Congressional Budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2007
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am here because the Senator from Pennsylvania came to the floor this morning and offered an amendment on funding for Community Development Block Grant Programs. First of all, I am delighted that the other side recognizes that the assumption in this budget, to cut $1 billion from Community Development Block Grant Programs, is absolutely unacceptable. Their assumption is absolutely accurate.
Across our country today, mayors and other community leaders are up in arms about the billion-dollar cut to Community Development Block Grant Programs that is in this budget, on top of what I might remind all of my colleagues was the $500 million cut from last year.
We all know these essential programs. They are essential for housing, an absolutely critical part of our infrastructure, making sure we help develop many of our neighborhoods across this country with that critical seed money that brings those communities back up to standard and makes sure people have adequate housing while it creates jobs and economic development in communities across our country. Robbing those communities of those funds right now when our country is struggling to get back on its feet is the wrong thing to do, and the Santorum amendment recognizes that.
Here is my problem. Last night I was on the floor of the Senate. I offered a real amendment to restore the funding for Community Development Block Grant Programs. It provides $1.3 billion, and it does it by adding real money to the budget amendment by closing corporate loopholes. The amendment offered by Senator Santorum is simply a ``let's not worry, be happy until after the election'' amendment and doesn't provide one dollar.
How do I know that? I keep hearing the other side go to the floor and--whether it is veterans or Community Development Block Grant Programs or defense--say we are going to take money out of function 920. I went to the budget resolution book and I looked up 920 to see how much money was left. I was astounded to find out there is no money in function 920. In fact, they are half a billion dollars in the hole right now.
I see the ranking member, Senator Conrad, on the floor. If he wouldn't mind, I wanted to ask him a question because he knows this budget better than anybody.
I ask, through the Chair to the ranking member, am I wrong, in looking at this budget resolution, that the Republican Members are coming to the floor offering amendments to pay for funding for CDBG or veterans or defense, when there is no money? I ask my colleague if he could respond?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, unfortunately the Senator is completely correct. There is no money in function 920. The Senator is absolutely correct that when we started this process, function 920 was $500 million in the hole.
I guess what is even more remarkable is we have now had $10.5 billion of additional funding supposedly covered by function 920 when there never was any money to begin with.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, then am I to assume that function is now $11 billion in the hole? And we are hearing our colleagues on the other side say: Don't worry, be happy; simply take it out of the function where there is no money? I ask my colleague, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, is that real?
Mr. CONRAD. No, it is not real. What is happening now--I must say my colleagues on the other side have got an increasing habit of spending money that doesn't exist. We started out with function 920 having no money, in fact, being $500 million in the hole. They have now passed amendments that take another $10.5 billion out of a function that has no money. What will the practical effect be? The practical effect will be an across-the board cut in all the domestic discretionary accounts. What are they? It will cut defense, it will cut homeland security, it will cut law enforcement. That is what is really happening.
It is the difference between doing something and acting like you are doing something but not doing it. The fact is, as to the amendments they have offered, before they offered them there was $873 billion available to the appropriators for the domestic accounts. When all their amendments are finished, the appropriators will have--guess what--$873 billion, not a nickel more. So this is all a sham. It is creating funding that does not exist. The Senator is correct. The amendment that she offered really did offer new funds, additional funds to buttress the community development block grant.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, that sounds completely irresponsible to me, to send a false promise by some kind of sham vote that you are supporting veterans or Community Development Block Grant Programs or all the other programs that we hear from the other side. I heard the Senator from Pennsylvania say this will just tell the Appropriations Committee that this Senate says you are to spend that money.
I am the ranking member on the Transportation-HUD subcommittee. We are already looking at a transit cut of $100 million, an Amtrak cut, which I know the Senator from Pennsylvania cares about, a cut of $394 million, and the FAA is cut by $561 million, a safety factor.
I say to my colleague from North Dakota, I am completely worried about the irresponsible message that these amendments are sending and the sham that they are. I heard last night when I offered my amendment, the chairman of the Budget Committee said we were raising taxes to pay for our amendments on this side.
I want to ask this of the ranking member on the Budget Committee. My amendment I am offering today is to restore Community Development Block Grant Programs at a real, significant number. The $1 billion cut in the budget is irresponsible. Trying to pay for it out of sham money that is not there is irresponsible. We are asking for $1.3 billion by closing corporate tax loopholes. I heard those on the other side say that is raising taxes. I know my colleague, who happens to be the ranking member, who happens to be one of the most fiscally responsible Members on this side, is also a member of the Finance Committee. I would like to ask him, through the Chair, how he would respond to that being a tax increase.
Mr. CONRAD. I do not believe it is a tax increase, to require people to pay taxes that are legitimately owed and due now that they are failing to pay.
We could easily pay for the amendment of the Senator by shutting down two sham operations. Let me describe them. One is American companies and American wealthy investors--this will be hard to believe, but this is really going on--buying sewer systems in Europe, depreciating them on their books to reduce their taxes in America, and leasing back those sewer systems to European cities so that they can run them. Shutting down that scam, is that a tax increase? I don't think so.
Let me describe one other. The other day my colleague showed an office building in the Cayman Islands, a five-story office building that is the home to 12,700 companies. I say that is a remarkable building. That is a real smart building, to be able to house 12,700 companies.
What is really going on? What is really going on is a giant tax scam. They say they are doing business in the Cayman Islands. They are not doing any business in the Cayman Islands. They have a file clerk in this building who takes their financial records so they can claim they are doing business there. Why do they want to be doing business in the Cayman Islands when they are really not doing business in the Cayman Islands? Because the Cayman Islands is a tax haven. It is a place where you can show your profits and not pay taxes.
We could pay for your amendment five times over by shutting down those two scams alone. That is not a tax increase. That is stopping a tax scam.
I might say, of the the amendments that have been passed so far that have been theoretically funded by section 920, we had an amendment to increase defense by $3 billion. That was funded out of section 920 when 920 had no money. We passed an amendment for veterans, supposedly to increase funding for veterans by $823 million, funded out of section 920 when section 920 has no money.
We funded an increase in education by $2 billion out of function 920 when there is not any money. We had border security this morning, and $2 billion was supposedly paid for out of function 920 when we all know there is no money in 920. So what will happen is there will be across-the-board cuts and they will cut defense, they will cut homeland security, they will cut law enforcement, and cut everything else. The fact is there is no new money to pay for any of them.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for clarifying that. I think it is important for all of us to understand that.
These votes we take today will have real consequences. How do I know that? Not just because of the respect I have for the ranking member and his explanation, because this is exactly what happened on this floor last year when the Senators on the other side of the aisle offered a ``don't worry, be happy'' amendment to restore funding for community development block grants, critical money for neighborhood restoration, for low-income housing for our communities across the country.
Do you know what happened when we got to Appropriations? We didn't have the flexibility because our subcommittee also has to fund Amtrak, airlines, transit, and other housing programs. There was no way to do it despite what the Senate voted on. They ended up having to cut $.5 billion from the community development block grants.
It is a sham to me to watch these amendments march through here on an account that has no money, that is deficit spent already, and try to sell to their constituents that we are doing something about it when every Senator on this floor knows we ran into a train wreck last year which lasted well into this year on the Appropriations bills. Who was hurt? Not the Senators who voted for it, but our neighbors and friends, mayors and city councils and people on the ground across this country who are trying very desperately today to try make sure that the most important citizens have critical housing infrastructure, that we create jobs, that we have economic development, and that our communities become strong again.
I have said time and time again on this floor that we need to make our country strong again. The most important way we can do it is to invest real dollars in our infrastructure. The CDBG Program is one of the best ways to do that. Every Senator here knows it. The votes we will take later today will be for sham accounts or a real vote. And when will it count? Next fall, when our friends and neighbors see the reality of these amendments and the budget impact on it.
I will conclude by saying that I have been around my State talking to many mayors, talking to many community developers, hearing story after story about how our communities have taken this small amount of money from the Federal Government and invested it wisely, created jobs, created housing, improved the lives of our citizens.
I know this CDBG cut, if we don't pass real money, will mean that Pennsylvania will lose $46 million in funding. It means Minnesota will lose $15 million in funding. In my home State, it means $16 million. Those are not just items on a budget; those are real dollars that make a difference in the lives of our friends and neighbors and communities across the country.
This afternoon we will have an opportunity to cast votes for a real amendment--the Murray amendment--that restores funding and makes sure our Appropriations Committee has the allocation that will allow us to fund the CDBG, or we can take a political vote and be happy for a day. But it will not change anyone's life at home, and it will not restore hope and opportunity that this country so desperately needs today.
I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
BREAK INN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on the Murray amendment which is the only amendment before this Senate that will restore actual dollars to the $1 billion cut to the Community Development Block Grant Program. We will see another amendment that is paid for by a 920 account that is now $10.5 billion in the hole--not real money.
When our Committee on Appropriations gets that next fall, all of the Senators will be asking: Why are we cutting CDBG? We did not put real money in to restore that cut, unless we pass the Murray amendment that is paid for by closing tax loopholes.
Real dollars are the difference between this and next fall when our Senators are asking us about CDBG money and why it is being cut. We will relate it directly back to this vote on this amendment.
Let everyone know where the real vote is. If no one believes me, read the Wall Street Journal article, ``Republican Budget Plan Advances as Challenges By Democrats Fail,'' outlining that Republicans in tighter reelection races are offering amendments that are not paid for.
I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the RECORD.
http://thomas.loc.gov/