Providing for Further Consideration of H. Con. Res. 376, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 376, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 17, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we waited months for this? The fact is what we have before us is a sham. What the Republicans have come up with is essentially a shell game. Under this so-called grand compromise, moderate Republicans can increase spending on domestic programs, but only if they cut other domestic priorities.
In other words, if you want more money for children's immunizations or more money for No Child Left Behind, you have to cut funding for Medicaid or further cut student aid. This is the classic definition of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
So to the moderates, let me say after all of us, you have got some words, but in reality you have got nothing. Do not be a cheap date. The responsibility is to the people of this country to make sure that their needs are met, not to saving face. Heaven forbid that the richest in this country do not get their capital gains tax cuts so that we can adequately fund health care and veterans benefits and education.
No, those precious tax cuts are protected. So tonight the crowd on Wall Street can have champagne and caviar at Tavern on the Green while the people who work on Main Street are scratching their heads with disbelief and asking why has their government forgotten them?
The misplaced priorities demonstrated in this budget are astounding. Last month we had a debate on the first rule for the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution. My friends on the other side of the aisle laid out their plans and did their best to defend their priorities.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, their plans are misguided, and their priorities are out of step with the American people. This is a major reason why it has taken weeks and weeks for the Republican leadership to try to jam their budget through this House. Under the Republican budget, our Nation's deficits get worse, not better.
Remember, under Republican policies, the 5 largest deficits in the history of the United States of America will have occurred in 5 consecutive years.
Further, this budget provides only $50 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I cannot figure out if they have forgotten about these wars or somehow stumbled onto an exit strategy. The truth is that we know the administration will request hundreds of billions of dollars for these wars in the next few years, but this budget makes no mention of that.
Under the Republican budget, up is down, down is up, and the war we see every day is not really happening. The Republicans once again underfund port security, despite their rhetoric of the Dubai Ports deal. Recently the Republicans followed the Democrats' lead and opposed President Bush's approval of the United Arab Emirates control of American ports.
But when faced with the opportunity to follow through on their rhetoric, they decided to cut port security by over $6 billion over the next 5 years.
Under this budget resolution, the Republicans make $228 billion available for new tax cuts, but in the process cut important education, health, and environmental programs.
Cutting these programs for tax cuts is deplorable. Deceiving the American people about future funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is flat wrong. But the most egregious thing about this budget is the way it disrespects our veterans.
My friend from Florida is fond of saying that facts are a stubborn thing. Indeed they are, and here are just a few facts:
According to the Department of Defense, there are almost 297,000 troops currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2003, the beginning of the war in Iraq, more than 1.2 million troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are troops that are most likely to need the services of the Veterans Affairs health care systems. These are the troops that will need the most help from this Congress. The costs of their treatment are substantial, yet the Republican budget actually cuts the funding that supports the veterans health care systems. The truth is there are two parts of the veterans funding in this budget, mandatory funding that is guaranteed to be there, and discretionary funding that is subject to appropriations. When mandatory funding is subtracted from the overall funding level, the truth is revealed; and the truth is that after fiscal year 2007 the amount of funding for veterans decreases by $4 billion. The administration claims they can live with these decreases because the number of veterans will decrease over the next few years. Well, the truth is that there was a 21 percent increase in the number of Iraq war veterans using the VA health care system in the first 3 months of 2006 alone. As of March 14, 2006, the VA had already treated 144,426 veterans, 33,858 more than the administration projected would use the VA system over the entire year.
The administration projected that it would treat 18,000 veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for post-traumatic stress disorder for fiscal year 2006, but as of March 14, 2006, VA data shows that it is already treating 20,638 veterans for PTSD, an increase of 2,638 before the middle of March.
How then with good conscience can they claim that the number of veterans needing care through the VA health systems will go down in the future? This is either dangerously naive or deliberately misleading. And the claim that the VA could get by with reduced funding would be laughable if it didn't have such serious ramifications.
Just look at what happened last year. The Republican leadership in the House provided $1.5 billion less than what the veterans services organizations recommended for the VA. For months we were told by the Republicans that, don't worry, everything will be fine. But finally in November the leadership finally relented and provided the amount needed to provide care for our veterans because they saw what was going on.
Well, it is deja vu all over again. The Republicans are calling for cuts to the VA system, but we all know we are going to need to provide more funding to meet the demand of the current soldiers who will be the veterans of tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have alternatives. We have a plan that is simple. Besides reducing the deficit, reinstating the pay-as-you-go-system, and properly funding education, health care, and homeland security, we give the veterans the services and respect that they deserve. Our budget provides $6 billion more than the Republican budget does for veterans health care.
My Republican friends charge the Democrats believe enough is never enough. Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to America's veterans, I strongly believe that enough is enough only when veterans have timely access to quality health care that they were promised. I believe enough is enough only when our veterans are not forced to wait 6 months for a doctor's appointment. I believe enough is enough only when our veterans and our veterans' families are cared for with the utmost respect and are not shortchanged. We can and we must do better.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to just respond to the gentleman.
When President Bush came to office, we had a debt of $5.6 trillion. By the end of this year, it will be over $9 trillion. By the end of his term, he will have doubled it. So you have done such a wonderful job driving this country into deep debt that we are going to have to pass it on to our children and our grandchildren.
Pay as you go is what we are saying over here. You are the ones who are behaving fiscally irresponsibly.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
If the previous question is defeated, I will modify this rule to provide that immediately after the House passes this rule, it will take up legislation to restore fiscal responsibility to the congressional budget process.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this bill will do two very important things. First, it will reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement that was in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act that expired in 2002. The bill will restore the PAYGO provision and extend it through the year 2011.
Mr. Speaker, the budget process may be complicated, but one thing is clear: We should be required to pay for new spending and tax breaks instead of running the highest deficits in the history of our country. The message is simple: If you want more tax breaks for millionaires, then pay for them. Our constituents have to take responsibility for their personal spending and their personal debt. So should we.
In addition, this bill will repeal rule XXVII, the House rule that blocks a direct vote on increasing the Federal debt limit, thereby shielding Members of this House from any responsibility for the massive rise in the debt ceiling. Under this rule, simply passing the budget effectively triggers an automatic increase in the debt ceiling. Members never have to get their hands dirty or explain to their constituents why our national debt continues to skyrocket to numbers that are so massive that they are almost impossible to comprehend. They never have to take a position or provide a reason. They can just pretend that it happened without any way to stop it. And to make this even worse, it only happens in the House. The Senate will still vote for the debt limit increase directly.
This Republican budget resolution calls for yet another increase in the debt limit by $653 billion, bringing our total debt limit to $9.6 trillion. Democrats believe that we should repeal House rule XXVII and require a straight up-or-down vote on raising the Federal debt limit.
I say to my colleagues, take responsibility. Show some backbone. Have some courage and explain to the American people why you are driving this country into debt.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/