; funding cooperative threat reduction and
nonproliferation at higher levels; funding the Army National Guard at
350,000 troops, not 17,000 less than that; ensuring $115,000 in death
gratuities, funded retroactively to May 5, 2005; funding free life
insurance in combat zones at $400,000.
Then, to pay for these things, funding missile defense at a
substantial, but lower, level, among other things; de-emphasizing
space-based interceptors; funding transformational, next-generation
satellite development, being pushed along a fast track, at a
substantial, but lower, level; and, finally, implementing the financial
management recommendations that the General Accounting Office has made
in order to make the Pentagon and the Department of Defense more
efficient, particularly in the acquisitions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), the ranking and long-time member of the House Armed Services
Committee, here to discuss the budget for national defense.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I need to share with the Members of this
body the testimony we received at our Armed Services Committee hearing
just yesterday. David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United
States, told us we face a large and growing structural deficit. He
testified as follows: ``Continuing on this path will gradually erode,
if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standards of living, and
ultimately our national security.''
Mr. Chairman, we have been warned. That is why I rise today in
support of the Democratic alternative budget.
The Spratt alternative begins to put us on a sane fiscal path which
will protect our national security. Furthermore, it provides funding
for our critical national security needs that were left out of the
President's and the majority's budgets.
The Spratt alternative would fully fund the end strength, the number
of people, in the National Guard. If one supports the National Guard,
one should vote for the Spratt alternative.
It reverses the cut to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. If
one supports keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of
terrorists, one should vote for the Spratt alternative.
It rejects the TRICARE fee increases proposed by the President. If
you oppose tripling the fees charged to military retirees, one should
vote for the Spratt amendment.
It increases funding for family support centers. If one supports
military families when mom or dad is deployed overseas, one should vote
for the Spratt alternative.
It provides $400,000 of life insurance to servicemembers going into
combat. If one supports taking care of our troops when they pay the
ultimate price, one should vote for the Spratt alternative.
It increases funding for pay raises and reenlistment bonuses. If one
supports rewarding our troops with higher pay, one should vote for the
Spratt alternative.
Like the base bill, the Spratt alternative will extend the enhanced
death gratuity to those families who were previously left out after
September 11.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, I view voting for the Democratic
alternative being offered by Mr. Spratt as crucial to supporting our
national security, and I hope that each of our colleagues who supports
defense will vote with me and for the Spratt Democratic alternative.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons that the Spratt substitute is a
superior alternative to the base bill, but I think among the most
important reasons is the basic credibility and honesty of the Spratt
alternative when it comes to the foreign entanglement issues our
country finds itself faced with today.
The base bill essentially assumes that the conflict in Iraq will wind
down very precipitously and require almost no resources in the coming
fiscal years. I hope that is true, but I think it is wildly imprudent
and recklessly irresponsible to build a budget on that assumption.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. Does the gentlemen know that the Spratt alternative does
the exact same thing?
[[Page H1598]]
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also know that the
Spratt alternative, by forgoing the reckless tax cuts of the majority's
version, gives us the flexibility and resources to meet our true
obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. NUSSLE. But is the money in there in this ``reckless'' plan the
gentleman was suggesting?
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the Spratt alternative, frankly,
leaves room for the supplementals that would be necessary, because it
does not opt for fiscally reckless tax cuts that have put the country
in a position where it is borrowing $25 for every $100 that it spends.
It is true, as the chairman points out, that the Spratt alternative
doesn't lay out the true costs of this adventure in Iraq. But it is
also true that the supplementals that are inevitably coming,
inevitably, that there are resources for those supplementals because of
what Mr. Spratt has done, and there are not resources beyond simply
expanding the deficit because of what the majority has done.
Whether one agrees with the policy in Iraq or disagrees with the
policy in Iraq, the reality is we have to pay for it. To put on the
floor a budget that doesn't pay for it and then takes up resources that
could be used in a supplemental and soaks them up for the majority's
worship at the altar of tax cuts for the wealthy, I think is
irresponsibility beyond compare.
There are a lot of debates one can have about the question of Iraq,
but the debate we cannot have is whether we have to pay for what we are
doing. The majority has put us in a position where we will only pay for
it by borrowing money. Mr. Spratt has put us in a position where we can
follow a more rational path.
I urge adoption of the Spratt alternative.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say to start with, I cannot let that go. In
this body we have had bipartisanship with regard to national defense
for quite a long time, and I hope that continues. But the
irresponsibility of the statement that was just made has got to be
called on the carpet.
The Spratt alternative, everyone has a right to come to the floor
with an alternative, and I have enormous respect for the gentleman from
South Carolina. We are friends. We work together on budgets. He has the
full right to come here. But don't come to the floor and tell us that
we have an irresponsible plan, when your plan has the same numbers,
number one; and, what is more, fills whatever gap you were just talking
about with something called the ``tax gap,'' which is a $290 billion
pipe dream that somehow you are going to collect money on past taxes
from people who didn't pay them.
{time} 1515
Good luck. I would like to see you try. But that is how you fill the
hole, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey. And what is more,
and I will bet it is in your press release already, you claim balance
by supporting the Spratt substitute.
There is only one way you can claim balance, only one way. Do you
know what that is? The way you claim balance is if you spend no more
money on Afghanistan, no more money on Iraq, no more money supporting
troops in the field, no more money for body armor, no more money for
any benefits to those troops that are serving us so well over there in
the Gulf.
So for you to come to the floor, when we have bipartisanship on
national defense 99.9 percent of the time around here, for you to come
here and for you to suggest somehow that it is reckless for us to put
that in our plan when you not only put it in the plan but then somehow
claim balance, there is only one of two ways: You either have some
secret plan to bring the troops home immediately, similar to evidently
what was proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania here not that long
ago, or you intend to have no money for those troops in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
Now, my guess is that is not true, and my guess is I just went over
the line. My guess is that is not what the gentleman intends, and my
guess is that when the bill comes to the floor and when the very
distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the Democrat ranking member and
when the very distinguished gentleman from California, the chairman of
the full Committee on National Defense and Armed Services comes to the
floor, that that will not be the case whatsoever.
But for you to increase the rhetoric down here about some
irresponsible defense plan is irresponsible.
I hope we can put that partisanship back in the bottle, because it
ought to end at the shore when our men and women are fighting in harm's
way, and I hope that the gentleman will check that rhetoric next time
he comes to the floor, because we can have disagreements over a lot of
things, but when the numbers are the same for the same reason because
we have the same passion and concern about our men and women, please, I
would ask the gentleman not to heighten the rhetoric so he can put out
a press release.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) to respond.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, perhaps instead of the rhetoric that the
gentleman from Iowa ought to check is the rhetoric that refuses to ever
consider scaling back the size of the sacred cow tax cut to meet the
honest obligations that this government has to those men and women that
he invoked just a minute ago.
The reality is there will be at least one supplemental on this floor;
the reality is it is not accounted for in the underlying resolution;
and the reality is that, as far as I can see from their past behavior,
the majority would not even consider scaling back the size or scope of
the tax cut in order to finance that supplemental.
Now, I would be thrilled to hear the chairman correct any of those
three assumptions, but I assume that they are accurate. Or, Mr.
Chairman, I would yield to you. Are any of my three assumptions
inaccurate?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. Yes, they are. In fact, we put into the budget an
emergency reserve fund for the purpose of funding that war, the same
way Mr. Spratt does, the exact same amount.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, is that amount sufficient to meet
the supplemental need, do you think? Apparently not.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to keep my remarks along the
lines of the housing and community development concerns that I have as
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Affairs,
but I cannot sit here and witness what I just heard from the opposite
side of the aisle without joining with my colleagues and certainly
calling the Republican budget resolution irresponsible. And certainly
we support the tax alternative, the Spratt alternative, the Democratic
alternative, because not only do we have a more responsible
alternative, we have said over and over again to the opposite side of
the aisle, while the President of the United States has been spending
like a drunken sailor, that you cannot, you cannot wage this war, you
cannot spend the money that has been spent on the military and have the
kind of deep tax cuts that he has imposed upon this Nation, over $2
trillion since 2001. And to add to that, the President of the United
States promised us that we would get money from the pumping of the oil
in Iraq, we would use that money to help rehabilitate, to rebuild Iraq.
But instead they cannot account for $9 billion unaccounted for, and
about $2 billion of that was stolen by Halliburton, and so to challenge
us about responsibility is laughable.
As a matter of fact, when we take a look at this budget, aside from
the disaster that has been caused by these tax cuts, we find that this
budget is cutting the most vulnerable people in our society. When I
look at the fact that persons with disabilities are going to be cut 50
percent in the housing budget, when I look at the fact that the elderly
will be cut by 25 percent, then who are they to call us irresponsible?
[[Page H1599]]
Mr. Chairman, there is a housing crisis in the United States of
America, and not simply because of Katrina and Rita. Those trailers
down there under this administration are sitting, they remain empty,
the public housing units have not been rehabilitated. We are confronted
with a real catastrophe here.
Further, there is not a single metropolitan area where extremely low
income families can be assured of finding a modest two-bedroom rental
home that is affordable, and there are literally millions of people who
are homeless.
I am also concerned about the $736 million in cuts this budget makes
to Community Development Block Grant program. CDBG is an indispensable
program to communities across the Nation for housing, neighborhood
improvements, and public services. My own State of California will lose
$119.7 million and Los Angeles County would lose $41.1 million in CDBG
funding, especially if these cuts are enacted. And I want to tell you,
little towns all over America depend on these.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
First and foremost, we added $1.3 billion back into the budget for
that very purpose on CDBG. So the gentlewoman is mistaken on that
point.
Plus, I am glad the gentlewoman is at least one of the Members who
have been willing to come here and be honest about her lack of support
for the war and what that means for the budget priorities. If you do
not support the war and you do not support the funding, it makes it
clear why you would not put it in there and then claim balance.
We are not trying to pretend to anybody that there are not going to
be expenses in the outyears. We just do not know what they are. And
nobody on either side knows what they are going to be. The Pentagon
does not even know what they are going to be. We hope that they are
minimal, but we have at least put the funding in the budget to
demonstrate that.
The difference is that in this alternative I think we are starting to
see the glimmer of what the plan is really about, and that is a secret
plan to bring the troops home, do it immediately, not fund in the
outyears, claim balance, and as a result not support what we are doing.
That is fine if that is what you want to do. I am glad you are at
least being honest about that and that is exactly what is being planned
in this budget. By not putting the money in there, by claiming balance,
it is clear that there will be no more money for the war in Afghanistan
and the war on terror after this budget year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, in relation to Chairman
Nussle's last offering, let me just repeat once again: the defense
numbers in the two budget resolutions are equal.
In other respects, however, the Republican budget gives us the worst
of two worlds. It takes us over the cliff fiscally, and yet it
underfunds key domestic priorities.
You would like to think that if we are going into $400-plus billion
worth of additional debt, at least we are getting adequate funding for
our domestic needs. But we are getting neither fiscal responsibility
nor an adequate addressing of our needs for investment.
The premise of the Republican budget as submitted by the President
and as presented by our Republican friends seems to be that this
country is going broke because we are doing too much cancer research.
We are going broke because we have too many after school programs. We
are going broke because we are opening up too much affordable housing.
It simply is not true. To scapegoat these sorts of domestic
expenditures is deceptive and reprehensible.
There are many reasons for the fiscal mess that we are in, starting
with the President's tax cuts targeting the wealthiest Americans,
defense and security spending above projected levels, a sluggish and
sporadic economic recovery, and the expansion of health care
entitlement costs. The one item not on the list is domestic
discretionary spending, which is very close to projected levels. Yet
that is the item that is being squeezed in this budget as though that
were the culprit in our fiscal meltdown.
I am happy to say that our Democratic alternative balances the budget
sooner and addresses these pressing domestic needs.
Mr. Chairman, our Federal budget, like our household budget, is a
statement about our priorities, about what we most care about.
We ought to care about our obligation to future generations, to avoid
placing a debt on them. We also have an obligation articulated in
James' epistle in the scriptures. ``Suppose a brother or sister is
without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, `Go, I wish
you well, keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical
needs, what good is it?''
Mr. Chairman, we must take these dual obligations seriously: An
obligation to be fiscally responsible, to avoid loading a burden on
future generations, and at the same time to meet the needs of our
communities, to open up opportunity, to be fair, to bring home the
promise of American life.
Surely there is no better indication of what we really care about and
what we aspire to for this country than the Federal budget that we
enact each year. It is not just abstract numbers; it reveals what kinds
of stewards we wish to be.
The Democratic alternative shows us the way past the President's
``worst-of-both-worlds'' budget, and I urge colleagues to give this
alternative open-minded consideration and support.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, in this budget the function for natural resources and
the environment is not as large as defense, or some of the other
functions, but it is important for the future of our country. In the
function it funds, the natural resources and the environment, our
Republican colleagues again match their President dollar for dollar.
For 2007 the Republican budget provides $28 billion in discretionary
funding for a range of programs. That is $2 billion less than this
year's level, $3 billion less than current services. Here are some of
the cuts: Corps of Engineers cut $596 million, Environmental Protection
Agency cut $304 million, Clean Water State Revolving Fund cut by $199
million, Land and Water Conservation Fund cut $42 million down to $86
million, the National Parks Service cut $102 million, State and private
forestry cut $35 million to $244 million.
Our resolution, the Democratic resolution, restores all of those cuts
and brings the budget for natural resources and the environment back to
current services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Rahall) to discuss the consequences of the cuts that the
Republican resolution would make.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the Budget Committee for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to this budget
resolution for all the reasons that have already been said today, that
will continue to be said this evening, that will be said all day
tomorrow and into tomorrow night until the majority can get the
necessary votes on their side of the aisle to jam it down our throats.
{time} 1530
I want to highlight the negative impacts of the President's budget,
as endorsed by this resolution, on the environmental and natural
resources.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2007 provides funding for
environmental programs which is 6.7 percent below the enacted level in
fiscal year 2006.
That amounts to nearly a 10 percent cut below the level necessary to
maintain current services at the EPA, the Department of the Interior,
and other resource management agencies.
And to add insult to injury, these cuts would come on top of the
previous years of stagnant funding under this administration for these
vital domestic programs.
I also serve on the Transportation Committee, and let me briefly
highlight one of the impacts of this budget on the EPA. Across the
Nation, there is
[[Page H1600]]
a vast array of unmet clean water and safe drinking water
infrastructure needs here in America. Yet the President's budget for
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund calls for a 22.4 percent cut from
the 2006 enacted level. If enacted, that would represent nearly a 50
percent decrease since 2004.
Whether it is in my district in southern West Virginia or any other
Member's district in this country, it is obvious that we need to do
more to ensure clean water and improve public health. Yet this budget
disregards those obligations to the American people and falsely says,
in effect, Mission Accomplished.
The inadequacies of the President's budget are equally detrimental to
the programs administered by the Department of the Interior and other
agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources.
The vast majority of Americans treasure our national parks, national
forests, national wildlife refuges and public lands. Along with the
oceans, Great Lakes and inland waterways, they not only provide habitat
for fish and wildlife, but they are economic engines as well for
adjacent cities and communities.
Yet this constricted budget not only neglects to improve and enhance
this vast array of vital resources and national assets; it fails to
even maintain the status quo. For example, the administration is so
desperate for revenue gimmicks that it has resorted to proposing to
sell off our national forests and public lands in order to fund rural
schools.
Instead of selling public lands to special interests, what Congress
should be doing is increasing funding for critical programs such as the
popular Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The administration proposes to effectively dismantle the stateside
grant program and provide only $91 million, the lowest amount in more
than 30 years, for Federal land acquisition under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
In effect, this would deprive State and local governments of badly
needed funding for local parks and recreation and would further
undercut efforts to acquire new lands to enhance our national parks,
forests, and wildlife refuges.
Ironically, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has an unspent
surplus on the books in the Treasury of over $14 billion, and the
authorized annual spending limit is $900 million.
The purpose of the fund is to dedicate a small fraction of the
enormous revenues generated by drilling offshore on the Outer
Continental Shelf to the conservation of our resources. Yet this flawed
budget, to put it politely, breaks that promise to the American people
and disregards the conservation needs of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, in the budget reconciliation legislation last year, the
Republican majority on the Committee on Resources proposed to expand
drilling in Federal waters offshore coastal States. That proposal,
along with other controversial measures to open up ANWR and sell off
public lands to mining companies, were all stripped from the
legislation prior to enactment. Fortunately, perhaps in light of that
experience, the Budget Committee has not included any instructions to
Resources in this resolution.
But there are legislative proposals pending before the Resources
Committee that would seek to undercut the offshore oil and gas drilling
moratoria restrictions and expand drilling off the coast of Florida and
elsewhere. In fact, these proposals would seek to offer incentives to
approve States to approve drilling based on sharing of revenues which
would otherwise accrue to the Federal Treasury and to the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.
But before Congress proceeds to consider opening wide swaths of
protected coastal waters to the oil and gas industry, we should
carefully evaluate the budgetary aspects of the current drilling in the
Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.
The failure to adequately appropriate the current Land and Water
Conservation Fund surplus is one problem with the current system, but
the broader problem is a failure to collect the Treasury's fair share
of the value of the oil and gas produced on public lands and offshore.
At a time of high prices and record oil and gas company profit, it is
an outrage, let me repeat, simply an outrage that companies are
avoiding paying the 12 to 16 percent royalty on oil and gas that they
extract from public lands and waters. In part, the underpayments are an
administrative problem as the agencies have failed to aggressively
audit the industry; but Congress also shares the blame for enacting
unwarranted royalty relief, first in 1995 and again in 2005, in the
Energy Policy Act.
Of all the industries seeking relief from their obligations to pay
for the privilege of profiting from the extraction of publicly owned
resources, I can think of none less deserving than the oil and gas
industry in the current high price and record profit environment in
which they thrive. Yet it is this politically powerful industry that
the Congress has favored time and again with unwarranted subsidies.
According to an investigation by the New York Times and a recent GAO
draft report, the costs of royalty relief to the Treasury are
staggering. Over the next 5 years, the cost to the Federal Government
will be at least $7 billion in lost revenues and more than $28 billion
if the industry is successful in a pending legal challenge.
And GAO estimates that the losses to the Treasury could range over
the next 25 years from at least $20 billion to as much as $80 billion,
depending on the outcome of industry litigation.
Mr. Chairman, if the Republican majority were serious about the
deficit, it would put a halt to the royalty relief outrage, but this
budget resolution is the worst of both worlds. It does nothing to
improve the collection of revenues from the extraction of resources on
public lands and at the same time it puts a fiscal squeeze on funding
vital environmental programs that cannot effectively function if cut
further.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird), a valued member of our Resources Committee.
Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman.
I just briefly want to put something that average Americans can see
firsthand in this budget. Like me, most Americans love our national
parks, but this budget would cut $102 million from the national parks
budget.
Parks are not only a cherished national treasure; they are a source
of great local economies for communities surrounding and inside the
parks, supporting more than 248,000 jobs and providing annual revenues
of nearly $12 billion.
But the Park Service's annual backlog of operating deficit is $600
million, and the maintenance backlog is now over $6 billion, and the
cuts will only make that worse.
When Americans travel to their parks and are unable to find rangers
to take their kids on nature walks, when trails are unpaved, when roads
are in disrepair, it is the budget and appropriation processes like
this that make that happen.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this budget and fully fund our
national parks and to eliminate over time backlogs in maintenance that
we have there now.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from
Washington's comments, a very important member of the Budget Committee,
although we wish you were on the Resources Committee.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
Budget Committee, and I come to the floor today to speak to a very
important issue, and that is the issue of port security.
I have been listening to the debate, and much of the debate is on the
positive impacts that this budget will have on the economy and on the
family budget, which is where the focus should always be in our lives
here and not so much on the Federal budget. The positive impact that
this budget will mean is it will have more money in the family budget,
more money that the families have to decide where they want to spend
it, as opposed to where Washington wants to spend it.
But let me suggest, as secure as a family can be in their economic
situation, that truly is of no moment if they are not secure at home
and in their business from a physical point of view,
[[Page H1601]]
if we do not have strong homeland security in all that we do, if
economic security does not rise to that merit of importance. That is
why I support what we have done in this House and in this Chamber and
in this conference and in this budget with regard to homeland security
and with regard to border security as well.
When it comes to the overall perspective of homeland security, look
at what we are doing in this budget. While other aspects maybe have
been frozen, as far as spending on homeland security, we are seeing a
3.8 percent increase in spending; and that is as it should be because
we are setting the priority in the right manner.
Now, I do represent the Fifth Congressional District of the State of
New Jersey, the nice part of New Jersey, the very top of it, from river
to river, from the Hudson River to the Delaware River. My district is
one that lives in the shadows of the Twin Towers and 9/11. Mine is a
district that overlooks the Hudson River. Mine is a district that
overlooks that river with two significant ports, Port of Newark and
Port of Elizabeth.
So anything that occurs with regard to homeland security is of
paramount interest to my security. Anything that occurs with regard to
our ports obviously is of paramount interest in my district as well,
whether it is the fact that the people in my district work at those
ports or that the containers come through our district. What happens
there is important.
What happens overall to our security is important in my district.
What happens overall to security of our borders is important, but the
ports are the gateway into this country; and for that reason, we have
to do everything we can to make sure they are secure. This budget does
do that.
As I say, a 3.8 percent increase in homeland security, plus
specifically on ports, we are seeing the Container Port Security
program, that is the CPS program, has grown from $61 million in fiscal
year 2004 to $137 million in fiscal year 2006.
What does that mean? That means an average annual increase of 49.9
percent, almost a 50 percent annual increase, in port security,
appropriately setting where the priorities should be.
Really, Mr. Chairman, that comes down to what we are talking about
here. What this budget does do is set priorities. It sets priorities in
what is important, economic security, homeland security; and I
congratulate the chairman for setting the appropriate points.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a very distinguished member of the
committee.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
I want to commend the Budget Committee Chairman, Jim Nussle, on his
hard work in crafting a strong document that puts our priorities in
line and in order for the coming fiscal year and lays us on course to
reduce the deficit by cutting it in half over the course of 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, I quote the ranking Democrat on the House 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 address. Its greatest moral flaw is it that it
leaves our children a legacy of debt and even heavier burden to bear as
the baby boomers begin to retire.
It is wonderful rhetoric, high and mighty rhetoric, indeed befitting
of maybe this day and this budget debate that we have, but I think it
is disingenuous in terms of what we try to do here on the Republican
budget that we are trying to pass, that we have crafted in our
committee.
I want to tell you about what we are doing in terms of discretionary,
nonsecurity spending. As we well know, we are fighting the war on
terror. We are trying to fund our homeland security and our defense. It
is the necessary and proper thing for a great Nation to do to defend
itself. But what do we do in nonsecurity spending? We hold it to a near
freeze. That is not a cut. It is a near freeze. That is about zero
growth in nonsecurity discretionary spending. I think that is a good
thing, especially when we have priorities that we have to meet in terms
of defending ourselves from enemies around the world. It is better than
the previous year's 1.3 percent growth in this area, and it is better
than the 5-year previous average of about 6.3 percent growth.
So that helps us reduce the deficit and come closer to balance, which
is what we should be all about.
The Democrats, through the rhetoric that I mentioned outlining the
gentleman from South Carolina's quotes, talk about moral choices. Well,
they have moral choices outlined and what they are going to submit for
their Democrat budget. And what do we have there? Well, certainly it is
the old liberal trick, a tax and spend and spend and tax. That is a
moral choice. They want to take more from every American's pocketbook
and spend it here in Washington, D.C., in the name of government. I
think that is wrong, but let us see what they do.
Total outlays over the next 5 years, $139 billion. More in spending
with the Democrat alternative. But look at this, what do they do? How
do they spend that money? There are zero increases for defense,
veterans benefits or for science, which they actually cut.
And I will tell you something, let us look at their moral choices.
They do not want to fund research, but they talk about it. They scream
about it on the House floor, the Republicans are cutting needed health
care services and research. That is wrong and that is wrong rhetoric.
It is not even correct in terms of the facts on it.
What are they doing for defense? They are not spending more than
Republicans. They are not spending it wisely either.
Beyond that, you have certain Members that come out here and scream
that we are not doing enough for veterans benefits. Let us look at what
we have done. We have doubled veterans benefit over the last 10 years.
That is a good thing, and this is a necessary thing for a great Nation
to do. What does their budget alternative do? Nothing for veterans.
{time} 1545
Mr. SPRATT. The gentleman is absolutely wrong. I have sat here and
listened to his misconstruction of my budget for as long as I am going
to take it. He is absolutely, dead-set wrong. He doesn't know what he
is talking about.
Mr. McHENRY. You can use some of your time, Mr. Spratt.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from North Carolina
controls the time.
Mr. McHENRY. Like I said, Mr. Chairman, you can't teach an old
liberal new tricks. It is all about tax and spend.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SPRATT. I am not even going to deign to respond to that. You got
my responses so wrong, I don't know where to start. We provide exactly
the same amount of money for defense. We just had that debate out here.
You weren't on the floor. But I am turning to other topics worthy of
debate.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. I hope the gentleman from North Carolina stays on the
floor.
You know, I am dismayed because this is the first time in a long time
that this branch has upped the President's ante. This budget, the
scheme that you defend, might be the only budget proposal in the world
which actually manages to be worse than the President's original
budget. I want to congratulate you. And that is exactly why the
American people have no confidence in your ability to govern any
longer.
This 5-year budget scheme will only exacerbate the current regressive
tax policies which tax income at a higher rate than assets. You talk
about productivity in the last 5 years? Yes, productivity has increased
by 8 percent, and wages are flat, flat, flat. Income from work from
average Americans can easily be taxed at twice the marginal rate as the
income from wealth from millionaires.
You sit there and you stand there and you defend those millionaire
tax cuts. Donald Trump is taxed less on all of his investments than
Barry the accountant is taxed on his middle income wages.
I am a member of Homeland Security, Mr. Chairman, and let me tell you
[[Page H1602]]
something, I just heard this budget defended in terms of port security
when we know that CBO says that all three major programs are
underfunded and the goods that are coming into this country are not
screened or examined properly. We had a meeting on it yesterday in case
you missed the news.
The reckless tax policies of this budget will only continue to
balloon our national debt, which currently stands at over $8 trillion.
And they stand and defend this, these austere conservatives. This
budget scheme will add an additional $2.3 trillion in debt over 5
years. And by the way, there is no scientific evidence, none
whatsoever, that documents any essential relationship between the tax
cuts you have defended to those making over $200,000 and the
improvement in the economy. Nada, nothing, zero. And yet you keep on
referring to this great economy. Why don't the American people feel
this great economy? Why do just you feel this great economy?
In total, extending the President's tax cuts for the wealthy will
cost $196 billion over only 5 years and $2.5 trillion over 10 years,
the end result of which is fiscal madness; that a millionaire gets a
tax cut of over $150,000 a year while middle income taxpayers only get
a few hundred dollars.
We support those tax cuts to the middle income and to those who are
the working poor. We support increasing the strength of the EITC, the
Earned Income Tax Credit, which your President Ronald Reagan put
together and this President has tried to zero out. You don't want to
help people working.
You don't want people to work. You want to harp about public
assistance. We want to keep people at work. The Earned Income Tax
Credit has not increased, and you should be ashamed of yourselves what
you have done to the middle class and what you have done to the poor
and burdened their children for generations to come.
I thank the chairman for his courtesy.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I am sure I misunderstood what the gentleman just said. You mean to
tell me he supports tax cuts? My goodness. He supports cutting taxes
for people? I can't believe my ears. At a time of deficits? At a time
of national debt? At a time where we are not meeting our obligations
the gentleman is supporting cutting taxes?
My goodness. There is not a scientific scintilla of evidence that
cutting taxes is right, he says, but yet he supports cutting taxes? My,
my goodness. Why would the gentleman be supporting cutting taxes for
people at this desperate time in American history? There must be a
reason.
Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa controls the time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Can I respond, Mr. Chairman, since he is referring to
me?
Mr. NUSSLE. I believe I have the time, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The time belongs to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. I just am shocked. There is no scientific evidence, Mr.
Chairman, but we are understanding that the gentleman, and that there
might even be in the Democratic substitute tax cuts? Why would we do
such a thing when there is no science, when we have desperate times,
when we have deficits? Why would we do that?
Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I hope my colleagues understood what I was trying to point out, and
that is it seems very convenient for Members to come to the floor and
decry the irresponsibility of tax cuts and yet propose them themselves.
Isn't that interesting? Oh, but they are targeted, the gentleman will
say. They are targeted. They are targeted for the exact right one
person they want to target it for.
Our tax cuts reduce taxes for every taxpayer in America. We didn't
pick and choose the winners. We didn't decide who was appropriate and
who wasn't appropriate. Every taxpayer in America, every taxpayer in
America got tax relief under this plan, and it is working because, as
the gentleman fails to understand, last year alone there was a 15
percent increase in revenue.
Because there is scientific data to show that when you allow people
to spend their own money, as opposed to having to come crawling to you
to have a little bit of it back for the dignity that they seek from a
big government; when they make those decisions for themselves, they
make better decisions, and the economy grows and it expands.
We have had 18 quarters of economic growth and expansion with 5
million new jobs created. There is your proof, and that is the reason
why the gentleman comes down now and says, yeah, I am kind of for those
tax cuts; kind of like them now. I don't want them for everybody, I
will pick and choose who I want. I have decided who the winners and
losers in America are going to be because I can make that decision. I
am smart enough to do that.
Well, on this side of the aisle, we believe everybody in America is a
winner. Every taxpayer deserves that kind of respect, and that is the
reason why we reduce taxes for every American. Every American is a
winner in our vision of America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank the
gentleman for yielding. I wish to associate myself with his comments
and his remarks. I certainly want to commend him for his remarkable
leadership on the budget.
Mr. Chairman, what an interesting debate that we have witnessed
today, really a fascinating exchange here on the floor today. And let
me say that the Budget Committee has certainly performed its very
difficult duty I think extraordinarily well. Is the budget we are going
to vote on absolutely perfect? Probably not. But is it a step in the
right direction, a huge step in the right direction? Absolutely, yes.
I find the Democrats' rhetoric today really difficult to understand.
Been following the debate today. I do find it very difficult to
understand. First of all, they don't support the budget because the
deficit is too large. But yet they also don't support the budget
because we don't spend enough. So which is it? Not sure you can have it
both ways.
And what would their answer be? Well, bigger government, that is for
sure. That would be part of their answer. And dramatically higher
taxes. That is for certain as well. And do you think that families who
are struggling to pay for education or child care or home heating bills
or gasoline can afford a tax hike? Do you think that seniors who are
living on a fixed income can afford a tax increase?
Well now, they say they only want to raise taxes only on the rich. We
have just heard that rhetoric. But if past experience means anything at
all, the Democrats' idea of rich is anybody who gets a paycheck.
Absolutely anybody who gets a paycheck is rich, in their views. Or
anyone who is getting a Social Security check. Because we can all
remember that the last time the Democrats had control of this House
they actually raised taxes on seniors' Social Security. Yes, that is
right. If you are getting a Social Security check, the Democrats think
that you are rich and they want to raise your taxes.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we absolutely have to get spending under control,
and this budget is a start but we do need to do more. The American
people are demanding it. We have to keep taxes low because hard-working
families simply cannot afford a tax increase. And I would urge my
colleagues to support the budget resolution and to reject the tax and
spend alternative of the Democrats.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate on this floor
that we all be entitled to our own opinions, but it is not right that
we should all be entitled to our own set of facts. The facts are that
if this budget passes it will be 5 straight years of the largest
deficits in American history.
Do you know in the last 5 years we have raised the Federal debt limit
four times? It is now over $9 trillion. What does that mean to the
average American? It means that every American owes $28,110 of that
debt. That means
[[Page H1603]]
that every child born in America today starts off their life owing
$28,110. That is a fact, but it is not fair.
And it is not fair that we continue to cut revenue that this country
needs to invest in its physical and its human infrastructure. This
budget includes another $228 billion of tax cuts that go overwhelmingly
to the people who need it the least. And yet, we have got 13 million
children in America living in poverty today; we have got over 43
million Americans without any health insurance. And yet look at the
priorities in this budget: You reward those who need help the least and
ignore those who need help the most. That is not fair. That is not
American. That is why this budget shouldn't pass.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to a
distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from New Hampshire
(Mr. Bradley).
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, let me start out by
thanking the chairman for the leadership he has exhibited for so long
on this budget, and certainly wish you well in your future endeavors.
I would like to return the discussion to the veterans discretionary
portion of the budget and thank both Mr. Nussle and Mr. Spratt for
their bipartisan support of my amendment which increased the overall
budget authority by $800 million in this year's budget so that we could
make sure to send an extremely strong message that as a committee, on a
bipartisan basis, we do not support the proposed drug copayment fee
increase or the proposed enrollment fees.
To go back to some of the numbers over the years, because they are
very illustrative of the significant increases that veterans health
care has experienced over the years, last year's appropriated dollar
level was $33.6 billion. This year, under the budget authority that
Chairman Nussle established with my amendment, we move that up to $36.9
billion, which, by my calculation, is a 9.8 percent increase in 1
year's spending alone. This is a significant increase.
Well, beyond just the veterans health care portion of the budget, let
us talk about some of the other things that have happened over the last
several years. In the veterans health care portion of the budget, this
year we recognized that our troops are coming home from Iraq, many of
whom have post-traumatic stress disorders, and so 10 percent of the
budget authority and the spending that the VA does on health care is
related to this very significant issue that is affecting so many of our
Nation's veterans.
The health care facilities, which we have all visited as Members of
Congress, are among the best in our country, and that is because over
the last several years we have almost doubled the amount of
discretionary money that is going into the veterans health care system.
{time} 1600
Not only have we nearly doubled the amount of money, but we have
doubled the number of veterans that are being treated by the VA center
from roughly 2.5 million a decade ago to 5 million today. That is
increased by 1 million veterans in the last 4 years alone. And this
year, as I noted, we are moving from $33.6 billion to $36.9 billion, an
increase of almost 10 percent and we do so without increasing the drug
copayment fee or the enrollment fee.
But beyond just the discretionary portion of the Veterans
Administration budget, we have done an awful lot of other things over
the last several years that are indeed noteworthy. We have more than
doubled the GI education benefit that veterans are entitled to since
1995.
We recently increased the death benefit to $100,000 and increased the
SGLI benefit to $400,000. Since 2001, the VA Home Loan Guarantee
Program has increased by 67 percent. We have dramatically expanded the
number of national cemeteries and their capacity.
We have increased back to the appropriate level of 55 percent
benefits for surviving spouses. It had been 35 percent, and over the
next 5 years and actually phased in by April 2008 it will go back to
the promised level of 55 percent.
Lastly, the whole issue of concurrent receipts, that being when a
military officer, somebody who has served our country for 20 years, has
a disability as a result of their military service, they were the only
Federal employees unable to collect both their disability which they
received as a result of that military service and their retirement pay
which they have earned. We have over the next 10 years, will phase in
that benefit for those who have a disability of 55 percent or greater.
This is indeed an extraordinary record.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, this has been one of those
periodic weeks where a lot of people in the country turn on the
television and they look at this institution and they wonder if we live
in another world.
They see us, or at least one of us, going down the hallway giving
high-fives the day after announcing the end of a career in disgrace,
they hear us obsessing on all kinds of things that do not matter to the
American people, and then they hear this budget debate. And they hear
the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), for whom I have a great deal
of respect, announce that under his budget everyone in America is a
winner.
They must wonder if we live in the same world because I wonder if the
13.5 million American families on Medicaid who have to pay more money
under last year's budget, and more money under this year's budget to go
to the doctor, really think they are winners.
I wonder if the veterans who have served our country who are looking
at cuts in years 2 through 5 under Mr. Nussle's budget think they are
winners.
I wonder if the Guard and Reservists who still will not get a fully
funded TRICARE program think they are winners.
I wonder if the 45 million uninsured that Mr. Moran talked about
think they are winners.
I wonder if the 13.5 million children living in poverty think they
are winners.
The reality is under this budget proposed by the chairman's mark,
some people win under this budget: people who have already been winning
and who have been winning for a very long time. People who need a
little bit of generosity and have counted on a little bit of help from
this city are not winners at all.
I remember the first year I stood in this Chamber as a relatively new
Member when the President of the United States stood in the well and
gave his State of the Union. The one thing I remember this President
saying is this President and this Congress will not leave for other
generations and for other Congresses, I wonder as the President stood
here it occurred to him that all these problems that plague this
country involving the old, the sick, the poor and the young, did he
mean for us to leave those problems for another Congress and another
generation, because the budget of Mr. Nussle does that. It leaves all
of these problems unaddressed by the richest country in the world, and
I think it makes this budget so fundamentally wrong.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to compliment
the gentleman on his turn of phrase. There isn't anybody in the body
who does it better, and I have enormous respect for him as well.
But let me suggest that it is an attitude about who are winners. I
certainly understand as the gentleman knows very profoundly that there
are people who struggle in America. No question.
But if you have an attitude about them being successful, about them
being able to be successful and being able to be winners without
crawling to you, without crawling to me, without having to crawl to
anyone or be dependent on any government or any government check, that
is a different attitude than the one I hear so often from colleagues
who come here saying that the only way they will ever survive is if
government is there, and that is not how our country was founded, as
the gentleman knows better than anyone. That is exactly why we believe
everyone in this country is a winner.
Let me also suggest to the gentlemen that when the President spoke
from that well saying he would not pass off to a new generation the
challenges of this generation, that speech was given approximately 8
months before September 11, 2001. In those 8 months before and in the 5
years since, we have learned a lot, haven't we.
[[Page H1604]]
I would suggest that we are working hard together, often in a
bipartisan way, to ensure that we do not leave terrorism to the next
generation, to ensure that we do not leave Katrinas to the next
generation, and to ensure that we leave prosperity in our economy to
future generations.
Certainly there are short-term challenges and there are short-term
deficits that we need to deal with. But to suggest that the President
somehow woke up today with the same challenges he woke up with the day
he made that speech is either trying to not be honest about history or
forgetting it, or trying to suggest that it did not happen, and I don't
believe the gentleman would suggest that one way or another.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee
(Mrs. Blackburn), who is not a member of the committee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I just love this debate. I love this
day of the year when we come to the floor and we talk about our budget
and we go before the American people to talk about the priorities that
we have, what we see as being important to this Nation, where we place
our hopes and where we place our dreams and where we think about
opportunity.
Another great thing about this day is that this is the day when big
spenders don't have anywhere to hide.
You know, as my colleague from Michigan said, they cannot have it
both ways. We have now watched liberal Members come down here, and this
budget is too fiscally conservative. They say we are not spending
enough. We have to spend more. And then they say you are spending too
much.
If you were a parent, you would go pull out a copy of ``Goldilocks
and the 3 Bears'' and start reading, because nothing is ever going to
suit them.
I know people back home are looking at this debate, and they are
probably scratching their heads because the Democrats say it is too
conservative, it does not spend enough. So let's cut through the
rhetoric and look at what we have got. What they want, what it really
means is that they want to pretend to support spending reductions while
they turn around and they call for more spending. For big spending.
Their stance really doesn't make any sense; but what it does do is
prevent them from having to take a stand for spending restraint. Did
they choose to vote with us for the Deficit Reduction Act? No, they did
not. They chose not to vote for reducing the deficit.
This budget will continue to hold the line on spending. It will
continue to find savings in mandatory spending. We all know this
government spends too much. That is why we have a huge, enormous
bureaucracy in this town that the other side has built as a monument to
themselves. After 40 years of control, 40 years of growing a big old
budget, 40 years of trying to continue to fund it, and they are still
making the same tired, worn-out arguments. They cannot have it both
ways. We are either for reducing spending and getting this under
control, or we are for growing it.
We can make some reductions in spending. We can freeze some things,
hold the line, and that is what we are doing. As I said, they chose not
to support the Deficit Reduction Act. They chose not to support across-
the-board cuts. And because of that, they have chosen not to be leaders
in this issue. So they ought to decide whether they are for more
spending or less spending before they come down here to the floor and
certainly before they go home.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I would simply inform the lady that we
voted for the full budget act that put the budget in balance in 1998
for the first time in 30 years and then again in the year 2000, put it
in surplus by $236 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and let me begin by yielding to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from South
Carolina, and I would say to Mr. Nussle, you could have had 35 or 40 of
us on this side of the aisle if you had done one thing, if you had
combined some of these cuts with some retreat on these tax cuts, not
getting rid of them all together, not getting rid of them in their
whole, but simply pulling some of them back for the wealthiest
Americans. You could have had 35 or 40 of us. You left it on the table,
and it is one of the last things you could have done in your
chairmanship.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Spratt for the tremendous work
he has done on this budget.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his second inaugural address said: ``The
test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of
those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have
too little.''
This is a significant test of our Nation's values, and it is a test
that the Republican budget fails. Let us just skip the rhetoric and
read the bill. The Republican budget increases the budget deficit, and
it explodes our debt. It cuts port security and funds for first
responders. It cuts education, cuts health care, and cuts veterans
programs. In fact, this budget puts a squeeze on working Americans, and
all in exchange for more tax cuts for the wealthiest few.
Democrats offer a clear alternative and new directions. Our budget
that Mr. Spratt is putting forward will balance the national budget by
the year 2012. It rejects the harmful cuts that Republicans have put
forward, and it creates a $150 billion reserve for middle-class tax
cuts.
Democrats believe that a stronger America begins at home. It starts
with budget priorities that secure families and our borders,
strengthens our Nation, and gives hope to those who inherit the
products of our labors.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to be part of
this historic debate.
I want to thank you, Mr. Nussle, and commend you for including the
``sense of Congress'' in the bill that revenues collected through
closing the ``tax gap'' should be applied to the deficit and for debt
reduction.
The tax gap is the difference between the total amount of Federal
taxes owed versus the total amount of Federal taxes actually collected.
The tax gap is caused by unlawful tax evasion when individuals and
businesses fail to report income or fail to file a tax return or report
information which is false.
In 1988, the IRS estimated that this figure was $105 billion. A
recent estimate puts the gross tax gap at approximately $300 billion.
The budget before us today assumes a fiscal year 2007 deficit of $348
billion. Mr. Chairman, the answer to balancing our budget is
eliminating this tax gap and not increasing the taxes on hardworking
Americans.
Does the Federal Government spend too much? In many ways we do. Do we
always get value for our dollar? Sadly, no, we don't always.
But again, I thank Chairman Nussle for putting together a budget that
holds the line on discretionary spending growth. But instead of
increasing taxes on hardworking Americans or adding new taxes to
hardworking Americans, we should concentrate on collecting taxes
already owed under the current tax system.
{time} 1615
Mr. Chairman, one final note. The mere tripling of the tax gap
between 1988 and today shows that the Tax Code has become much too
complex and susceptible to tax evasion. This shows a need for
simplifying the Tax Code and for fundamental tax reforms.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, he who oppresses the poor shows
contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.
Words from Proverbs.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is unfair to the neediest and
most vulnerable Americans. In addition to being unfair, the Republican
budget is also immoral. Through its cuts to CDC, NIH and veterans
health care programs, this budget ignores the health care crisis that
our Nation faces today.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is not only unfair and immoral,
it is also unreasonable. Pell grants and public school programs get no
new funding.
Assisting our neediest and most vulnerable Americans is not a choice,
it is
[[Page H1605]]
a moral obligation. By reducing funding for public housing and food
stamps, the Republican budgets falls short of this moral obligation.
The Republican budget is unfair, immoral and unreasonable. Both the
Democratic and the CBC alternative budgets provide a better way, a more
excellent way to help all of our people. I urge all of my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on the Democratic and CBC alternatives, to vote ``no'' on
the Republican budget resolution.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bonner), a member of the committee.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, since I was over here a few minutes ago
speaking about what this budget does to protect our homeland security,
Mr. Chairman, I went back to my office and turned on the TV and
listened to some of the comments, and so I came back over to thank you,
thank you for having the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon,
because you would have to have both to know the difference between some
of the allegations and distortions that have come out from our friends
on the other side. And they are our friends. They love this country
like we do. They just see things in a slightly different way in their
view of America versus the facts and reality that this budget is
helping to set the record straight.
One program in particular, Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you for
listening, is the Community Development Block Grants. Several weeks ago
the mayors of America, the county commissioners and other community
leaders came to this body and said, this is a program that works. It
allows the Federal tax dollar to go to communities and put the money
where it works for the people that live in these communities, that pay
those taxes that allow us the privilege of working up here.
And so whereas there had been a proposal to make cuts last year and
this year in the budget, your budget, our budget, the budget we passed
last year and the budget hopefully we will pass this week not only
takes those cuts and puts them aside, but restores additional funding.
Last year it was $1.1 billion more, and this year under your mark, Mr.
Chairman, it is $1.3 billion more to a program that we know has great
merit in the cities and counties throughout this country.
So really I just came back over, Mr. Chairman, to say thank you.
Thanks for listening to us as you have. This will be your last year to
chair this process. But the legacy you leave behind is one that makes
all of us who have worked with you proud, and I know it especially
makes the people of Iowa very proud of the work you have done. Thank
you very much.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished lady
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the last time the American
people had chicken feathers it was President Hoover who promised a
chicken in every pot, and his economic policies collapsed.
Today I tell you that the resolution and budget that is offered by
the outgoing chairman and the Republican Party is collapsing on the
American people. Republicans increased the debt limit by $3 trillion,
families without hope, women and children without hope, and a tax cut
that breaks the backs of all Americans.
What this budget does, it cuts affordable housing, it cuts higher
education, Medicare, and for the veterans who are coming home injured
from the war in Iraq there is no light at the end of the tunnel. There
is no door open for them.
And so I ask my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and
the CBC alternative budget because you know, in fact, we are not
worried about an America who is willing to help those who are in need.
We believe that is a good America. I am sorry to say that Republicans
believe that those Americans are un-American.
A $3 trillion debt. You know that this budget is a bunch of chicken
feathers.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join many other colleagues of mine in
expressing disappointment in this budget resolution.
What we have under consideration today is a budget that forgets the
American people in the name of supposedly American ``values.'' How can
we say to our children, to our elderly mothers and fathers, to our
neighbors, to those who reach out to us as Members of Congress to
secure and protect their rights under the constitution--how can we say
to them that we are engrossing a budget that cuts their healthcare,
their education, their livelihoods, and resources to their communities?
What do I tell my constituents when they call to say that their safety
net has shrunk?
I fiercely believe that Congress must speak on behalf of those who
most desperately need a voice. I speak today not only as a Member of
Congress, but as an American woman on my own behalf. This budget
ignores many of my concerns, and the concerns of American women.
There are 20 million women in this country who struggle to make a
living, who struggle to find adequate health care, who struggle to
raise their children into upstanding citizens, who struggle to either
attain education for themselves or educate their children.
Our country is a great nation among nations, and although we must be
more informed, measured, and wise in how we pursue our foreign policy,
we are also committed to bringing stability to many regions and
countries around the world. However, we should not pursue our foreign
policy ambitions at the expense of our families and communities. One
does not substitute the other.
economy and Welfare
Nearly 70 percent of adult food stamp recipients are women, and the
budget we are now considering would leave 300,000 women vulnerable to a
loss of their food stamps. Food stamps are not handouts--food stamps
are economic exchange for staples such as bread, and milk, and eggs.
What message are we sending when we cut the assistance our most needy
population receives to purchase food?
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides nutritious
food packages to low-income seniors and pregnant women, infants and
children, has been identified as one of many programs to be completely
eliminated.
The President's budget cuts $6.3 billion in Social Security benefits
over 10 years by eliminating the survivor benefits safety net for women
and children. This benefit can make the difference between subsistence
and destitution, and it is heartbreaking that Congress could even
consider pocketing funds rightly earned and needed by our constituents
and their families.
The budget also completely eliminates the Women's Educational Equity
Act, which has funded hundreds of programs to expose girls to careers
from which they have traditionally been excluded. The Women's
Educational Equity Act was introduced in Congress by Representative
Patsy T. Mink in 1973 as a complement to the proposed equal rights
amendment, ERA, and to title IX. This program, which only received $3
million this year, provides educational materials to help schools
comply with title IX, research and information to help schools promote
equality between boys and girls, and technical assistance.
Healthcare
Unfortunately, Medicare will also suffer under this budget, getting
slashed by $36 billion over 5 years and $105 billion over 10 years. It
is a fact that over 56 percent of Medicare recipients are female, and
many of these women have very limited means of income to support
themselves. Medicare is supposed to be the crutch for the elderly, even
though we do not yet have a plan to address their primary concerns:
chronic illness and long-term care. And yet this budget continues the
misguided policy of dissolving this crucial program.
We are also looking at a proposal that consists of gross Medicaid
cuts, including both legislative and regulatory cuts, of $17 billion
over 5 years and $42 billion over 10 years. On top of the deep Medicaid
cuts that Congress enacted in 2005, Republicans are willing to stifle
State programs that help children get healthcare. It sounds heartless,
and I have not heard a convincing argument to the contrary.
The administration's budget would increase funding for abstinence
education programs by $89.5 million for a total of $204 million in
fiscal year 2007. I agree that the most effective way to prevent the
transfer of STDs and the occurrence of pregnancy is abstinence.
However, time and again, it is proven that abstinence education is not
effective, and that the emphasis needs to be on birth control and safe
sexual practices. Just this week, the GAO criticized the Bush AIDS/HIV
program in Africa for diverting needed funds and focus--in fact, U.S.
coordinating officers actually stated that the abstinence focus
undermined previous education efforts and confused communities.
Abstinence is a fine message in some cases, but must not be the primary
message, and must be supported by factual and clear information.
[[Page H1606]]
Education
For a President who insists that he cares so much about education at
every level and for every child, it is a strange thing to realize that
the Republican 2007 budget resolution cuts spending on education by 29
percent.
The Bush budget freezes Head Start funding at this year's level,
meaning that 19,000 children will have to be cut from Head Start next
year. Similarly, the budget cuts Even Start, a program targeted to
combat low literacy, to encourage family supported programs, and help
children with limited English proficiency. We have strong indications
that these programs give underprivileged children access and exposure
that helps them succeed in school a year or two later. Perhaps if this
program had ever been fully funded, we would know definitively that
this program has the potential to launch every child toward educational
and life-long success. It is a shame that the President is more
interested in Scantron fill-in-the-bubble standardized tests rather
than a nurturing and effective education.
Over the past several years, Congress has slipped backward in its
commitment to fully fund IDEA, from a high of 18.6 percent in fiscal
year 2005 to the proposed level of 17 percent in President Bush's
fiscal year 2007 budget proposal instead of the promised 40 percent.
Under the budget, IDEA would receive $10.7 billion, a $1.2 billion
decrease below fiscal year 2006. Of that amount, $380.8 million would
be available for preschool grants and $436.4 million would be available
for grants for infants and families.
Funding for vocational education programs would be eliminated under
the fiscal year 2007 budget. Congress allocated $1.31 billion for
vocational education in fiscal year 2006. The unfulfilled promises are
countless, and each more self-defeating than the last.
At 4-year public universities, tuition and fees increased by 7
percent this past year and 57 percent since President Bush took office.
About 40 percent of African-American students and 30 percent of
Hispanic students depend on Pell grants, compared to 23 percent of all
students. Two-thirds of Perkins loan recipients are from families with
annual incomes of $40,000 or less.
Yet, the Perkins loans took a hit on the Republicans' fiscal year
2007 budget resolution and would recall $664 million from Federal
Perkins loan funds from nearly 1,800 colleges in 2007. As a result,
463,000 college students would lose a key part of their financial aid.
Six years ago President Bush promised to increase the maximum Pell
scholarship for all college freshmen to $5,100. Unfortunately, this
budget is now the fourth time that the President and Republicans in
Congress have frozen the maximum Pell grant. About 40 percent of
African-American students and 30 percent of Hispanic students depend on
Pell grants, compared to 23 percent of all students. These numbers
indicate the need and the demand for assistance to achieve a higher
education and a greater chance at lasting success.
I share the fear and concern that every Member of Congress and every
American citizen feels in regards to defending our homeland, but what
kind of homeland are we defending? What do we want it to be? Each of
these programs is designed to enrich our society and fulfill our
obligations as a civilized nation to our citizens.
Even the youngest school-children are sensitive to dishonesty, and by
breaking our word and cutting funding to mandated programs, we are
teaching our children to distrust their government. We need them to
grow into the upstanding citizens we know each of them has the
potential to be.
We want our Nation to be educated, confident, capable,
internationally competitive, and safe. This budget undermines each of
these. I ask, urge, cajole, and demand that we reconsider this budget,
that we remember who our greatest priority is--the American people.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, what are the
priorities of the Republican majority? This is the greatest deficit in
the history of the United States. How are they going to pay for the tax
cuts? They are going to borrow the money from India and China to pay
for tax cuts.
What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Democrats
say middle class and working class people can use tax cuts. But in a
time of war, the greatest deficit in our history, the richest people in
the country don't need tax cuts. If you have $1 million a year income
or $10 million a year income you don't need your tax cuts.
The gentleman says everybody should have them. But in a time of
scarcity, when you cut funds for veterans, you cut funds for kids going
to college, you cut funds for people with children with disabilities,
you don't continue to give the money away to the richest people in the
country.
That is the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, it is time the American people got a
refund because what they are getting out of this Congress they didn't
pay for.
In every war, from Lincoln with the land grant colleges, Kennedy
during the Cold War, who built literally NASA and put a man on the
Moon, to Roosevelt, who thought of during World War II the GI Bill of
Rights, every President in the middle of a war has thought about how to
bring home the peace and invest in our future. It is only this
President with this Congress, in the middle of the war, who cuts
education while Americans are trying to get their kids to school, who
cuts health care while we face skyrocketing costs in health care, who
cuts the police program while cities are facing a shortage of police.
It is only this President in the history of his predecessors who
stands on their shoulders and does exactly the opposite with this
budget. It cuts back our investments in the future of America in a time
of war where every President prior to him thought of America post that
war and invested in its future, putting a man on the Moon, a GI Bill of
Rights, an Atlantic to Pacific railroad system, at every point in our
history.
President Kennedy said that leadership is about priorities. To govern
is to choose. The majority has made its choices, and their priorities
are clear for all to see. Now it is up to the American people to demand
change.
This budget by the Republican majority is a status quo budget that
says, if you liked the last 6 years of working harder, making less,
costing more for education, costing more for health care, costing more
for your retirement, then vote for this budget. It maintains the status
quo.
It is time for new priorities. It is time for a change.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). Does the gentleman from
Iowa have further speakers?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and we are
prepared to close. I believe I have the right to close the general
debate, and we are prepared to close debate at this point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina has 30
seconds.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I will use those to say one thing that I
haven't said, and that is, in reading this entire resolution which we
offer, you will find four separate reserve funds for the improvement of
health care. For example, we provide a reserve fund to cover an
increase in Medicare payments to physicians to avoid a cut, a
sustainable growth rate cut of 4.6 percent. We say that if you can
bargain down the price of prescription drugs, you can put the savings
in a reserve fund and use it to improve coverage under Medicare for
prescription drugs, closing the donut hole, for example. So I would
commend that to everybody's attention. There is a real difference
between our budget resolution and theirs, and I ask support for ours.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, this is always a challenging debate
because what, unfortunately, is not part of the discussion, in the
debate back home in particular, is that numbers very rarely demonstrate
results; that when you talk about a budget, when you hold up a document
which, it is interesting, I have heard so much debate today about we
are cutting this, we are cutting that, we are slashing, we are
eliminating, all sorts of things.
The budget of the United States basically is 43 legislative pages
long, and you can't find those in here because what the budget does is
it sets a framework, is all the budget does. It sets a framework, no
different than what families do around their kitchen tables every day.
They set a framework, a budget. And then as the bills come in, they
apply those bills to that framework and determine whether they are
over, whether they are under, what
[[Page H1607]]
they can afford, what they can't afford, if there is an emergency what
they are able to borrow, how much they are going to be able to invest
in their kids' college or whatever it might be. Those are budgets, and
we have no different course of budget right here.
It is a framework. Within that framework many decisions will be made
this year, decisions about education, decisions about homeland
security, decisions about national defense, decisions about what we are
going to do in order to meet many needs, many challenges, some choices,
some circumstances that we know will rise this year and years to come.
We have decided that in order to write this budget we had to anchor
it to some pretty important principles, and that is what we tried to
do.
First, what are our strengths? As a nation, the most important
strength we have is our people. I mean, that is what this is about.
Those are the three first words of our Constitution, ``We, the
people,'' not government, not bureaucracy, not government programs, not
entitlements, not any of that, but ``We, the people.'' That is what is
the strength.
And our people, I will tell you what, when you allow, when you
unleash them, when you empower them, when you give them the incentive
of American ingenuity to go out and do things, I have got to tell you,
it is unbelievable to watch.
In my own home State, you see farmers produce the food for the world.
You see that in so many places around our country. You see small
businesses, I am sure in the gentleman from South Carolina's district,
my friend, create jobs and opportunities and services and manufactured
goods that not only supply the United States but supply the world. And
when you unlock the economy, when you allow people to make those
investments for themselves, I will tell you what, it is a wonderful
thing to watch. And that is something beautiful about our country that
has really been the reason why we are the economic wonder of the world,
why we are the economic leader of the world.
There is no question that there are other places around the world
that would love to be like the United States when it came to our
ability to invent, our ability to create, our ability to serve so many
people, not only here in the United States but around the world. But if
we don't continue to build on that strength, it could very well be
lost, and that is the reason why as part of this budget plan we
continue the work to grow the economy, because that is number one.
{time} 1630
The second item that this is built on is our military strength, our
strength of power, our strength of being able to defend freedom here in
this country and around the world. And there is no question that there
will be differences of opinion on every side about this conflict or
that conflict, but there is bipartisan agreement always on the fact
that our United States military is number one. It needs to stay number
one. When we put a man or a woman in uniform and ask them to go away
from their family or their community, we make sure and we ensure and we
do everything we can within budgets like this and like the budget that
Mr. Spratt is presenting and like all budgets, we ensure that they have
the best, that they can be the fastest, they can be the strongest. And
certainly there are going to be differences of opinion of exactly how
that can be accomplished; but the goal is the same, and our budget
accomplishes that.
We also believe that we need to defend our Nation differently than we
ever have before. I understand that there are some people who come to
the floor who think it is pretty easy to write a budget. Just do this,
just do that. Try to do it after 9/11. Try to do it after wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and the global war on terror. Try to do it after
Katrina. Try to do it when 13 million people are crossing our borders
unchecked.
We have enormous challenges with regard to homeland security. We meet
those challenges as part of this budget. Will there be differences of
opinion in priority of how to meet those challenges within the rest of
the process that we will engage in this year? Yes, of course, and there
should. But we ought to also limit that spending and say this is how
much we are going to dedicate to that, and, again, our proposals are
similar.
But in addition to that, we also know that the government can
overstep its bounds. It can spend too much. And just like every year,
we hear about pork barrel spending. We hear about earmarks. We hear
about those special projects. Part of the reason that we have those is
when we have unlimited funds to spend, people get pretty creative on
how to spend it. Either as a constituent coming from Iowa or as
constituents from around the country, I have never had a constituent
come into my office and say, Jim, this project I am about to show you
is not worthy of funding. In fact, they never tell me that we are
spending just enough. They almost always say we would like a little bit
more.
So what a budget does is it says there is the top line; that is the
most we can spend. And while there are certainly worthy projects that
we need to fund this year, there are also projects that need oversight,
scrutiny, need to be reformed, need to be changed, need to be put off
until next year, or here is a word that we rarely say particularly in
an election year: How about ``no,'' we are not going to fund that; it
is a crazy idea. And to look them in the eye and be able to tell them
that is certainly a difficult job, but it is one that we have to do. By
setting that top line on spending, we accomplish that. Again, this is
what this budget does.
Finally, let me say that we do one more thing that we believe is very
important, and it is a lesson that I learned one of my first years here
in Congress during the great Mississippi flood of 1993. But,
unfortunately, I and every one of my colleagues have relearned it
almost year after year after year, and that is, regardless of what we
have put in these budgets, there are unforeseen circumstances that will
occur whether we like it or not. It could be an earthquake. It could be
a flood. It could be the biggest hurricane in our history hitting
almost a direct hit on one of our most cherished cities.
No matter what we put in this budget, we may have a war. We may have
a terrorist attack. We may have things happen that are outside of our
control. But we know that they are probably out there and that they are
lurking, and so what we have put into this budget is not only a fund in
an emergency way to deal with that war, but, also, for the first time
we have set money aside recognizing that we may have that earthquake,
we may have that flood, we may have the tornadoes like we had this last
weekend, and we had darn well better set some money aside for that
rainy day, just like that family sitting around that kitchen table
saves just a little bit to deal with what might be a leaky roof or a
refrigerator that goes on the fritz.
We have got to deal with those problems, and I believe this budget
accomplishes that. And it does so in a way that recognizes what I tried
to say in this debate. We believe in those people that we represent. We
want them to be winners. We know there are challenges. We know there
are people who need our help regardless of their ability to help
themselves. And even though that is certainly the compassion of this
country, we ought to respect the fact that dignity does not start with
a government check. Dignity does not start by somebody crawling to a
Federal agency and saying please help me. That is not dignity in
America. Dignity does not start with a government check or with a big
government bureaucracy.
Dignity starts by recognizing our personal freedom granted to us by
our Creator, not granted to us by a government bureaucracy or granted
to us by the United States Congress. We fought a revolution over the
fact that we are free and that our dignity starts in our heart because
it is given to us by God, not by government, not by anybody else. And
for us to continue to perpetuate the myth that the only way to
distribute compassion in this country is by handing out freedom or
handing out government or handing out a check to people, that that is
the only way they will get it, I believe that is an unfortunate
juncture that we find ourselves in in this country.
Our budget does not continue to perpetuate the belief that in order
for you to have dignity, it is found in these pages or it is found on
this floor or it is found somewhere in Washington,
[[Page H1608]]
D.C. The most dignified things that happen in this country are the
decisions that are made by people and families in freedom in the United
States of America, and the only way that can continue is if we continue
to perpetuate that freedom.
So while there is certainly going to be a lot of rhetoric about how
for some reason we are cutting programs, we are slashing this, we are
gouging that, when it comes right down to it, it is because we do not
believe that these programs measure our compassion as a Nation. The
only way that is measured is by getting people to be able to help
themselves and creating the opportunities to pass on to the next
generation. That was done for me by my parents. That is something that
I hope to do for my kids, and it is something that we all hope for. And
it is not something we look for from government.
So I hope that we, over the course of the next days or time, pass
this budget, which sets a blueprint down that not only measures our
ability to deal with certain challenges. It sets resources aside to
deal with challenges that may be unforeseen, and it recognizes that
freedom starts with the individual. It does not start in this Chamber
or in this document.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, women understand the difference this
budget can make in improving their lives and, their families' lives.
Everyday, whether it is ovarian and breast cancer research, college
loan assistance, or nutrition program, for low-income seniors, women
are reminded how our sense of opportunity is in so many ways
inseparable from our Nation's health, education and labor
infrastructure.
But when it comes to this budget, our investment in each of these
areas is cut. Pell Grants, Head Start, housing programs, child care,
even the president's own No Child Left Behind education program--all
fall victim to Republicans prioritizing tax cuts for the few over
investments in the future of all Americans.
Republicans had an opportunity to show their commitment to women and
families when I offered an amendment that would have simply restored $7
billion of funding to our communities, our community health centers and
hospitals, our school districts and one-stop employment centers. It
would have restored funding for lifesaving research at the NIH--
research that saved this woman's life nearly two decades ago. This
funding would have impacted every woman and her family at all levels of
income in one way or another. But Republicans turned it aside on a
party-line vote.
Mr. Chairman, women deserve a budget that supports them--a Congress
that supports them. And as women are increasingly realizing, they are
getting neither.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican
Budget Resolution and in favor of the Substitute offered by
Representative Spratt.
Despite record-breaking deficits and a skyrocketing national debt,
the Budget Resolution before us continues the Majority's `spend now/pay
later' policy which has gotten us into a historic fiscal mess.
Former House Republican Leader Dick Armey accurately described the
Republican's fiscal management when he told the Wall Street Journal in
2004, ``I'm sitting here, and I'm upset about the deficit, and I'm
upset about spending. There's no way I can pin that on Democrats.
Republicans own this town now.''
I think it's important to note that there's always been a choice.
Every year for the last 5 years, Democrats have offered alternate plans
to balance the budget. Every year we've been defeated by the Majority.
Over that time, the Majority's budgets have turned a projected 10-
year surplus of $5.6 trillion into a projected 10-year deficit of
nearly $4 trillion, posting record annual deficits over that period.
The single largest cause of this turnaround has been the tax cuts
enacted in 2001 and 2003. The tax cuts, by themselves, represent
approximately half of the deficits we've accumulated since 2001.
What we see again in this year's Republican budget is more of the
same. Passage of their budget will increase the deficit by $348 billion
in Fiscal Year 2007 and by a total of $1.1 trillion over the next 5
years. Although it never achieves a balanced budget, this Republican
plan insists on more tax cuts.
That's not the whole story. This budget masks the true cost of the
deficit because it continues to spend every cent of the Social Security
Trust Fund. Without dipping into the Trust Fund, the Republicans would
post a deficit of more than $600 billion in Fiscal Year 2007.
The costs of the debt and deficit are huge. In Fiscal Year 2007, the
United States will spend $243 billion to cover the interest payments on
the national credit card. This represents the fastest-growing part of
the budget.
The Republican budget also presents the false claim that its spending
cuts will reduce the deficit. Over the next 5 years, the proposal cuts
$5 billion from mandatory programs (such as Food Stamps and
Unemployment Insurance) and $127 billion in domestic discretionary
programs, such as education, veterans benefits, environmental
protection, and scientific health care research, but instead of paying
down the debt, these alleged `savings' will partially pay for $228
billion in tax cuts.
We've seen this bait-and-switch before. Just two short months ago,
the President signed into law the so-called Deficit Reduction Act. The
$40 billion in cuts in this legislation came from reductions in student
aid programs ($12 billion), Medicaid ($7 billion), and Medicare ($6.4
billion). At nearly the same time, the House passed a tax cut bill at a
cost of $56 billion. Provisions in this bill will give anyone who earns
$1 million or more a year an average tax break of $32,000.
The cuts in services will be painful and unwise. Over the next 5
years, this budget will cut veterans' healthcare services by $6
billion, education by $45.3 billion, healthcare by $18.1 billion, and
environmental protection by $25 billion. Once again, these spending
reductions will cover only part of the $228 billion in additional tax
cuts, guaranteeing deficits for at least the next decade.
The net result of this budget are more tax cuts for the wealthy, a
reduction in social services for working families, and never-ending
debt for future generations. This fiscal policy is not only
unsustainable, it's immoral.
As in past years, we have a choice. The Substitute offered by Mr.
Spratt reduces the deficit year-to-year and reaches a balanced budget
by 2012. The Substitute re-establishes pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules so
that any new tax cuts and any new spending are paid for by spending
cuts or revenue increases.
The Substitute also proposes $160.5 billion more than the House
Republican budget for key areas, including education, health, veterans,
and environmental protection while maintaining funding for defense and
providing more funding for key homeland security priorities, such as
port security.
Within the context of a balanced budget, the Substitute provides
funding for tax relief for low and middle income taxpayers.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and instead support the
Democratic alternative that will restore fiscal responsibility and
honor the best of who we are as Americans.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Spratt
budget substitute and in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 373, the
Republican budget.
Our sons, daughters, and neighbors are bravely fighting wars abroad.
Unfortunately, when they return home, they will find a country that has
lost its way. We pay lip service to shared sacrifice, but while they
risk their lives for us, Republicans in Congress are providing tax cuts
for the richest 1 percent of Americans, slashing programs for working-
class families, and turning their backs on the middle class. The budget
before us today continues these policies. It does not represent the
priorities of the American people, nor does it respect the values our
soldiers are fighting to protect.
For too long, Republicans have racked up charges on the national
credit card, while passing the bill on to future generations. Now is
our chance to set this country on the proper course to ensure America's
economic success and protect our grandchildren from having to pay for
today's irresponsible decisions.
There is a better way. Despite the horrible fiscal outlook facing our
Nation due to Republican policies, the Spratt substitute still manages
to balance the budget in 6 years, cut taxes for the middle class, and
provide realistic funding for education, health care, and veterans
programs, all of which are shortchanged by the Republicans.
The Spratt substitute has a better bottom line than the Republican
budget every year. Fiscal responsibility today will lead to lower
deficits, smaller interest payments, and less national debt in the
future. Most significantly, after the budget is balanced, we can
finally begin to pay off the trillions of dollars in debt that have
accumulated since President Bush took office.
Unfortunately, the budget proposed by House Republicans does nothing
to improve the quality of life in America. It would add $348 billion to
the national debt next year alone. Under Republican stewardship, the 5
years between fiscal year 2003 and 2007 will provide us with the five
largest deficits in American history. This is not a legacy worth
continuing. We cannot afford to borrow additional money to continue
paying for failed economic policies.
Not only does the Spratt substitute match the President's request for
defense spending, but it also includes additional needed funds for
homeland security programs, including port security. As a member of the
Homeland Security Committee, I am concerned that the Republican budget
closely mirrors the President's
[[Page H1609]]
budget, which proposes to eliminate several programs important to the
safety of all Americans. Programs on the chopping block include the
COPS Interoperability Grant Program, the SAFER Program for firefighting
equipment, the Metropolitan Medical Response System, the Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and Justice Assistance
Grants. In 2005, these programs provided more than $13 million in
grants to help Rhode Island's first responders keep my constituents
safe. Since September 11, we have asked our police and firefighters to
do so much more, but this budget fails to provide the resources they so
badly need.
In addition, the budget would freeze or cut all non-homeland security
discretionary spending. If the Republicans have their way, 5 years from
now, education and health programs will receive less than they do
today. Cuts to social programs would place a larger burden on the
working class at a time when they can least afford it.
Even with all of these cuts, the Republicans still have no plan to
balance the budget. Instead, they want to give away the savings to the
wealthy by making permanent tax cuts on investment income. As the New
York Times indicated yesterday, ``Americans with annual incomes of $1
million or more, about one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped
43 percent of all the savings on investment taxes in 2003.'' At the
same time, those earning less than $50,000 saved an average of only $10
on the same capital gains and dividend tax cuts. The wealthiest
Americans are doing fine on their own, and we should not be borrowing
money to give them tax cuts.
Deficit spending has stymied job growth and is plaguing our economy.
No Rhode Islander would write a check without sufficient funds to cash
that check. Neither should the government. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting the Spratt budget substitute and opposing the
underlying Republican plan.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
budget resolution and in support of the Democratic substitute.
The President and the Republican majority like to take credit when
there's a better statistic to report about the economy. Those stats
might mean something to the fortunate few in the top income bracket.
But middle-class families struggling to keep up with soaring tuition,
health care and gas prices don't have much to celebrate. And a budget
that builds on a strong economy for all Americans shouldn't be one that
allows more pensions to evaporate and tears more holes through the
safety net.
Is there any doubt today that this Administration's first priority
has been--and continues to be--tax cuts for the wealthiest at the
expense of education, health care, scientific research and other middle
class priorities, all of which are being cut to pay for these tax cuts?
But my main concern is the hypocrisy of this budget--that extending
dividend, capital gains, and tax cuts for millionaires and corporations
are like a rising tide that lifts all boats. We've already proved more
needs to be done than just hope that sooner or later tax cuts will
reach Americans who need our help the most.
Why, for instance, are we saddled with recordbreaking deficits
exceeding $400 billion; $3 trillion in new debt since 2001; a debt
limit now over $9 trillion; and deep cuts to hospitals, schools, and
security? If our tax cuts performed as our friends on the other side of
the aisle had promised, an exploding economy would have wiped out this
debt.
How can we possibly justify a budget that cuts taxes for millionaires
worth more than President Bush requested for the Department of
Education and more than twice his budget for the Department of Veterans
Affairs?
The answer is that we can't justify the choices made to produce this
budget. Under this resolution, Mr. Chairman, those who need our help
the most must get in line and hope that the benefits of tax cuts for
millionaires and corporations will ultimately trickle down to them.
Mr. Chairman, middle-class Americans deserve much better.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, ``I believe that the
current budget proposal does not accommodate really crucial city safety
net needs, education needs and health care needs . . . (and) I have
tried as clearly as I could to lay out my concerns, which frankly are
shared by a significant number in this caucus.'' Now, you might think
that this quote was taken from someone in the Democratic leadership, or
the Congressional Black Caucus, but no: This is a quote from a
Republican Member of the House of Representatives. And I ask, why, my
colleagues, was this said? Well, the answer is simple.
The Republican leadership is robbing from the poor to give tax cuts
to the rich. That's what this budget, and this debate, are all about.
We are talking about priorities here folks, and this Republican budget
certainly makes it clear who the party in power supports, and who they
don't.
Who do they support? That's easy: big insurance companies, HMOs,
millionaires on Wall Street, the oil industry and huge defense
contractors, that's who. And who don't they support? Well, that
question is easy too, just look at who gets the short end of the stick
in this budget: teachers, police, first responders, students, our
veterans, and the elderly. Yes, since the Republican takeover it's the
same old story folks: drastic cuts in vital social service programs,
and going so far as to eliminate food programs for poor children and
their mothers! This is a mean, mean spirited budget, my colleagues, and
we need to send it right back to the smoky back room where the
lobbyists and Republican leadership wrote it!
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah). All time for general debate
has expired.
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Burgess) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had
come to no resolution thereon.
____________________