[House Report 110-183]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                            SBDV 2008-1
110th Congress 
 1st Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                110-183
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 108


                              R E P O R T

                                 on the

                  SUBALLOCATION OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                    SUBMITTED BY MR. OBEY, CHAIRMAN,

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS




  June 8, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania         JERRY LEWIS, California
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington          C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia      RALPH REGULA, Ohio
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana          FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York              JAMES T. WALSH, New York
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York            DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut         JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia             JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts         RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 
ED PASTOR, Arizona                       Jersey
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina       ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CHET EDWARDS, Texas                  TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,       ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
    Alabama                          TOM LATHAM, Iowa
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York         JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California    KAY GRANGER, Texas
SAM FARR, California                 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois      VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan      RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
ALLEN BOYD, Florida                  DAVE WELDON, Florida
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania           MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia      MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
MARION BERRY, Arkansas               ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
BARBARA LEE, California              DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico                JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
ADAM SCHIFF, California              RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
MICHAEL HONDA, California            KEN CALVERT, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TIM RYAN, Ohio
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, 
    Maryland
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas

                  Rob Nabors, Clerk and Staff Director


                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                      Washington, DC, June 8, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
The Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Madam Speaker: By direction of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I submit herewith the Committee's report on the 
suballocation of budget allocations for fiscal year 2008. As 
required by section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, this report subdivides the allocation of fiscal year 2008 
spending authority to the House Committee on Appropriations 
contained in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee 
of Conference on S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2008. That allocation has been 
adjusted by Chairman Spratt pursuant to section 207(f) of S. 
Con. Res. 21, and the attached suballocations are consistent 
with that adjustment.
            Sincerely,
                                             David R. Obey,
                                                          Chairman.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 108
110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-183

======================================================================



 
 REPORT ON THE SUBALLOCATION OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                _______
                                

  June 8, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Obey, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

        SUBALLOCATION OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report on the suballocation of budget allocations for fiscal 
year 2008 pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974. This report is consistent with the 
``Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee on 
Appropriations'' presented in the Joint Explanatory Statement 
of the Committee of Conference on S. Con. Res. 21, the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. That 
allocation has been adjusted by Chairman Spratt pursuant to 
section 207(f) of S. Con. Res. 21, and the following 
suballocations are consistent with that adjustment.



 MINORITY VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES LEWIS, YOUNG, REGULA, ROGERS, WOLF, 
 WALSH, HOBSON, KNOLLENBERG, KINGSTON, FRELINGHUYSEN, WICKER, TIAHRT, 
  WAMP, LATHAM, ADERHOLT, EMERSON, GRANGER, PETERSON, GOODE, LaHOOD, 
WELDON, SIMPSON, CULBERSON, KIRK, CRENSHAW, REHBERG, CARTER, ALEXANDER, 
                              AND CALVERT

    When the House Appropriations Committee met on June 5, 2007 
to consider the proposed 302(b) Subcommittee allocations for 
fiscal year 2008, we strongly considered offering an amendment, 
such as that done in the past, which would offer a different 
set of allocations based on the roughly $933 billion total 
spending suggested in the President's budget submission. This 
spending level already reflected a very generous increase of 
$60 billion over the 2007 enacted spending level. Obviously, 
such an increase was not enough to satiate the spending lust of 
our new Democrat majority as they were determined to pile 
another $20 billion on top of the $60 billion. And, in a 
budgetary slight of hand not reflected in these allocations, 
the majority is using gimmicks to add another $3 billion on top 
of these already whopping increases for a total of $83 billion 
in new discretionary spending--almost 10% over the FY 2007 
level.
    At the end of the day, we determined that offering such an 
amendment was a pointless exercise and perhaps even a waste of 
our Members' valuable time. However, it is instructive to paint 
the broad picture of spending upon which our Democrat 
colleagues are about to embark.
    The Democrat majority likes to suggest that additional 
dollars are constantly needed for our domestic programs because 
they have been ``starved'' over the past several years. The 
truth is, domestic discretionary spending has increased 40%--or 
21% in real dollars--since 2001. Members and others can of 
course advocate for more money for this program or that program 
which might be favorites, but to do so using a generic 
statement that domestic discretionary programs have been 
starved is utter nonsense.
    With regard to the majority's plan to spend $83 billion 
over the 2007 enacted budget levels, we would submit that this 
represents exactly the kind of unfettered spending that so 
closely identifies the differences of philosophies between 
Republicans and Democrats. It's pre-1995 all over again when, 
for 40 years, the Democrat majority's mantra clearly was, ``If 
you see a problem, throw money at it.'' Never mind trying to 
fix the problems. Never mind making tough spending choices. 
Just take more money out of the register and throw it at the 
problem.
    Does it matter that if this spending philosophy continues 
and is adopted into the baseline, this country will see an 
increase of $250 billion in new spending over the next ten 
years? It should matter!
    And who will pay for these massive increases in spending 
and how will it be paid? The Democrat majority's agenda 
requires tax increases of more than $720 billion over the next 
five years and $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. The 
Democrats have chosen to pay for this by increasing the tax 
burden on every American household by more than $2,000 per 
year.
    Much has been said over which tax increases we will face to 
pay for this massive expansion in government spending. This 
year alone over 19 million more households will be captured by 
the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and yet the majority now is 
counting on the billions in additional taxes to pay for its 
spending increases. The AMT is not for the wealthiest 
households any longer. These funds come from the pockets of 
middle income families.
    Yet which taxes are increased is not the issue. That the 
Democrat majority imposes new or increased direct taxes that 
families pay every April 15th is not the issue. That the 
majority would impose indirect taxes that we will all have to 
pay for every day through higher prices, lower savings and 
investment income, and fewer services is not the issue.
    What truly matters is that the middle income households are 
always paying the bill for expanded government, and these 
302(b) allocations by the Democrat majority guarantee years of 
payments.
    What is at issue is that over $720 billion in new taxes are 
required to keep pace with this spending addiction and that the 
taxes will go from a historical 18.3% of GDP to a whopping 
19.7% of GDP.
    And what is also at issue is who, in reality is going to 
pay. In 2004, 50% of the total Federal tax burden was paid for 
by the 65 million households that earned between $24,000 and 
$65,000 per year. The vast majority of those taxes are being 
paid for by individuals between the ages of 45 and 54 with 
incomes between $55,000 and $77,000 a year. This group pays 
more than 20% of their income just to meet the federal tax 
burden. This is the group of Americans which every year pay 
over $500 billion dollars a year in taxes to support our parks, 
conduct our research, and provide support and services for the 
young and the elderly. These are the households and individuals 
that will pay for the expanded government that the majority is 
demanding and these are middle class groups that our lip 
service suggests we want to protect.
    The allocations before us also point to another key 
difference in the spending priorities between the Democrat 
majority and Republicans. We have heard countless arguments by 
the majority party that they fully support funding for our 
troops. But despite increasing spending by over $23 billion 
above the President's request, the Democrat majority chose to 
cut defense spending by over $3.5 billion below the President's 
request.
    We have heard changing arguments from our Democrat 
counterparts as to why they chose to cut Defense. During debate 
in Committee on the allocations, the Democratic majority stated 
that defense was being cut to pay for veterans increases. 
Unfortunately, the math just doesn't add up.
    The budget resolution provided a $4 billion increase above 
the President's level for veterans, roughly the level provided 
by the Committee majority. And, the same budget fully funded 
the President's request for defense. So it's fair to say that 
the Committee did not cut defense to fund veterans.
    Upon further questioning, the Democratic majority then 
argued that defense was cut to pay for other homeland security 
programs, but again the numbers just don't add up since the 
budget resolution assumed spending for these programs well 
above the President's request. This leaves only one explanation 
for cutting defense--the Committee majority chose to divert 
funds that benefit our troops to instead bolster spending for 
other non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary programs 
at levels over and above the generous funding levels assumed in 
the budget resolution. We think it is important that the record 
be set straight so that the American people can see the 
priorities that are reflected in the Democrat majority's 
decisions.
    By moving forward with the allocations as adopted by the 
Democrat majority, we are virtually guaranteeing a number of 
vetoes from the White House. We are virtually guaranteeing that 
most if not all of the spending bills we do this year will end 
up in a huge omnibus bill sometime late in the session. We are 
virtually inviting the Executive Branch to be equal partners in 
the minutia of Congressional budget deliberations, something 
that, we are proud to say, has not happened since President 
Clinton left office. We are absolutely guaranteeing less real 
income to America's middle class for their families as they pay 
for the Democrats' spending spree.
    Adoption of these 302(b) allocations approved by the 
Democrat majority spells failure to do our job in a manner that 
has long been part of the Committee's 142 year, bipartisan 
heritage. We cannot and do not support them.
                                   Jerry Lewis.
                                   Bill Young.
                                   Ralph Regula.
                                   Harold Rogers.
                                   Frank R. Wolf.
                                   James T. Walsh.
                                   Dave Hobson.
                                   Joe Knollenberg.
                                   Jack Kingston.
                                   Rodney P. Frelinghuysen.
                                   Roger Wicker.
                                   Todd Tiahrt.
                                   Zach Wamp.
                                   Tom Latham.
                                   Robert B. Aderholt.
                                   Jo Ann Emerson.
                                   Kay Granger.
                                   John E. Peterson.
                                   Virgil Goode.
                                   Ray LaHood.
                                   Dave Weldon.
                                   Michael K. Simpson.
                                   John Culberson.
                                   Mark Steven Kirk.
                                   Ander Crenshaw.
                                   Denny Rehberg.
                                   John R. Carter.
                                   Rodney Alexander.
                                   Ken Calvert.

                                  
