Providing for Consideration of H. Con. Res. 376, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 376, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (House of Representatives - April 06, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have seen this movie before. Just like last year and the year before that and the year before that, the budget resolution put forward by the House Republican leadership today is an awful piece of legislation. There is no other way to describe it.
It is a budget that hurts American families. It is a budget that continues to create a government without a conscience. It is a budget that punishes the poor and the middle class and rewards the very wealthy and special interests. It is a budget that explodes our Nation's deficit and passes mountains of debt onto our children and grandchildren. It is a budget that deliberately misleads the American people about the cost of our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget that deserves to be defeated soundly by every Member of this House.
The details speak for themselves. This budget includes a deficit for 2006 of $372 billion and a deficit for 2007 of $348 billion. In fact, if this budget is approved, the five largest deficits in the history of the United States of America will have occurred in the past 5 consecutive years, all during the period when the House, the Senate, and the White House are totally under Republican control. What in the world has happened to the party of fiscal discipline? They have become the party of runaway spending and reckless tax giveaways.
Even worse than this unchecked spending binge is the Republican leadership's deliberate misleading of the American people. We are at war, Mr. Speaker, and every day our brave soldiers patrol the most remote areas of Afghanistan and the most dangerous neighborhoods in Iraq. Every day the American people learn of more roadside bombings, insurgent attacks, and death in Iraq. Every day the Iraqis seem more and more unable to form a functioning government, and every day Iraq slips further and further into chaos and civil war. And every day our credibility around the world gets lower and lower. And every day our Nation sinks deeper and deeper into a violent quagmire.
But with all of this, Mr. Speaker, how do you explain only $50 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year 2007, and after that no funding at all? Now, if the Republicans actually carry out what they are promising in this budget, the United States won't be spending a penny in Iraq or Afghanistan after 2007. Maybe they have miraculously stumbled upon an exit strategy, which would be just fine with me. But last year, the United States spent over $100 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all told we have spent $357 billion over the past 4 years on fighting these wars.
President Bush recently announced that the American troops will be in Iraq until at least 2009. The truth, of course, is that the Bush administration will be back before we know it asking for tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars more in so-called emergency funding to pay for their failed foreign policy. But then, Mr. Speaker, why should we expect the Republicans in Washington to start telling the truth about Iraq now, given the fact we have been lied to, deceived, and misled from day one.
What will happen is that the Republican leadership will write a blank check without asking the tough questions, without demanding the straight answers, and without conducting the kind of oversight that is our responsibility as Members of Congress.
And while we are on the subject of war and its aftermath, Mr. Speaker, let us examine how this budget handles our veterans. Now, my Republican colleagues will pat themselves on the back and crow about how they have increased funding for veterans in fiscal year 2007, but once again the devil is in the details. The truth is that over the next 5 years, the Republicans actually cut the same funding by a total of $4 billion.
Do they think our current and future veterans are just going to fade away? Talk about cutting and running. At a time when America is creating hundreds, if not thousands of new veterans, and when thousands of those veterans are going to need significant health care support for the rest of their lives because of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is shameful that the Republicans in Washington are blatantly ignoring our veterans. Sending our brave servicemen and women to war without providing for their care when they return is not an American value.
Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you are going to send our servicemen and women into war, you have an obligation to them, a moral obligation to them that when they return home as veterans that they will be cared for. To do otherwise is to disrespect their service. And that is what this budget does. How does anyone in this Chamber vote for this budget and then go back to their districts, look their veterans in the eye and say with a straight face that we have done our best for you? You can't.
The list of misplaced priorities in this budget, Mr. Speaker, goes on and on. This budget slashes critical programs in the areas of education, job training, environmental protection and conservation funding, public health programs, medical research, and social services. It fails our responsibility to protect America by allowing $6.2 billion worth of cuts to homeland security programs.
And where is the money for port security? Didn't my Republican friends say that they were concerned about our ports when joining with Democrats in opposing the President's selling of our port security to the United Arab Emirates?
Maybe I need new bifocals, but I cannot find the necessary funding to make our ports secure in this budget.
This budget cuts programs that helps low-wage workers and vulnerable families. In fact, the Republican leadership cuts into these programs even more deeply than President Bush's proposal.
To top it all off with a Nation at war, with desperate priorities that need to be met, with veterans who need our help and the gulf coast still devastated from last year's hurricanes, the Republican leadership still has the audacity to give the wealthiest Americans $228 billion in new tax cuts while passing the cost of those tax cuts onto our children. It just takes my breath away.
My friends on the other side of the aisle will say this budget reflects necessary tough choices. My question, however, is this: Why do all of the tough choices hurt average families? Why don't some of the tough choices include forgoing tax cuts for wealthy people or ending subsidies in tax breaks for oil companies that are gouging families at the pump, or no more giveaways to pharmaceutical companies until they provide cheaper drugs for our citizens? Why is it all of the Republican tough choices spell tough choices for working families, senior citizens, students, veterans and the most vulnerable?
Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. Democrats have a plan that works, a plan that reestablishes fiscal discipline by implementing a pay-as-you-go strategy, a plan that provides our veterans over $8 billion more in assistance than the Republican budget, a plan that balances the budget by 2012, a plan that properly funds our domestic priorities including homeland security, a plan that gives our veterans the care and the respect they deserve, and a plan that provides fiscally responsible tax relief to millions of hardworking middle-class Americans.
What the Republicans have proposed today is out of step with the American people. Indeed, it is way out of the mainstream. This is a budget that reflects a heart of stone. I can only say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the day has come for a new direction, a new set of priorities, a new commitment to the American people. The day has come for us to recreate a government with a conscience.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam). Facts are indeed a stubborn thing. The fact is that this budget that the Republicans have put forward cuts funding for veterans. Over 5 years, the budget cuts funding for veterans health care by $6 billion below current services.
Republicans will tout the fact that the budget raises discretionary spending for 2007 by some $2.6 billion, but these apparent gains are quickly reversed with a cut for 2008 of $59 million below current services, and cuts of increasing amounts in subsequent years culminating in a cut of $4 billion for 2011.
One other fact: a couple years ago, the VA itself testified it needed a 13 to 14 percent increase each year to maintain what it is doing. This budget in no way reflects what this Veterans Administration has said.
So facts are a stubborn thing. This budget is not good for veterans.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the major Jewish community service providers in our country, and they ask all of us to oppose this Republican budget resolution because it will force, in their view, harmful cuts in education, health care, nutrition, housing and other services critical for children, families, seniors, and people with disabilities.
I ask my colleagues to listen to the plea of these faith-based groups.
April 5, 2006
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: The Jewish community has long demonstrated a commitment to economic and social justice. We have been vigorous in advocating policies and programs to fight poverty and to help address the needs of disenfranchised vulnerable populations, including the elderly, working poor, disabled, youth, and refugees.
The budget process is one of the most important actions taken by our government each year and is an integral part of allocating funds for important human needs programs. While we recognize that deficit reduction is critical to the economic stability of our country, we believe it is essential that it be done in a fair and balanced manner. Over the past months we have spoken out against cuts that we believed would disproportionately hurt those in most need.
The budget plan passed out of the House Budget Committee would make huge cuts to domestic discretionary programs. These cuts would be extremely harmful both to our social service agencies that are dependent on public funding as well as the vulnerable populations we advocate on behalf of. Programs such as the Older Americans Act, the Social Services Block Grant, the Community Services Block Grant, and the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program are critical to the elderly, refugees, children, and persons with disabilities, and all would likely face severe cuts if this budget proposal is enacted.
We believe that budgets are documents which reflect the values and priorities of those who create them. With the increase in hunger in American households; housing costs rising faster than wages; and more than 45 million Americans lacking adequate health care coverage, funding for social services to assist these individuals is more critical than ever. This budget does not accurately reflect our values.
As you consider the Budget this week, we ask you to oppose this Resolution that will force harmful cuts in education, health care, nutrition, housing, and other services that are critical for children, families, seniors, and people with disabilities.
Sincerely,
Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America.
Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies.
B'nai B'rith International.
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
International Association of Jewish Vocational Services.
Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Jewish Labor Committee.
Jewish War Veterans of the USA.
National Council of Jewish Women.
Union for Reform Judaism.
United Jewish Communities.
Women of Reform Judaism.
Women's American ORT.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California's comments. But I will tell you, most CPAs that fudge the numbers in real life go to jail. And the fact of the matter is in this budget, the numbers are fudged.
$50 billion for Iraq for the next 5 years? Give me a break. You know what is going on. You know what is going on. The bottom line is you are going to be coming back and back and back for more and more money.
Look, the gentleman raised the Democratic budget proposal. Well, let me just elaborate a little bit and suggest that he read it. The Democratic budget proposal would return the budget to balance. We reach balance by the year 2012, and we also have smaller deficits than the Republican budget and accumulate less debt.
By contrast, the Republican budget never returns to balance and even refuses to show how big the deficit will be after 2011. Our proposal includes fiscally responsible budget enforcement rules. The Democratic budget backs the two-sided pay-as-you-go budget enforcement rule that requires that the cost of any new mandatory spending or revenue legislation be fully offset.
This is the way families operate. They pay as they go. They can't accumulate the debt that you have accumulated. There is no way that families could operate the way the Republican majority has operated here.
During the 1990s, the two-sided PAYGO rules played a critical role in turning record deficits into record surpluses. Do you remember those days?
The Democratic budget also requires a separate vote to increase the debt limit. You used to be concerned about that, but no longer. Now we sneak the increase in the debt limit through without having to put Members on record, and it prohibits using fast track reconciliation procedures to make the deficit even worse.
We invest in education, and we keep our commitment to veterans. I mean, to me one of the most egregious elements of the budget that the Republicans have proposed is that you turn your back on America's veterans. We have sent them to war. There will be more veterans in the future, not less, and you did not put aside the adequate funding to make sure that these men and women who have served our country with great honor get the respect that they have earned and that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of veterans funding again. The gentleman from Florida keeps on bragging about how the Republicans have been so good to our veterans and have increased dramatically veterans funding over the last decade.
First of all, let me just say that I don't know of a single Member of Congress who have gone back to their districts and heard from veterans and people who work in VA facilities and other veterans health benefit facilities that somehow, boy, you have given us all we need. We don't need any more. What you have handed us is enough to meet the demand. I mean, in fact, what you hear is the opposite. And I am going to just say one thing to the gentleman. Over the past 10 years, all this bragging he is doing about increasing the veterans budget, from 1996 to the year 2000, the number of unique patients increased by $2.4 million. And on a per capita basis, veterans health care funding increases average only 0.1 percent per year, a level well below inflation for medical care.
So we are not meeting the current needs of our veterans, and in this budget there is no way we are going to meet the future needs of our veterans when we are creating more veterans because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are creating thousands of new veterans. That is an undeniable fact. Thousands of these men and women have been severely injured, and most will need medical services and benefits for the rest of their lives. And even without the influx of this new generation of veterans, the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 spending for the VA doesn't even meet the health care needs of our current number of veterans and military retirees. According to every major veterans organization in the country, we are still about $1 billion short each year. But the Republican budget before us actually decreases the discretionary funding for VA benefits and services each and every year over the next 5 years. So FY 2011, just 5 years away, is actually $4 billion less than FY 2006. That is their budget.
So I ask, is this how we honor our troops? Is this how we support them when they come home? I hope not. And I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments. Again, I would simply say that the spending he is bragging about for the last 10 years didn't even keep up with inflation.
But putting that aside, let's talk about the next 5 years. Let's talk about your budget, the budget you have. I have got the numbers here. In fiscal year 2007, it goes up by $2.6 billion. Then in fiscal year 2008, you go down by $100 billion. In fiscal year 2009, you go down by $1.4 billion. And in fiscal year 2010, you go down by $3.1 billion. And then in fiscal 2011, you go down by $4 billion.
And I would just remind the gentleman, maybe he has not been reading the newspapers lately, but we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thousands of new veterans are going to come into this system. And your budget shortchanges not only them, it doesn't even meet the needs of the current veterans. So from the veterans' perspective, this budget is deeply flawed. I think it shows a disrespect for the service of those men and women whom we have sent over to fight for our country. We owe them more than this.
And I would urge my colleagues if you want to support veterans, this is not the way to do it. This is the place you take a stand. You say no to this budget, send them back, and let them do what is right by our veterans. There is no way we should be shortchanging our veterans, and this budget does that.
Mr. Speaker, I would at this time like to submit into the RECORD a letter from the Interreligous Working Group on Domestic Human Needs, representing the major Protestant and Catholic churches and faith organizations. They state that ``as communities of faith ..... we are called upon to hold ourselves and our communities accountable to the moral standard of our Biblical tradition. We speak together now to express our concern about our national priorities.'' The letter is called a ``Faith Reflection on the Federal Budget,'' and it opposes what is before us today.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas, my colleague on the Rules Committee. He says he is proud of this budget. Quite frankly, I am ashamed that this budget is coming out of this Congress with the cuts that are contained in this budget that I think are going to hurt working families and also be devastating for our veterans.
I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side that in 1995 the VA treated 2.6 million people. Last year it was 5.4 million people. And that number is going to go up and up and up. And yet in this budget, we see over the next few years a $4 billion cut. That to me makes absolutely no sense. We know that the demand on the VA is going to become greater and greater, and yet we are deliberately shortchanging veterans health and veterans benefits. We know what the future is going to hold, but we are fudging the numbers here. I think that that is not only irresponsible but, Mr. Speaker, it is dishonest.
The gentleman from Texas talked about planning. Well, boy, the planning that the Republicans have done here has just led to such great success. We have the biggest deficits in the history of the United States of America. Boy, that is great planning. More of our debt is owned by foreign countries than at any other time in our history. I don't know too many people who feel good about that.
Your planning has done such a great job that, quite frankly, it is pushing our country towards bankruptcy.
And he talked about the insatiable appetite of people who want to spend money. Look, I am all for fiscal restraint. We want to pay as you go. We want to make sure that every new program that we talk about, every new revenue initiative that we talk about is paid for. That is the way families do it. That is not the case with Republicans.
But when you talk about insatiable appetite, I can't help but think of your energy bill, which provides these incredible tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies that have never made more profits than they are right now, that are gouging American taxpayers at the pump, and you are giving them billions of dollars. Talk about insatiable appetite. Or the drug companies that can't provide our senior citizens a decent cost for prescription drugs and you are sending more and more subsidies and tax breaks and liability protections to these industries that, quite frankly, need to respect our citizens more.
So that is the kind of insatiable appetite that has gotten us into this mess, and we have had enough of it. We need new priorities; and I hope that my colleagues, again, will turn down this budget.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to the gentleman, in case he has not read it, the Democratic proposal actually balances the budget by 2012, which is something that the Republican budget does not do.
What we have a problem with is giving tax breaks to Donald Trump at a time when you are shortchanging veterans. We think those are misplaced priorities.
At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying there are numerous reasons to oppose this budget. Education funding goes down, health care funding goes down, environmental protection money goes down, and I go on and on and on. But what particularly I find astounding is the way our veterans are being disrespected in this budget.
The gentleman mentioned before all these veterans groups that are thanking him for what they are doing. The fact of the matter is, I am hearing the opposite from every major veterans organization in this country. I have a letter here from the Disabled Veterans of America asking us to end the cycle of the constant cutting of benefits, that people right now are waiting in lines. And we have more veterans that are going to be produced as a result of this war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have been to Iraq, and I have seen those men and women serving our country. I have a disagreement with our policy, but they are doing an incredible job. And you on the majority are doing a disservice to these veterans by not providing the necessary funding not only to meet the needs of the veterans that currently exist, but you don't even account for the veterans, the thousands of veterans, that will be produced as a result of this war. It is wrong, it is immoral for us to pass a budget that doesn't respect our veterans.
Vote ``no'' on this budget. Vote ``yes'' for the Spratt substitute.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/