[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3661-3662]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, over the past week, I have taken a 
good look at the President's budget submission. I am new around here, 
and I will admit that the Federal budget is very complex. But as 
somebody who has spent the last years of my life as an auditor, I have 
come to one inescapable conclusion about the budget that has been 
presented to this Congress for consideration. First, it is not honest; 
second, it has the wrong priorities.
  This budget reflects part of the problem we have; that is, our 
country is facing incredible problems that are very difficult, and we 
want the American people to support us and believe in us. We cannot 
expect them to join us in a fight against these complex problems if we 
aren't going to begin the process by being honest with them. We cannot 
expect them to support what we do if we are not willing to tell them 
the complete and unvarnished truth about the situation we face in 
America today in terms of our budget.
  The President claims with a straight face that this budget will 
eliminate the deficit by 2012. In fact, the President claims it will 
create a surplus in 2012. That sounds great. The problem is, it is not 
true. The numbers do not add up. First, he fails to include the full 
cost of the war in Iraq. In this budget, it says the war will only cost 
$50 billion in 2009. Keep in mind that in this budget cycle, we will 
spend over $240 billion on the war in Iraq. The confusing part to me 
about the $50 billion is that it is a mystery. Why is this $50 billion 
a mystery? It is a mystery because no one seems to know where the 
figure came from.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I had the opportunity to 
listen, as the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, and even the Comptroller for the Department of Defense were 
asked the question: Where did the $50 billion figure come from? They 
did not know. If the leadership of our military and the highest ranking 
financial official in the Department of Defense do not know where a 
figure in the budget came from for our war effort, what does that tell 
you about the integrity of the document? If that figure came from 
somewhere other than the leaders of the military, we have a problem.
  The President also conveniently left out the long-term cost of 
alternative minimum tax relief for the middle class, which the 
administration knows we all support. The AMT was never designed to 
reach down into the middle class, as it does and will continue to do in 
an ever-increasing way, to cause even more stress and pressure on a 
middle class that believes it is under attack from all sides. 
Furthermore, this budget assumes deep cuts in education and health 
care, cuts that the administration knows are not realistic.
  Finally, it hides the long-term cost of the President's ill-advised 
program to privatize Social Security. This budget is a gimmick. It is 
the kind of gimmick that the American people have grown very tired of. 
If proper budgeting procedures were followed, the Federal Government 
would still be hundreds of billions of dollars in the red by 2012.
  If it is not bad enough that this budget is not honest with the 
American people as to what its implications are, it is even worse when 
you look at the priorities. First, let's talk about the tax cuts in the 
President's budget. It preserves billions of dollars in oil subsidies, 
despite the fact that, once again, we just heard that one of the big 
oil companies had a record profitmaking quarter. Second, there is $73 
billion in this budget to extend tax cuts for millionaires through 
2012. I am not talking about tax cuts for people who make $200,000 a 
year or $300,000 a year. I am talking about for millionaires, $73 
billion. Maybe you think that is not so bad, $73 billion for 
millionaires, until you realize the rest of the story that is contained 
in this budget.
  In this budget, the President wants our veterans to spend as much as 
$15 billion more for the health care they have been promised. According 
to McClatchy newspapers, this figure could be as high as $15 billion. 
It is at least $5 billion for additional enrollment fees in health care 
and additional pharmaceutical costs. Our veterans are being given a tax 
increase. They say it is not a tax increase; it is a revenue 
enhancement. This budget is filled with revenue enhancements, also 
known as user fees, also known as tax increases. So we have a tax cut 
in this budget for the millionaires, and we have taxes being raised on 
our veterans. We also have $37.8 billion over 10 years for seniors to 
increase their Medicare premiums. Tax cuts for the millionaires; tax 
increases for our veterans and seniors.
  Besides the seniors and veterans, who else will pay? Our children 
will pay through cuts in the health insurance program for children. 
There may be a little more money in this budget, but there is not 
enough money to cover the children who currently are covered under this 
program in the United States. Missouri is one of those States that has 
a shortfall in funding. If we do not fix the President's budget, we 
will be taking care of the millionaires, and tens of thousands of 
children will be removed from health care rolls in the State of 
Missouri.
  The COPS Program is cut, law enforcement. College loan programs are 
cut.
  I have heard in the last couple of years in my life the phrase 
``support our troops'' as often as I have heard almost the words ``good 
morning.'' I have heard it in this room dozens of times in the last few 
days, as people have argued about the war in Iraq and said, ``You are 
not supporting our troops. You have to show that you support our 
troops.''
  This budget is the way we show whether we support our troops. 
Supporting our troops is not a phrase for a political campaign. It is 
not something to be bandied about to get political advantage, over 
which resolution we are voting on, or who looks better, the Republicans 
or the Democrats. It should be embodied in what we do as we decide the 
priorities for the money we spend on behalf of the American people.
  In this budget, we have said to veterans coming home--and that we are 
talking about veterans under the age of 65--that they will have to pay 
more. That is being proposed at the same time we are walking around 
here righteously indignant that we are not doing enough to support our 
troops. In reality, the veterans of this Nation have been losing 
benefits throughout the Iraq war conflict. They have been fighting for 
their health care, fighting to see a doctor, and waiting in long lines. 
This budget is an opportunity to quit talking the talk and begin to 
walk the walk when it comes to the men and women who have put their 
lives on the line for our flag and for the country we love.
  There are not very many veterans coming home from Iraq who are having 
sleepless nights, worrying about the estate tax on their $10 million 
estates. There are not very many veterans coming home from Iraq who are 
worried about their capital gains tax on a multimillion dollar piece of 
property or their stock portfolio. But there are veterans coming home 
from Iraq who are having sleepless nights about their health care, 
about their children's

[[Page 3662]]

health care, about their children's education, and about their 
retirement security.
  This budget does not reflect that we care about those veterans and 
their sleepless nights. Let's make the phrase ``support the troops'' 
mean something other than trying to jockey for position in a political 
game of hardball. Let's get our priorities straight. Let's fix this 
deeply flawed budget for the American people, and let's begin by being 
honest about the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.

                          ____________________