Statement House Comittee on the Budget Hearing

Mr. Chairman, Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I appreciate all the hard work the Committee has done to arrange this hearing, allowing Members a chance to voice their thoughts on the FY 2005 Budget Resolution.

Mr. Chairman, once again this year, we are faced with the prospect of a record budget deficit. With pressing needs for homeland security and defense, it is more important now than ever that we hold the line on spending.

I, along with a number of other members, have pledged to the President that I will do my part by voting to maintain a Presidential veto of wasteful spending.

The President's budget request holds the line on spending in some areas, increasing non-defense spending (excluding homeland security) by only 0.5%. Mr. Chairman, it is critical that we maintain this fiscal discipline for the FY 2005 Budget Resolution. Changes in funding need to be made with offsets, not overall increases.

One part of the President's budget proposal that marks a significant improvement in spending practices is the change in the system for homeland security funding that will allocate money to areas under the greatest threat.

Under the current formula, 40% of all homeland security funding is divided up evenly by state. This results in a horrendous distortion, where California receives less than $5 per capita in homeland security funding, while lower-risk states like North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming receive between $29-$35 per person.

Joining California in the list of under-funded states are Texas, New York, and Florida - all states with serious homeland security risks.

If we are serious about creating a real homeland security network in this country, we must provide resources to the communities that face the greatest risks. The current formula for homeland security funding ignores the fact that certain parts of the country are under greater threat than others. I urge the Committee to include the President's change to homeland security funding in the Budget Resolution so that the states that need this funding most, receive it.

Having said this, I remain concerned about certain aspects of the President's budget request, which need to be addressed in the Budget Resolution.

Over the past decade, California, the largest contributor of revenues to the federal budget, has suffered a steady decline in its share of the federal budget. Last year, California reached a new low in federal funding, receiving only 77 cents for every dollar it sent to the federal government in taxes and fees. There are only five other states, all of which are far wealthier than California, that do worse.

Despite its above-average per capita income, California has high levels of poverty and a federal tax burden that continues to grow. It also has special needs that are often overlooked by the federal budget process.

One of the programs that received no funding in the President's Budget Request was the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which provides funding for states that have to use their own resources to carry out border enforcement. Every time an illegal alien is detained by California state authorities, the state of California is left with the bill for the detainee's food, transportation, lodging, etc. This program is essential for border states, particularly as homeland security threats increase the budget pressures on state and local law enforcement agencies.

If Congress fails to fund SCAAP, it will be turning its back on efforts to enforce our immigration laws. At a time when the President has called on Congress to consider changes to our immigration laws and we examine how to best address the millions of illegal aliens already residing here, depriving state and local authorities of the funds needed to detain criminal aliens would be significant step in the wrong direction. I urge your Committee to return SCAAP funding to a minimum of last year's level of $300 million, plus inflation.

Furthermore, I want to express my concern for the funding level in the President's Budget Request for Impact Aid. Last year, Impact Aid was funded at just over $1.1 billion - $100 million less than FY 2003. This level of funding is simply not enough for the schools that serve our military children and Native American reservations. In the face of a serious budget crunch for education in California, Impact Aid schools are in dire need of federal assistance.

Mr. Chairman, my district includes Camp Pendleton, the home of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, which is in the process of deploying to Iraq. The schools that serve the children of Camp Pendleton and the surrounding military communities provide vital educational and counseling services to help ease the problems associated with combat deployments. Military communities need our support. We should be bolstering our military families and strengthening educational resources for our military children, not shortchanging communities that have already been asked to carry the greatest burden of the war on terror.

I urge you to increase funding for Impact Aid to $1.25 billion. Again, I would like to thank the Committee for its work in preparing the FY 2005 budget resolution and making the decisions to control spending that have to be made.