Department of Defense and Full-Year Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today's legislation is the eighth--and I hope final--Continuing Resolution the Congress as a whole will be considering this fiscal year.

Throughout this debate, I have rejected the false choice between deep cuts that harm our fragile economic recovery or shutting down the government. Rather, as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, I have argued for a middle ground of graduated and predictable fiscal reform that both supports our recovery and reflects our values and priorities as a nation. In that regard, I am pleased that today's agreement reduces non-emergency outlays by only $352 million for the rest of FY 2011--and then spreads the next $20 billion in cuts over the next five years.

I have also made clear that our nation's fiscal imbalance cannot be addressed solely through reductions in the 12 percent of the budget representing non-security discretionary spending. Like the Bipartisan Fiscal Commission, I believe the final solution must include savings from our defense budget, adjustments to mandatory spending, and increased revenue. In my judgment, that revenue can and should come from comprehensive tax reform that eliminates tax loopholes and reinstates the Clinton era marginal rates for upper income earners.

Mr. Speaker, to govern is to choose, and today's legislation contains choices I would not have made. For example, because I believe the United States should be second to none when it comes to medical and scientific research, I do not think it makes sense to cut $260 million from the National Institutes of Health. Additionally, because our economy needs more clean energy, reducing energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development and deployment by $407 million is a visible step in the wrong direction. Finally, because our nation deserves a 21st century infrastructure and the jobs that go with it, slashing nearly $1 billion from the Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Funds is clearly misguided. In my view, medical research, clean energy and infrastructure are all examples of investments we can and should be willing to make in order to build a healthier, cleaner and stronger America.

While I am acutely aware of this bill's shortcomings, I also believe today's agreement contains some important victories. In a very challenging fiscal environment, we have been able to fund critical educational priorities. The Head Start program serving our youngest Americans will get a $340 million increase, and the maximum Pell Grant award will be maintained at $5500 so deserving low-income students can go to college. Additionally, with our unemployment rate at 8.8%, we have largely protected vital job training funds at a level of $2.8 billion. Finally, while I do not believe the Republican party has any right to impose its ideological agenda on the District of Columbia, this bill eliminates the vast majority of extreme policy riders in HR 1 ranging from women's health to public broadcasting to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Law to the EPA's efforts to combat climate change.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a far from perfect process, and not surprisingly, today's legislation is a far from perfect measure. But it is apparently the best we can do in this sharply divided Congress--and in the final analysis, I believe it is preferable to shutting down the government.

Source