[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 2120-2121]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              STATEMENT ON THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2007 BUDGET

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 16, 2006

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to President 
Bush's proposed budget for fiscal year 2007. Once again, the President 
claims he can have it both ways by making permanent tax cuts while 
halving the deficit by 2009. However, the numbers tell a different 
story. This year's budget proposal, if enacted by Congress, would 
result in a budget deficit of $423 billion, the largest in our Nation's 
history, and this amount would increase dramatically once the tax cuts 
take effect in 2011. Every American family knows that you cannot 
continue to spend more money than you take in, and the President must 
acknowledge this fact before it is too late.
  To reduce this record deficit, we must make difficult choices, and 
both spending and taxes need to be on the table. The President has not 
made these difficult choices, and should Congress follow this budget, 
working families will be left on their own as the Government again 
favors only the wealthiest Americans.
  In order to partially pay for the irresponsible tax policies, the 
President attempts to cut spending in several areas, notably health 
care and education. Medicare would be reduced by $36 billion over 5 
years by reducing already low payments to health care providers, who 
would be less willing to accept Medicare patients. The National 
Institutes of Health, which researches life-saving cures for numerous 
diseases such as cancer and Parkinson's Disease, would in effect 
receive a cut outside of funds earmarked for biodefense. While I 
support measures to increase our preparedness for outbreaks such as a 
potential pandemic flu, these funds should not come at the expense of 
research to cure ailments like heart disease.
  In December, I distributed surveys to every school and district in my 
congressional district to determine the level of emergency 
preparedness. Most respondents indicated they had not properly 
rehearsed their emergency plans, and nearly a quarter of the schools 
and districts did not even know whom to ask for help. Fortunately, the 
Department of Education's Safe and Drug-free Schools and Communities 
program provides grants to help schools develop and implement emergency 
plans. However, President Bush proposes eliminating this program that 
has helped so many schools across our country. There are countless 
examples of these misguided priorities in the budget.
  In 2004, Congress nearly unanimously passed the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Improvement Act to put the program on track to 
full funding, but this budget includes only $10.7 million for State 
grants. This means that once again, the Federal Government will only 
provide less than half of the amount promised to States to educate 
children with special needs. The budget also zeros out the TRIO 
programs--Gear Up, Talent Search and Upward Bound--which encourage 
economically disadvantaged Rhode Island students to seek higher 
education.
  Even though energy independence was a major theme of the President's 
State of the Union Address, he is not funding his own proposals. After 
announcing America is ``addicted to oil,'' the President has increased 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs by a paltry 0.2 
percent. In addition, programs to increase energy efficiency and 
research hydropower and geothermal energy are cut. We need real 
leadership on this issue. The brightest minds in America put a man on 
the moon, and we need a similar effort to develop clean and renewable 
energy sources. A 0.2 percent increase will not accomplish that goal.
  If the President truly wanted to make our country more competitive, 
he would not have avoided funding the Small Business 7(a) loan 
guarantee program and reduced Trade Adjustment Assistance, which 
retrains workers who lose their jobs because of foreign trade.
  If the President wanted to enrich our communities, he would not have 
reduced funding for the community development block grants, COPS 
program, or Weatherization Assistance for energy efficient homes.
  If the President wanted to make health care more accessible, he would 
not have increased fees for groups such as military retirees and 
Medicare beneficiaries. On top of all these cuts and fee increases, we 
still have the highest deficit in history as a result of the 
irresponsible tax policies the President seeks to continue. This is not 
the direction America should be moving.
  The President had a tremendous opportunity to reflect the values and 
priorities of the American people. He could have asked for shared 
sacrifice and inspired us to achieve new heights. Instead, he has given 
us more of the same: tax cuts for the wealthiest, program cuts for the 
most vulnerable, and the middle class is left on their own. America 
deserves better.

[[Page 2121]]



                          ____________________