[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MEMBERS' DAY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 14, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
Available on the Internet: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/
house04.html
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-125 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa, Chairman
JIM RYUN, Kansas JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida Carolina,
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida Ranking Minority Member
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
JO BONNER, Alabama ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey CHET EDWARDS, Texas
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan LOIS CAPPS, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JEB HENSARLING, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
PETE SESSIONS, Texas WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho ED CASE, Hawaii
JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire CYNTHIA McKINNEY, Georgia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CONNIE MACK, Florida ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas4 RON KIND, Wisconsin
CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana
JOHN CAMPBELL, California
Professional Staff
James T. Bates, Chief of Staff
Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC, February 14, 2006................ 1
Statement of:
Hon. Randy Neugebauer, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 1
Hon. Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Iowa.................................................... 5
Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 10
Hon. Rush D. Holt, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey........................................ 21
Hon. Cathy McMorris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 25
Hon. Ralph Regula, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 29
Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 35
Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 39
Hon. Todd Tiahrt, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Kansas.................................................. 47
Hon. Vito Fossella, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 52
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 57
Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts..................................... 61
Hon. Julia Carson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana........................................... 71
Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 74
Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 77
Hon. Sue W. Kelly, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 83
Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio.......................................... 86
Hon. Brad Miller, a Representative in Congress from the State
of North Carolina.......................................... 90
Hon. Robin Hayes, a Representative in Congress from the State
of North Carolina.......................................... 94
Hon. Mark R. Kennedy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 98
Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 100
Hon. John T. Salazar, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 103
Hon. Michael G. Fitzpatrick, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Pennsylvania............................. 106
Hon. Charles F. Bass, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Hampshire..................................... 109
Prepared statements, letters, extraneous material submitted by:
Mr. Neugebauer............................................... 4
Mr. King..................................................... 7
Mr. Ehlers................................................... 17
Mr. Holt..................................................... 22
Miss McMorris................................................ 27
Mr. Regula................................................... 32
Mr. Young of Alaska.......................................... 37
Mr. Hinojosa................................................. 41
Mr. Tiahrt................................................... 49
Mr. Fossella................................................. 55
Mrs. Capito.................................................. 60
Mr. McGovern:
Letter................................................... 64
Prepared statement....................................... 65
Ms. Carson................................................... 73
Mr. Bishop of New York....................................... 75
Mr. Mica:
Prepared statement....................................... 79
Cover letters............................................ 81
Mrs. Kelly................................................... 85
Mr. Kucinich................................................. 89
Mr. Miller of North Carolina................................. 92
Mr. Hayes.................................................... 96
Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota..................................... 99
Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida............................. 102
Mr. Salazar.................................................. 105
Mr. Fitzpatrick.............................................. 108
Mr. Bass:
Prepared statement....................................... 110
Letter................................................... 112
Hon. Tom Price, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Georgia................................................. 113
Hon. Lane Evans, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois................................................ 113
Hon. Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Nevada.................................................. 114
MEMBERS' DAY
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jim Ryun presiding.
Members present: Representatives Ryun, Crenshaw, Wicker,
Diaz-Balart, Bradley, McHenry, Conaway, Spratt, Moore, Baird
and Cooper.
Mr. Ryun [presiding]. Good afternoon and welcome, everyone,
to the Budget Committee Members' Day hearing. The hearing is
directed by the Budget Act, and its intent is to provide a
forum in which Members of Congress can relay their priorities
from their districts, State, and country to this committee. We
are pleased to have a diversified group of Members on the
roster today and look forward to receiving their testimony.
Before we go to our first Member, are there any Members who
have any opening statements?
I would like to recognize Mr. McHenry.
Mr. McHenry. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I appreciate
the Members coming forward with their ideas and look forward to
hearing what good ideas we can try to incorporate as we try to
create the budget for this coming fiscal year.
I just want to thank my colleagues Mr. Neugebauer and Mr.
King especially for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryun. Thank you very much.
We will proceed with Members and their testimony. We will
begin today with Representative Neugebauer of Texas.
STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I ask that I
be able to revise and extend my remarks.
Mr. Ryun. Without objection.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, we moved in the right direction last year when it
comes to the budget. For the first time in 8 years, Congress
passed legislation that reforms mandatory spending programs and
slows their growth rates, saving nearly $40 billion. Through
the appropriation process we reduced nondefense discretionary
spending and held total discretionary growth to just 1.8
percent. Tax revenues continue to rise, and we are on a track
to pass legislation that will prevent any future tax increases.
Despite this setback in the deficit due to emergency
spending without enough offsets, we must maintain the momentum
on spending control and continue to keep our tax rates low. To
this end, Congress should have three goals in this year's
budget. First, our budget must again contain spending
reconciliation instructions in order to drive additional reform
and savings in the rapidly growing entitlement programs.
Second, we must prioritize our domestic spending better in
areas in order to live within our means. Finally, we need to
reform our budget process so that Congress is more accountable
to the taxpayers.
It has been a number of years since Congress used
reconciliation to achieve savings and reforms in mandatory
programs. We can't afford to wait a long time before we do it
again, so reconciliation must become a regular part of the
budget process. Left on autopilot, Medicare and Medicaid alone
will become 32 percent of all Federal spending, and all
mandatory programs will reach a two-thirds level of the budget
within 10 years. The economy does not grow that fast, and
neither can our government. Our goal should be to hold total
spending growth to an annual GDP growth or less.
And what I mean by that, Mr. Chairman, is that I think the
President is going to report to us that the economy grew at 3.1
percent GDP last year. And our spending cap should be for our
Federal Government, that the Government should grow at no
greater rate than 3.1 percent. If we begin to do that over the
next few years, instead of letting government grow at a rate of
over 5 percent, we begin to reduce the budget deficits at a
much faster clip.
So one of the things I would like for this committee to
look into is coming up with some reasonable spending
restraints. We are restraining the amount of revenue that is
coming in in the form of keeping taxes lower, but as long as we
keep writing checks that there are not sufficient funds for and
we have to borrow, then the spending restraints are not
enforceable. So what I think we should do, as we put this
budget together, is look at other ways to enforce and impose
upon ourselves certain spending caps.
I would urge the Budget Committee to again include the
reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution and giving
the authorizing committees full latitude in order to decide how
to achieve those savings. I also believe that the
reconciliation targets should be set in line with a committee's
share of total mandatory spending.
What I mean by that is, for example, under the Agriculture
Committee's jurisdiction, about one-half of a percent is the
Federal budget and 4 percent of all mandatory spending. So when
we look at assigning those spending and reform targets, that
should be in proportion to that committee's share of the
budget.
Currently in the Agriculture Committee we will be working
on reauthorizing the 2007 Farm Bill. We need to make sure that
whatever bill that we do for budget purposes we keep in place
our ability to keep our promise that we made to producers in
the 2002 Farm Bill. I urge the Budget Committee keep these
considerations in mind when setting targets so that Agriculture
does not take a disproportionate share of those savings.
The fiscal year 2007 budget resolution must also challenge
appropriators and authorizers to better prioritize spending by
reducing the amount allocated for discretionary spending. The
discretionary spending debate needs to shift from how much to
increase programs to whether or not we should be funding those
programs at all. If an authorizing committee has not done the
work to reauthorize a program, Congress should not continue to
appropriate those funds to it. Reducing the discretionary
spending level in the budget resolution is one way to force
this change in debate.
Limiting resources results in real priority setting and
more debate on whether a program or Members' earmark requests
are actually necessary. There are a lot of things that would be
nice for the Federal Government to be doing, but the debate
really ought to be what we should be doing.
I appreciate the work that the Budget Committee does;
however, reforming the way that we budget will enable Congress
to do a much better job of being good stewards of the
taxpayers' dollars.
Two steps: No. 1, enforcing domestic spending caps for the
next 5 years; and, No. 2, reinstating PAYGO for any new
mandatory programs, again putting a ceiling on what we spend,
and if we do initiate new programs, requiring that all new
mandatory programs would have to be paid for.
It is important for Congress to create a revolving sunset
of all Federal programs. What I propose with that is whether
that period is a 6- or 8-year period, that we say over the next
8 years on a staggered basis that we are going to sunset every
major Federal program. Then we begin the real debate on whether
those programs should be reauthorized or not, looking at the
effectiveness of them, measuring their success, looking at
whether if we do reauthorize those programs, are three ways to
reauthorize them in such a way that they are more efficient and
better stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
Our budget process needs to take into account for emergency
spending. I agree sometimes Federal resources such as hurricane
recovery relief need to be made; however, when an emergency
situation becomes a priority, we need to offset the cost by
reducing spending items that are less pressing. Providing a
clear definition of what constitutes an emergency, I think,
would also be helpful, and creating an emergency spending fund
within the budget would serve Congress better.
We know that when we look back historically over the years
that we have had, in numerous years, emergency spending
requests that have had to come before this Congress. Let us
anticipate those and build an emergency fund in our budget.
We also, finally, need a debate on the budget process
itself. In conclusion, a sound 2007 Federal budget resolution
will guide Congress through to making further reforms to
mandatory programs, prioritizing domestic programs, and
allowing for continued economic growth by preventing tax
increases.
I also urge you to consider recommendations for budget
reforms that other Members will be bringing forward today.
Thank you for this opportunity to present my views on this
year's budget.
Mr. Ryun. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Randy Neugebauer, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Texas
Last year, for the first time in 8 years, Congress passed
legislation that reforms mandatory spending programs and slows their
growth rates, saving $40 billion. Through the appropriations process,
we actually reduced non-defense discretionary spending and held total
discretionary growth to 1.8 percent.
Tax revenues continue the increase that began in 2004 due to
sustained growth in the jobs and the economy, and we are on track to
pass legislation that prevents a tax increase. Allowing tax rates to
rise would take away resources from Americans that they use better than
the government can to generate economic growth.
As challenging as these budget accomplishments were, the deficit
will still increase in FY 2006. Congress appropriated billions of
dollars in emergency spending in response to the Gulf hurricanes and to
continue to support our troops abroad, but we did not approve
sufficient offsets to cover these needs.
Despite this setback, we moved in the right direction last year.
This year, we must maintain the momentum on spending control, prevent a
tax increase and address the long-term threats to the nation's fiscal
health. To this end, Congress should have three goals in this year's
budget:
First, our budget must again contain spending reconciliation
instructions in order to drive additional reform and savings in
rapidly-growing entitlement programs. Second, we must prioritize our
domestic spending better in all areas in order to live within our
means. Finally, we need to reform our budget process in order to make
Congress more accountable to the taxpayers we represent.
MANDATORY SPENDING SAVINGS
The Deficit Reduction Act will, on average, slow mandatory spending
growth from 5.9 percent to 5.7 percent. It had been a number of years
since Congress used reconciliation to achieve savings and reforms in
mandatory programs; we can't afford to wait that long before we do it
again. Reconciliation must become a regular part of the budget process
given the deficit, the growing share of the Federal budget that
mandatory spending comprises and the growing demographic demands on the
largest entitlement programs.
Congress has more opportunities to consider the long-term stability
of programs such as Medicare and Medicaid when we add regular review of
entitlement spending. CBO projects each of these programs will grow by
more than 8 percent over the next 10 years. Left on autopilot, these
two programs alone will comprise 32 percent of all Federal spending,
and all mandatory programs would reach two-thirds of spending. The
economy does not grow that fast, and neither can government. Our goal
should be to restrict the growth of all spending annual GDP growth or
less.
I urge the Budget Committee to again include reconciliation
instructions in the Budget Resolution that give authorizing committees
full latitude in deciding how to achieve the savings. I also believe
reconciliation targets should be set in line with a committee's share
of total mandatory spending and commensurate with the degree a
committee's programs are growing in excess of the economy.
For example, all programs under the Agriculture Committee's
jurisdiction comprise a half percent of total Federal budget and 4
percent of all mandatory spending. In the Ag Committee, we have begun
work to reauthorize Department of Agriculture programs and replace the
current Farm Bill that expires in September, 2007. Reductions in
agriculture mandatory spending could reduce the amount the available
for the Farm Bill before we even write the bill. I ask that the Budget
Committee keep these facts in mind when setting savings targets so that
agriculture does not face a disproportionate share of the reductions.
PRIORITIZE SPENDING
The FY2007 Budget Resolution must challenge appropriators and
authorizers to better prioritize spending by reducing the amount
allocated for discretionary spending. Although we could eliminate all
non-defense discretionary spending and still run a deficit, we need to
squeeze all the savings we can out of this area.
The discretionary spending debate needs to shift from ``how much''
to increase a program to whether or not we should be funding the
program at all. If an authorizing committee has not done the work to
reauthorize a program, Congress should not continue to appropriate
funds to it.
Reducing the discretionary spending level in the budget resolution
is one way to force this change in debate. Limiting resources results
in real priority-setting and more debate on whether a program, or a
Member's earmark request, is necessary or is effective. There are a lot
of things that may be nice for the Federal Government to do, but the
spending debate ought to be about what the Federal Government should be
doing.
BUDGET PROCESS REFORM
I appreciate the work of the Budget Committee in setting the
parameters for spending and tax policy every year. However, reform in
the way we budget will enable Congress to be a better steward of tax
dollars. Two first steps we need to take are setting and enforcing
domestic spending caps for the next 5 years and re-instating PAYGO for
new mandatory spending. Congress has used these tools successfully in
the past, and we need to put them in force again.
It is also important for Congress to create a revolving sunset for
all Federal programs. A revolving sunset will push Congress to do more
oversight and long-term planning and make better decisions about the
role and activities of the Federal Government. Sunsetting will also
help reduce duplication, waste and obsolete programs.
Our budget process needs to take better account of emergency
spending. I agree that we needed to devote Federal resources to
hurricane recovery. However, when an emergency situation becomes the
priority, we need to offset those new costs by reducing spending on
items that are less pressing. Providing a clear definition of what
constitutes emergency spending and setting aside an emergency ``rainy
day'' fund in the budget would serve Congress better.
There are a number of budget reform proposals on the table,
addressing ideas such as biennial budgeting, earmarking, new budget
points of order and a simplified budget resolution. We need a full
debate on budget process reform this year.
A sound FY2007 Budget Resolution will guide Congress in making
further reforms to mandatory programs, prioritizing domestic programs
and allow for continued economic growth by preventing tax increases. I
also urge you to consider recommendations for budget reforms.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this year's
budget.
Mr. Ryun. Any Members with any questions at this time?
Before we move to the next witness, I would like to take a
moment and turn to Mr. Spratt for any opening comments he would
like to make.
Mr. Spratt. I have none, Mr. Chairman. I thank both
witnesses for their attendance here and look forward to the
further testimony and apologize for being late.
Mr. Ryun. Our next witness is Mr. King from Iowa.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Spratt, and other members of the committee. I appreciate the
privilege to testify before this committee, and I ask unanimous
consent to introduce my statement into the record and just
speak directly to you off the statement extemporaneously.
Mr. Ryun. Without objection.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to make five points before this committee, all of
which are included in my printed remarks. The first is a
discussion on joint resolution; and then the need, I think, to
produce a model balanced budget; and then to budget emergency
spending, which Mr. Neugebauer addressed as well; and then to
discuss a rescissions bill that could be useful to us in
controlling spending; and then to point out what it would take,
at least in a very snapshot way, to balance this budget this
year.
First of all, with a joint resolution on the budget, that
is something we have discussed at some length in the past 2 or
3 years that I have been here in this Congress, Mr. Chairman,
and I think that it is essential for us to be able to pass a
budget out of this House that goes over to the Senate and ask
them to put an approval on that. So we would have a joint
resolution that would have the endorsement of the House and
Senate, and then send it to the President for his signature so
it would have the full force and effect of law.
That would eliminate a great deal of the temptation that
comes in the appropriations process if we are bound then by a
joint resolution and limits us to the 302(b) allocations that
would be part of that budget. I have supported this for some
time. There is significant support, I believe, to do so. And if
we don't do this, we will continue to see this government grow
6 to 8 percent every year, as we have seen it grow in the past.
That would be my first point.
My second point is a respectful request to this Budget
Committee, and it is one that I have made in private over the
last 3 years I have served in this Congress, and it is one I
would ask your help with, and that is let us produce a balanced
budget. Whether we can pass it or not is a secondary question,
but we should hang a model up on the wall that lets the
American people know how painful it might be to do the cuts
that are necessary to balance this budget, like we would have
to balance our family budget or our business budget.
I reflect back that even though I was faced with emergency
spending in my business in 1993, when four of my major projects
went underwater in the construction business, I didn't have the
alternative to produce anything but a balanced budget because I
would have been out of business otherwise. And I am
incorporating two ideas here, the balanced budget and emergency
spending. We face this in our business and our families every
day in this country. We do what is necessary to balance the
budget, no matter how painful it is, because we know we are
insolvent if we don't do so.
So I would submit that this committee could be very
valuable as a tool to produce a balanced budget, if nothing
else, as a prototype, as a model or template to show how much
we deviate from that when we produce the budget that actually
gets 218 votes. I think this committee could do it, and I think
you have the will to do it. You certainly have the will to get
a budget out of here. I think you have done a great job out of
this committee, especially in the last couple of years. Let's
produce a model balanced budget.
The third point would be one of Mr. Neugebauer's points as
well, and that is to budget for emergency spending. There has
been more efforts to do that in the past, and I applaud those
efforts, but I think we need that line-item in there, and a
realistic line-item, not one that is inflated that can provide
for any contingency, but one that is realistic, that is perhaps
the average of emergency spending for the last 5 years. Plug
that number into the budget and adjust our other numbers
accordingly. Then, if we have an emergency that exceeds that
line-item within our 302(b) allocation, then let us put it in
law, in our joint resolution, that there will be mandatory
offsets so that we can control this spending in the event of a
disaster, like we have seen down in the gulf coast this year.
My fourth point is the one that I think could actually make
a dramatic difference in the spending, and that is to bring a
rescissions bill to the floor of Congress, at least one bill at
the end of the appropriations process under an open rule in
such a way that every single line item--and we talk about a
line-item veto for the President. We don't even get to, as
Members of Congress, offer a line-item veto for a majority vote
of Congress. But under a rescissions bill that would come to
the floor under an open rule, it would allow any Member of
Congress to bring an amendment that would strike a line item.
And in this I am keeping in mind earmarks that have been a
central point of our discussion, but any line item, and direct
those funds to any fund that Member chose, whether to reduce
the overall debt or whether it is to go to another program, and
let the majority of Congress put a vote up on the board that
says where we are.
When we finish this process of a rescissions bill, and I
don't allege this will be an easy process, especially the first
year, but after 2 or 3 years of a rescissions bill under an
open rule that lets us bring anything, you would find that the
earmarks would be reduced. Outrageous programs wouldn't be
submitted because they wouldn't want to face the scrutiny of a
potential majority vote in Congress. So I think that is an idea
that has a lot of merit and that addresses the earmark problem
and the overspending problem.
And then in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would just add that
under a quick analysis of a spreadsheet program I have had made
available to me, I just went in yesterday and did some quick
clicks on that, some potentials of what would it take to
balance the budget for the 2007 fiscal year, and if I just go
to nondefense discretionary spending, it would take a reduction
of about 5 percent of nondefense discretionary spending. That
is probably, I am certain, too painful for the majority of
Congress to go that way, but I think it is important for this
committee to analyze different proposals and come back to the
Congress with a proposal that lets us know how painful it is to
balance the budget in this time.
That would conclude my testimony, and I would be open to
any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve King, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Iowa
I wish to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), Chairman of
the Budget Committee, and other members on the Budget Committee for
holding this important hearing today to chart our financial course for
Fiscal Year 2007.
Spending is out of control and we are paying more money per
household for taxes than we have at any time since the Second World
War. We need to get out of the cycle of automatic spending increases.
Since much of the budget is calculated from formulas that result in
automatic spending increases, the size of government may be expected to
grow by 6 to 8 percent every year--automatically. Baseline budgeting
estimates how much Federal spending is projected to increase. An
automatic increase to mandatory programs is not an effective tool to
reduce spending. During this time of year, those seeking funds often
play on syntax and claim that budgets are being decreased. For example,
if a proposal to reduce the rate of growth on spending that has not yet
actually occurred--recommending that entitlements increase by 6.2
percent rather than 6.3 percent--there is a mad scurry stating that
funding is being cut when in fact it is not. We need to get Washington
out of the mind-set that budget assumptions need to account for the
growth of government.
Here are a few of my suggestions to keep us on track toward a
balanced budget.
First, I believe that we should transform the concurrent resolution
on the budget into a joint resolution, requiring the President's
signature and making it enforceable. The Executive and Legislative
branches would begin early on to work on budget priorities together
rather than working on two separate tracks, which is the current
system. Early involvement between the two branches would foster
cooperation, leading to less conflict when legislation implementing
budget resolution policies is finalized later in the session. This
would make the appropriations process more accountable because the
appropriators would be bound by law to not exceed the discretionary
spending caps set by the 302(b) Budget Allocations. Authorizing
committees would be required by law to find savings in existing
programs. It would help to keep the budget process from being watered
down by the time the bill makes it out of conference committee. The
work during Fiscal Year 2006 is a good start, but we have a long way to
go.
Secondly, to fully understand the scope of the budgeting challenges
we are faced with in the coming years, Members of Congress need to
understand the full scope of a balanced budget and what it will take to
get us there. The Budget Committee should be required to present a
balanced budget annually even if the balanced budget is not passed out
of committee. This would give us a template to work from and always
direct us toward a balanced budget. It is important that we set short-
term, mid-term, and long-term priorities. Setting a budget is more than
just numbers. It defines us by vision and priorities for this Nation.
Third, Congress currently provides additional funds during the
fiscal year, usually in supplemental appropriations, to respond to
specific natural disasters and other emergency, or unanticipated,
situations. Congress and the President usually designate the additional
spending as an ``emergency requirement,'' effectively exempting it from
budget constraints established under the Budget Enforcement Act of
1990, as amended. I propose that emergency spending should be planned
for to the best of our ability. We are not really living under a real
and true budget when spending can be taken off the table and accounted
differently under the auspices of an emergency. As a small businessman
who saw my very livelihood in pending construction jobs and equipment
washed down the Missouri River in the flood of 1993, I had to count
that disaster as part of my whole budget.
Finally, the Budget Committee should require that at least one
rescissions bill be brought to the floor of the House and the Senate
under an open rule so that every member has the opportunity to bring
amendments. This will reduce the number of earmarks simply because of
the intimidation factor. Bloated spending will be dramatically cut by a
majority vote of Congress.
I believe we can work together to reduce the deficit and still
support a budget that provides for the common defense, helps us fight
and win this war on terror, and promotes economic growth. I have some
sample charts that illustrate what a 5-percent cut to discretionary and
other non-Medicare or non-Social Security spending would look like over
the next 5 years. There is nothing courageous or commendable about
voting for deficits. True courage is exhibited by taking a tough stand
and choosing to cut spending. When it comes to Federal programs, it is
not how much money is spent, but what we spend the money on that
counts. I believe we need to chart an economic course in this Nation
that will not bankrupt our children and grandchildren. The easiest and
best way to stop the growth of Federal spending and give more money
back to American families is to make these tough decisions now. There
still remains much work to be done, and I look forward to working with
the Committee to accomplish the goal of not only reducing the deficit
but also balancing the budget.
Once again, I thank and commend the Chairman (Mr. Nussle) and the
Committee for the work they have done and encourage them to press
forward on our tough budget decisions ahead.
Mr. Ryun. Thank you very much for your testimony, and I
would like to at this point turn to any Members that might have
questions.
Mr. Wicker.
Mr. Wicker. Let me ask a question, and I appreciate the
testimony from both of you. It seems that both of you would
like for us to change the budget procedure with regard to
emergency spending.
Mr. King, you were a little more specific, suggesting that
we look back at the past 5 years and use that average as an
amount. Have you run the numbers to see how that would have
changed things for the Hurricane Katrina. Is it something that
you have already done; or would you supply that to the
committee?
And, also, how would it actually change things as a
practical matter, since we actually did offset a great deal of
the emergency spending that we had last year?
Mr. King. Well, I would be happy to run those numbers and
provide them to the committee.
I have just laid out a philosophy, and I don't think any 5-
year history would have prepared us for the Katrina/Rita
disaster that hit us, because the magnitude of that is beyond,
I believe, what that would have accommodated for. But that is
from a philosophical perspective. It isn't clear yet the
expenses of Katrina to be able to determine the impact of that
particular disaster, but I do think Katrina/Rita is anomaly.
We have faced severe disasters in the past, none of that
magnitude. So I am hopeful that that will be kind of a blip on
the radar screen in a fashion that as we look back
historically, we would be able to have a perspective that is
broader than Katrina and absorb that into our average in future
years.
Mr. Wicker. Would this contingency emergency fund be added
to the baseline each year? That is one of the arguments in
favor of emergency spending, that you go back to the original
baseline; you don't add that in.
Mr. King. It would be my philosophical position, not a
procedural one, that unspent funds would be returned back into
the general fund so that they didn't add to the baseline.
Otherwise we would be inflating on unspent funds, and that
wouldn't reflect the disasters that we faced.
Mr. Neugebauer. I think I would probably take a little bit
different approach. I think I would put it in the baseline. It
is easier to give it back. But if you build your budget around
that, one of the things, for example, in Katrina, if we had had
an emergency contingency fund, I think we would have given
Congress a little more time to have sat down and looked at what
would have been an appropriate reaction to Katrina. As a result
of that, we came back and we passed an unprecedented--I think
it is the largest disaster bill in the history of this country.
If you had had a certain amount of money in there that could
have been activated under the budget, rather than having to
come back and passing an emergency bill, I think possibly a
better outcome of how we spent that money could have been
achieved.
In my business, for example, I just recently came to
Congress from the private sector, and we reserved amounts for
potential overages or for potential unforeseen things that
could happen during the budget year because we had to build it
around that. It is hard to go back to your customers after you
have sold all your merchandise and say, I didn't sell this for
enough because we had an extraordinary expense that occurred
during the year.
So I think you have to build that into this budget, whether
it is a drought in the Midwest or hurricanes in Florida or
hurricanes in the Southeast. I think we have to build that in
our budget because we have been spending those kinds of monies.
Mr. Wicker. Well, I thank you both for your testimony. Both
of you do come from a business background. That is very helpful
in looking at the problems that we face.
I want to congratulate these two witnesses, Mr. Chairman,
for being creative and thinking outside the box in providing us
their expertise on this issue.
Mr. Ryun. Thank you very much.
Any more questions?
May I just say to Mr. McHenry, if you can make your
question brief. We have two other witnesses. You may continue.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do want to thank Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. King for their
testimony. What they both struck upon was the need for a
balanced budget.
Mr. King, you spoke directly about that. Do you want to
fill in any more of the details on what you would like to see,
the approach here? Because I know every year we have the
opportunity to offer amendments, and if it is something the
committee cannot take up, I would be very willing to work with
you on crafting our view and create our version of a budget so
that we can move toward balance and bring the Congress with us.
Mr. King. Well, thank you, Mr. McHenry. I have not worked
out a budget yet myself. As you know, it takes a broad staff
and time to do that in a responsible fashion. But I think we
need to look at all the components of the budget and analyze
them. And it is the growth of entitlements that I am
particularly concerned about.
I am also concerned that we put together a budget that if
it doesn't balance this year, let us set a target for when it
does balance and let us try to make a promise to the American
people and head down that path. We need a short-term, a mid-
term, and a long-term strategy, and that strategy needs to
include these entitlements, particularly Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security.
And there is going to have to be some policy changes there
in order to keep that growth under control, or interest will
eat us up in the end down the road. So I would like to look at
that with you in the overall composition of the budget.
I do not think a 5-percent cut in the discretionary
nondefense spending would be the way to balance the budget. I
think that is too draconian, but I used that because it was a
simple model. So I would like to look at that in a broader
scope with you and anyone else interested in producing a
balanced budget.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. King, thank you very much for your testimony,
and we will move now to Mr. Ehlers of Michigan for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. VERNON J. EHLERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
you for the opportunity to testify on my favorite topic and, I
believe, yours, the same thing I have spoken to you about over
the past several years, about the need for more funding for
scientific research and the need for great improvement in math-
science education in this Nation.
I was always received very cordially by this committee, but
I was always told that you could not grant my entire request
because you could not go over the President's request. So we
now have a situation where the President has requested
substantial improvement through his American Competitiveness
Initiative, and I would like to discuss that a little bit and
certainly lend my wholehearted support to that.
First of all, the most important thing to understand is
about math and science education, and I have put on the board
something that indicates I am not alone in this. This is
President's Bush's comments about America's Competitiveness
Initiative announced in a letter on February 2nd, and I think
this speaks for itself. I am not in the habit of reading
PowerPoint presentations to people, but you can see it for
yourself.
In addition to that, there is another dimension which I
have testified to you before about, and which is becoming
increasingly apparent, and that is the national security aspect
of this. The national security aspect--probably the best
statement I can give you on that is the Hart-Rudman Report of
2001, which is, in this Commission's view, that the
inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a
greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter
century than any potential conventional war that we can
imagine.
Basically they are saying, and I see I have the undivided
attention of the committee, this is extremely important, our
national security depends on developing better research systems
and better math-science education. If we look at what we have
been doing and what is happening with our Federal funding, we
have--for NASA, Department of Energy, and the National Science
Foundation (NSF), we have actually gone down in most of our
funding for scientific research, except the NSF has climbed
very slowly.
What this chart does not show, and I have not included a
chart on that because I don't want to overdo it with charts,
but if you compare it to other countries, we are falling behind
dramatically. In fact, we are at the point where South Korea
will very shortly surpass us in the amount spent on research
compared to their GDP, and so will other nations, who are
already ahead of us on that point.
One area we have done well is not shown in this, and that
is at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where we,
through agreement with a previous administration and with the
strong support of Speaker Gingrich, doubled it over a period of
5 years. And if you talk to Mr. Gingrich today, he will tell
you he considers it his greatest failure as a Speaker the lack
or the failure to double National Science Foundation at the
same time.
It has reached the point where scientists at NIH are saying
we will have to fund physical science research ourselves
because we cannot proceed faster and further in health and life
science research until we get the physical science and research
done. So the President's initiative addresses this.
This shows what we have actually done with the National
Science Foundation, and the President's request targets three
entities, the National Science Foundation, National Institute
of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's
Office of Science. Now, when you look, notice here what has
happened. For years the President's request was below the
Congress' actual appropriation. That has changed. In the last
few years, if you look at fiscal year 2005, the red bar, the
President's request was substantially above what the Congress
appropriated. The next year, same thing; still below the
President's request.
I am pleased that the President has offered a much higher
request this year, recognizing the urgent need for the
increased funding for scientific research, particularly for the
National Science Foundation, and I ask that this committee will
agree with that request.
This chart is interesting because the House itself decided
to double the appropriations for the National Science
Foundation. They doubled the authorization over 5 years. The
red lines show what that authorization is, and the other lines
demonstrate how clearly we have failed to meet our goal as
passed in that legislation.
Basically, in the National Science Foundation, the
President requested an increase of 8 percent, which is large in
terms of our budget difficulties, but won't begin to really
catch up with other nations unless we keep this up for some
years. But his effort is to double in 10 years.
Department of Energy, Office of Science, increased by 14
percent in several areas, and half that will go to researchers
and half to facilities that will keep us competitive
internationally.
And then we have the National Institute of Standards, which
is often neglected, but is very vital to our competitiveness in
terms of their standards-setting, their Manufacturing Extension
Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which is
now in limbo. But this will provide the increase they need,
particularly in cybersecurity. They have some of the world's
cybersecurity experts there, and other branches of government,
including the Defense Department, depend on those individuals
to keep abreast of the developments in cybersecurity.
So my request is that we follow the President's request,
that we raise the basic research, the math and science
education and the Function 250 levels to the President's
request, and this, I believe, should be our top priority if we
expect our Nation and our businesses to remain competitive with
other countries.
It is not just a matter of different wage rates in
different countries. It is a matter that our engineering
enrollment has gone down for 20 years, whereas the Chinese have
gone from producing half as many as we do to now producing six
times as many as we are. They have graduated 300,000 engineers
this past year, six times what we have graduated, and it is a
concerted effort on their part. India has done the same, both
of those as a result of decisions made 20 years ago that they
could beat us only if they improved their investment in
research and in math and science education.
They decided to do it, they have done it, and, frankly,
they are beating the pants off us in some areas. So we have to
get with it and meet the competition.
Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Michigan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify as the
Committee considers a FY 2007 Budget Resolution. I know the Committee
must weigh many pressing national priorities, including the continuing
war on terrorism, facilitating economic stimulus, and maintaining
fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the President's call to maintain
the competitive ability of the United States in an increasingly
innovative world economy. His American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI)
requests focused funding on areas that will improve education, promote
domestic innovation and economic productivity. I hope that you share my
view that the research and education initiatives are a national
priority, and I encourage you to budget the necessary resources for
scientific research and education as you evaluate the FY 2007 budget.
In making these difficult budget choices, we must not overlook the
fact that scientific research and development underpins our economic
and national security. Scientific research and development forms the
foundation of increased innovation, economic vitality and national
security and is an investment that has historically delivered
significant returns on that investment. For the U.S. to remain a
prosperous country, it must maintain its technological leadership in
the world. As you begin the budget process, I strongly urge you to give
high priority to scientific research and development and math and
science education as highlighted in the American Competitiveness
Initiative.
For the past several years, research and development funding for
defense, weapons development and national security has increased while
other areas of Federal research and development, especially basic
research in the physical sciences, has remained flat or declined in
real terms. The President's FY 2007 request of $137 billion for
research and development seeks to reverse this trend at three important
agencies: the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy's
Office of Science, and National Institute of Standards and Technology.
While our focus on immediate threats is certainly warranted, it is
necessary for us also to consider longer-term threats to our national
security and the agencies that support research in these areas.
Fundamental research and science education are essential to advances in
medicine, military applications and continued economic prosperity,
including the development of cancer therapies, GPS- or laser-guided
missiles, and the Internet. The diversity of the basic science research
portfolio ensures discoveries that lay the foundation for biomedical
advances and defense. Historically, our investment in physical science
research has been slipping, and our overall national investment in
research and development is at a rate much slower when compared to
other growing economies. Furthermore, Congress has actually reduced the
appropriated funds for physical sciences at NSF and DOE in recent
years, compared to the request.
The bulk of the requested funds at the three agencies will support
research in the areas of computer technology and homeland security
infrastructure and fund facilities that will maintain the U.S. as a
paramount location to conduct physical sciences and energy research.
The American Competitiveness Initiative sets the U.S. on a bold path to
double the budgets of three agencies in the next 10 years. In addition
to doubling these research budgets, it is a bold and ambitious approach
to keeping America at the forefront of research and education by
increasing the numbers of highly qualified math and science teachers,
expanding high school advanced placement offerings, and providing
workforce skills training to some 800,000 workers annually.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency
dedicated solely to supporting basic scientific research. NSF funding
accounts for one-fifth of all Federal support for basic research and 40
percent of physical science research at academic institutions. Nearly
90 percent of these awards are made through a competitive, merit-review
process that ensures that excellent and innovative research is being
supported. Furthermore, NSF consistently receives the highest rating
from OMB for the efficiency and excellence of its programs.
The NSF's FY 2007 budget request of $6.0 billion is an 8-percent
increase over FY 2006 appropriations, the first year in a 10-year
commitment to double its budget. This marks a shift from previous
budget requests, as the NSF budget has been stagnant in recent years,
and even cut in FY 2005. This significant infusion of research funds is
extremely necessary for FY 2007 and I ask you to enhance the science
allocation accordingly. The request is still well below the authorized
funding level necessary to complete the commitment Congress made to
double NSF funding in 2002, but I am confident that this request is the
start of a new doubling path that we can truly follow.
While I am heartened by the commitment the Administration's request
shows for the fundamental research budget at NSF, I would like to
register my concern that the education programs at the Foundation have
not been included in the ACI. NSF is the primary Federal supporter of
science and math education; it underwrites the development of the next
generation of scientists and engineers. I am particularly concerned
about the trend of the current budget request that restructures the
Education and Human Resources (EHR) budget at the Foundation and
eliminates three programs critical to our nation, including the Math
and Science Partnership program. The budget request, while firmly
supporting research endeavors at NSF, overlooks the education role of
NSF. While the overall budget of NSF increases almost 8 percent, the
EHR directorate experiences a modest 2.5-percent increase and a
dramatic restructuring. This is a continuing, but distressing, trend
for NSF to move away from their K-16 educational mission and to focus
solely on graduate education and activities to broaden participation in
STEM fields. Decreasing the role of NSF in education, or eliminating
any new awards entirely, seems very shortsighted when we are currently
facing the challenge of adequately preparing our students to enter
science and technology fields.
I have worked very hard to maintain the Math and Science
Partnership program at NSF, where grants are awarded on a peer-reviewed
basis that complements the strengths of a research-based organization.
The FY 2007 request for the Math and Science Partnerships of $46
million will only allow continued funding for the programs that were
started in previous years, eliminating the future of a research-based
program to determine how our students best learn the subjects of math
and science. I urge the Committee to provide NSF with the highest
possible budget allocation this year in order to support the education
as well as research mission of the Foundation.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE
The Department of Energy's Office of Science funds 40 percent of
our nation's physical science research. Research in these areas has led
to many new economic and medical advancements including, among others,
new energy sources, the Internet, cell phones and laser surgery. To
maintain our economic, technical, and military pre-eminence, the
Federal Government must continue to support research in alternative
energy sources, nanotechnology and supercomputing. I am pleased that
the Office of Science is included in the President's ACI and that the
FY 2007 budget request for the Office of Science is $4.1 billion--an
increase of 14 percent from the FY 2006 enacted level. I respectfully
request that the Committee provide the Office of Science with a budget
that reflects the critical role that it plays in maintaining our
economic and military pre-eminence. Last year it endured significant
cuts that, in part, led to layoffs and the delay of many important
instruments. As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the
Office of Science is not only important to the future of U.S. science,
but also our competitiveness and energy security.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is the nation's
oldest Federal laboratory, and the only laboratory with the explicitly-
stated mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial
competitiveness. Because it has consistently provided high-quality,
cutting-edge research into a wide range of scientific and technical
fields critical to U.S. industry it is perfectly placed to play a
central role, as proposed in the Presidents' American Competitiveness
Initiative.
The budget request includes $467 for the core NIST laboratory
programs and facilities in FY07, a 17-percent increase over FY06
enacted. This increase includes $72 million for new research
initiatives and enhancements to NIST's user facilities. I believe it is
very important to support this request, as it represents a significant
yet sensible investment in programs that give the U.S. a significant
head start in several fields of emerging technology in quantum physics
and nanotechnology that will ultimately have great economic impacts.
Work at NIST's labs also supports our nation's efforts to improve
cybersecurity, building safety, and voting technology. In addition,
NIST has a proven track record in research and development on standards
and measurement techniques that help U.S. industries become more
globally competitive and retain leadership in cutting-edge technologies
While I am pleased that the president has included NIST labs in his
ACI, I am very concerned about other manufacturing programs at NIST.
The President's FY 2007 budget request cuts the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) program by over 50 percent to $46 million. The MEP
program is interested in upgrading its services beyond its traditional
model of simple cost reduction assistance that helps these firms
compete at a higher level, to move into areas such as design and
technological sophistication. This is necessary for their survival in
the 21st century globalized economy, and MEP is an excellent entity to
transfer the products of scientific research to small and medium-sized
firms. I have worked very hard over the years to help my colleagues in
Congress understand that MEP is vital to retaining American
competitiveness and American jobs, and I believe they appreciate the
value of this program. Data on the improvement of assisted firms proves
MEP works, and therefore Congress continues adequate funding. Yet each
budget cycle the Administration proposes to significantly cut this
program. Diminishing funding for MEP will devastate small and medium-
sized manufacturers and in the long run severely hurt our competitive
edge in the manufacturing sector. Furthermore, I continue to support
the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and am disappointed that the
Administration has again included no funds for the program in the
budget request. ATP is NIST's only extramural research grant program,
funding high-risk, high-return technology research and development on a
cost-shared basis with U.S. industry, and as such can make a major
contribution to the American Competitiveness Initiative.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Finally, I would like to address the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and its share of function 250. In order to align
the agency with the President's challenge to travel to the moon and
Mars, NASA has reorganized and streamlined its structure again this
year under new Administrator Griffin. The proposed missions will be
very costly and will pose significant technical obstacles that will
only be solved through basic research. Despite a 3.2-percent requested
increase in FY 2007, in order to fund the next generation human space
vehicle and to retire the Shuttle by 2010, $1.5 billion has been
transferred from the science mission budget at NASA.
I understand that the impacts of unanticipated budget constraints
have been felt across the entire agency, but I remain concerned that we
will finance the return to the moon and travel to Mars at the cost of
other critical scientific discovery. Basic science and engineering
research underpin all of NASA's major accomplishments as well as many
of the technologies you and I use everyday. Furthermore, basic research
at NASA will support the future exploration endeavor; if we continue to
reduce basic research in the out-years, our astronauts will be working
with outdated technology. I urge you to protect NASA's future by
supporting its basic research accounts and making the function 250
budget a significant amount.
CONCLUSION
I realize that the fate of many of the programs I have highlighted
in this testimony lies not with you, but with the appropriations
committee. While the budget does not spell out exact funding for these
programs, I believe that you can send a strong signal about the
importance of fundamental science and education to the appropriations
committee by making function 250 a top priority in the FY 2007 budget.
Behind your lead, I, along with many colleagues who also support
science funding, will fight for these programs throughout the budget
and appropriations process. When faced with the difficult choices you
must make this year, I urge you to remember that we cannot afford to
sacrifice the research and education which current and future
generations need to ensure their economic prosperity and domestic
security.
Thank you again for allowing me to testify.
Mr. Ryun. Any Members that have any questions at this point
for the gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. Spratt. Dr. Ehlers, thank you very much for your
emphasis, in particular on the education and human resources
budget. I had an interesting experience several years ago. I
went to a church homecoming in a little town called Dillon,
South Carolina, notable today because Ben Bernanke, now head of
the Fed, grew up in that school. And I was seated next to a
gentleman who is African American, also graduated the year
before Ben Bernanke, and, in fact, convinced him he should come
to Harvard instead of Brandeis, and probably had an
incalculable impact on his future. This man today is professor
of the history of science at MIT. Both he and Ben Bernanke came
from the same small high school in Dillon, South Carolina.
I asked him what would he do to change math and science
education in the country, and particularly in a State like
South Carolina. And he said clearly there are complicated and
simple answers to that, but the simple answer is to start much
earlier, with much better instruction in the lower grades, as
opposed to just concentrating your effort on college education
and graduate education. Start in the first, second, and third
grade, with teachers who are clearly competent to deal with
scientific concepts and to capture the imagination of young
people at a point in time when they can become enthralled with
science and develop a momentum that will take them through the
rest of their years.
And I am simply glad to see you are putting the emphasis on
the fact that we should not let up in that area. If we are
truly going to have a math and science initiative, the NSF
clearly will have to be involved in developing the curriculum
and methods of teaching and the people who will be the resource
people for making this initiative work.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much for that comment. I would
point out I feel very strongly about this. I have watched the
National Science Foundation work in math-science education for
over 30 years, I have been in the field longer than that, and
it is crucial to our efforts to improve math-science education.
The emphasis in the President's budget is more on the
Department of Education than on the National Science Foundation
in an apparent effort to eliminate duplication. I would simply
point out that it is not duplication.
The National Science Foundation deals with research on the
best ways to teach math and science, on curriculum development,
and on teacher training provided by the initiative of faculty
members who submit grants that are peered-reviewed and, if
approved, go into effect. The Department of Education also does
excellent work, but they work through State boards of education
and State departments of education, and so we lose our focus to
a certain extent depending on which State gets it and how that
State feels about it.
So I strongly favor a very good program in that area in the
National Science Foundation. I do not in any way denigrate what
the Department of Education is doing. I just think they are
complementary and should both be funded and work together.
Mr. Ryun. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, Mr.
Ehlers, thank you very much for your proposal.
We will next move to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Holt, for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSH D. HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Holt. Thank you very much. I am really pleased to be
here with my colleague Vern Ehlers. We do tag team on this
issue often. But I guess we had better work on our strategy,
because over the past 5 years we haven't yielded that much.
I strongly concur in his recommendations for Function 250
and for science and math education, and I would just hasten to
point out that this is critical for what you do, for what we
do, for what America does. Even if none of you intend to go
into science or engineering, you have already got a career, let
me tell you that what you are predicating your work on, what
you are predicating this Budget Committee's work on, is growth
in our economy. It will not happen without investment in
education and research and development.
We are living off of the investments that were made two or
three decades ago. For productivity, you need new ideas, and
you need a good workforce. That requires investment. According
to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in
real terms the total Federal R&D portfolio will decline for the
first time since 1996 after flattening out for a number of
years.
The NSF, which my colleague spoke about, has had
essentially a real decrease. The contradictions between the
President's call for improved science and math education and
the budgets proposed represent contradictions that are poignant
and telling. Programs zeroed out in the NSF education and human
resources directorate include the NSF Math-Science
Partnerships, about which my colleague spoke, we need these
programs.
The NIH, yes, has had a budget doubling, although it is now
starting to creep downward again. But all of the
instrumentation, methodology, and the scientists themselves
which are necessary to make good use of that NIH budget come
from programs like the NSF, like the Department of Energy, like
NASA, and they are not coming. So we are falling far short in
our investments.
The Democrats have put together something we call the
innovation agenda. I plead with you on the other side of the
aisle here to take that issue away from us. The reason we have
presented that innovation agenda is because the work is not
getting done. It is not getting done in science education, it
is not getting done in implementing broadband, and it is not
getting done in energy research.
Let me take energy research for just a moment. If you have
a business with a questionable input, you might want to spend,
1 or 2 percent of your revenue in searching for some insurance
on your input. Well, we have an $800 billion energy economy.
Each year we are spending $800 billion on energy goods and
services. We are not spending anywhere close to 1 percent of
that amount in R&D on alternatives to what we know is a
questionable input.
So just to take that example of energy R&D and extend that
across the whole field in which you deal, I think you can
quickly see we are not making the investments we need to make
in order to get the productivity growth on which your
projections are predicated. This is not charity to people in
lab coats, this is not charity to schoolteachers, but an
investment that we must make for all the reasons that Mr.
Ehlers gave, or all the reasons that you yourself could give.
Function 250 is lagging, science and math education are
lagging, and study after study, whether it's the Hart-Rudman
Commission, or the National Academy of Sciences Commission this
year, or the John Glenn Commission, study after study shows
that this is reaching a critical point. We may have passed the
critical point. It requires dramatic action on your part and
all of us in Congress to correct.
With that, I would be happy to take any questions or
provide additional material for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rush D. Holt, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey
Thank you, Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member Spratt, and
distinguished Members of the Committee on the Budget. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify regarding appropriate funding levels for
Function 250 programs in the FY 2007 Budget.
I come here today to share with you the importance of increasing,
not cutting, the budget of Function 250 programs. The President's
``American Competitiveness Initiative'' has proposed an increase in the
Research and Development budgets in particular areas of three major
agencies of the U.S. Government: the Department of Energy Office of
Science, the National Institute of Standards, and the National Science
Foundation. These increases are mildly encouraging, and only mildly
encouraging. The increases are at the expense of research and
development in other agencies. Peter is being robbed to pay Paul.
In the AAAS Preliminary Analysis of R&D in the FY 2007 Budget one
finds the following:
``The overall Federal investment in R&D would increase to $137
billion in 2007, but in a repeat of past budgets the continuing
Administration priorities of weapons development and space vehicles
development would take up the entire increase, and more, leaving
declining funding for the remainder of the R&D portfolio.''
The proposed increase for the Federal R&D portfolio in FY07 is 1.9
percent, which is short of the 2.2-percent increase needed to keep pace
with the expected inflation.
Additionally, ``The large proposed increases for physical sciences
and engineering research are not enough to keep the Federal investment
in basic and applied research (excluding development) from declining
for the third year in a row after peaking in 2004.''
As the AAAS notes, ``In real terms, the total Federal R&D portfolio
will decline for the first time since 1996 after flattening out the
last few years.''
The proposed R&D budget is not even keeping pace with inflation!
After we achieved the doubling the National Institutes of Health
budget, the focus shifted to doubling the budget of the National
Science Foundation. The intent was not to reduce the NIH and raise the
NSF, but to have both budgets increased.
The current increase in the NSF is packaged as the start of a 10
year doubling effort of the NSF. We should not forget that in the 2002
NSF authorization, the Bush Administration and Congress agreed on a 5
year doubling effort by 2007. This 2007 request, according to the AAAS,
falls nearly $4 billion short of that previous target.
With the increase in the NSF budget we see the NIH budget flat for
the second year in a row, and would fund less than 1 out of every 5
grant applications (AAAS). After adjusting for inflation, the NIH
budget would decline for the third year in a row. All but three of the
NIH institutes and centers would see their budgets fall for the second
year in a row. The NIH is not alone in these tough decisions, however.
Despite the increase in the Department of Energy's budget for
nuclear physics, computing research, and basic energy sciences, high
energy physics, fusion, and biological and environmental research would
remain below last year's budget.
In addition, despite the increase in energy R&D monies, the DOE
would eliminate R&D on gas and oil technologies and some renewable
energy technologies. Just last week, in response to the FY06 budget,
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, cut its
budget on travel, outside contracts, other operating expenses and still
had to lay of 32 staff, eight being researchers--1 from solar physics,
and the 7 from the biomass and hydrogen arenas.
NREL's biomass projects focus on developing, integrating, and
demonstrating biochemical and thermochemical conversion technologies,
and renewable diesel technologies. Through its Hydrogen, Fuel Cells,
and Infrastructure Technologies Program, NREL conducts R&D in hydrogen
production and delivery, hydrogen storage, fuel cells, technology
validation, safety, codes and standards, and analysis.
Aren't these areas in the President's State of the Union address as
areas that are components of the Advanced Energy Initiative?
How are we to attract the best and the brightest to areas of
declared national need, if our national laboratories are firing
researchers in these areas? The mixed messages of the State of the
Union address and the Budget of the Federal Government express a lack
of continuity and trustworthiness.
The world is in transition right now. We, and the other
industrialized nations of the world, are accelerating into a knowledge-
based global economy.
The task of the government is to lead the nation in creating an
environment where talent grows, talent develops, talent stays, and even
attracts new talent to create new knowledge, launching new companies,
spurring on economic growth. The government must work to protect this
newly created knowledge as well, or the creators will leave and produce
elsewhere.
The rules of this new economy based on knowledge and networks are
very different than the rules of a manufacturing based economy
(Enriquez, pg. 31), and we need visionary leadership followed by
thoughtful, critical actions to propel us to forefront of this
unfolding new world.
As described by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and
Development, technology is the enabler of a knowledge based economy.
Technology moves forward through basic and applied R &D in all areas of
science. The application and commercialization of technology are the
``weed out'' factors of this global economy. We cannot, at this time,
afford to not invest in the future of our nation which will unfold
through research and development.
We can make no assumptions that we will remain the dominant factor
in this economy. Complacency will be our downfall. Although there is
some increase in R&D programs, we cannot accept the cuts as well. We
must take a stand to increase the overall R&D budget (including all
three arenas: basic, applied, and technology development), not select
particular programs at the cost of other programs.
Distressing examples of the current practice is the National
Institute Standards and Technology, where the laboratories receive a
substantial increase as the cost of the Advanced Technology Program and
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
The ATP program, zeroed out for the second year is designed to
provide cost-shared funding to industry to accelerate the development
and broad dissemination of high-risk technologies that promise broad-
economic benefits for the nation. When evaluated by National Research
Council, an arm of the National Academies of Science, the program was
found to be effective, but with suggested improvements. Companies are
less likely to gamble on high-risk, high-return research and
development without an investment by the government. These are highly
competitive grants with only 12.5 percent of applications passing the
critical analysis to obtain funding. High-risk, high gain R&D can lead
us forward in the knowledge economy, but not with the support and
encouragement of the Federal Government.
At the National Science Foundation, as the research directorates do
well, the Education and Human Resources directorate's funding levels
will remain at a level 20 percent below the 2004 budget in real terms
(AAAS). Similar actions are taking place in NASA as well, as it
restructures away from its education directive and focuses on the moon
and Mars, by reducing or removing effective nation-wide education
programs.
The contradictions are poignant and telling, as our President calls
for improved science and mathematics education, his budget cuts these
programs throughout the science agencies.
Programs zeroed out in the NSF Education and Human Resources
directorate include NSF Math-Science Partnerships. The MSP's result in
large scale changes in educational practice to improve student
mathematics and science achievement. The three goals of the program
are: ensuring that all students have access to, are prepared for, and
are encouraged to participate and succeed in, challenging and advanced
mathematics and science courses; enhancing the quality, quantity and
diversity of the K-12 mathematics and science teacher workforce; and
developing evidence-based outcomes that contribute to our understanding
of how students effectively learn mathematics and science. Successful
MSP projects are intended to serve as models that can be widely
replicated by state math and science partnership programs under the
Math and Science Partnerships in No Child Left Behind.
Why are math, science, and critical foreign language education
important? Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are the
foundations of innovation, technology, and a knowledge economy.
Critical foreign language fluency allows for better communication with
markets that are opening to us or arenas of the world with whom who
need to collaborate to fight disease, terrorism, piracy and challenges
of globalization yet to be revealed. The youth of our nation are the
future of America. If we fail to prepare them to compete in the global
economy, we are failing our nation. Do we want history to look back at
this time and view us as short-sighted, isolationist, commonplace,
declining? We must reach out and be innovative with our future.
To help the concept evolve for you, let me give you the example of
South Korea, which spends 3.7 percent of its GDP on education, with
parents contributing the almost as much as the State does on their
child's education. The brutal system, where the results of the test you
take at the end of your high school career determines the university
you attend and your major (therefore your career) has catapulted South
Korea to a technology leader and one of the world's fastest growing
economies (Enriquez, p. 188).
Japan preceded South Korea in this area. Japan learned the value of
science, technology, and educating one's own and Japanese students out
perform the U.S. students on mathematics and science tests.
We often viewed India as behind us, but perhaps they are moving
ahead. The following comes from Goverdhan Mehta Director, Indian
Institute of Science: ``Strengthening science education at all levels
is an enabling requirement, especially for developing nations, for a
self-standing national science base.'' (Mehta)
Mehta also states that ``the interactive complexity of the
triumvirate of science, innovation and commercialization indicates that
the linear conception of S&T for progress in the emerging knowledge
society may be inadequate'', and the Innovation Agenda as proposed by
the House Democrats understands the complexity of innovation, and the
necessity to act on research and development, education,
telecommunication technology, energy, and small entrepreneurial
endeavors not linearly, but conceptually, and within the context of
connections. They are pieces of the future on one nation. We must come
together as one Congress, united across party lines, choosing to act
for our future. The House Democrats have continually attempted to
engaged our Republican colleagues to work together for our nation. We
continue to this day.
We are slipping behind in this clamor for the top of the
globalization mountain. Other nations are acting as we sit thinking of
actions to take. The cultural shift required for our nation to move
forward and maintain a competitive edge over all other nations begins
with how the Federal Government spends its money.
Notes: Enriquez, Juan (2001). As the Future Catches you, Three
Rivers Press, New York.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Holt, you and Mr. Ehlers put together a very
passionate proposal, and certainly it will be given worthwhile
consideration.
Are there any questions from the Members?
Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper. I just wanted to thank both Members for their
excellent testimony. I hope that all of our colleagues will
take it to heart. We do need to invest in the future, and I am
worried deeply that the future is being terribly shortchanged
right now. So thank you for pointing that out.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. I just would like to echo that. It is a
privilege to serve with these two gentlemen on the Science
Committee. Their commitment to investing in America's science
education and research budget and talent pool is just
unparalleled. I am grateful for their service and for their
testimony today. Well done, gentlemen.
Mr. Holt. If I might just add, Function 250, if the
President's request is fully met, will only have increased by 4
percent over the past 5 years. That is insufficient.
Mr. Ryun. Very good.
If there are no further questions, we will turn to Ms.
McMorris for her testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Ms. McMorris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
importance of the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution and its
impact on eastern Washington.
My primary reason in testifying today is to discuss several
important budget items the committee will soon consider,
including fighting meth, ensuring quality affordable health
care, training our 21st century workforce, the provisions
related to the Bonneville Power Administration, and, above all,
supporting the President's efforts to control spending and
address the deficit .
One of my top priorities in Congress is working on issues
and projects that will keep our Nation and communities safe. In
eastern Washington we deal on a daily basis with the
devastating effects of meth and other drug abuse. In Spokane
County alone it is estimated that 80 percent of the crime, 90
percent of the check fraud is drug and meth related. In 2004,
Washington ranked sixth in total meth seizures, ahead of
California. Imagine the increased safety of our communities if
meth production and abuse were reduced. That is why I strongly
support the President's call for $40 million toward meth lab
cleanup, as well as the proposed $69 million to increase our
Nation's drug courts to offer treatment and alternatives for
nonviolent offenders.
Creating a technical and educated workforce is key in
promoting economic development in eastern Washington and
throughout our region and Nation. I support the President's
call toward advancing our 21st century workforce. Specifically,
I applaud the proposal for the High Growth Job Training
Initiative as well as the Career Advancement Accounts to assist
workers who are entering the workforce, transitioning to new
jobs, or advancing in their current jobs.
In addition to building our workforce and encouraging
economic growth, we must also maintain a health care system
that is affordable and accessible. That is why I strongly urge
the committee to maintain the President's budget request for
$169 million for health information technology programs.
National coordination on health IT is vital in streamlining
systems, reducing overall medical costs, improving quality of
care, and strengthening preventive medicine. The use of health
technology throughout eastern Washington has led to more
efficient patient treatment, expanded rural health and improved
doctor care.
Though I recognize the increased funding of the Office of
Rural Health Policy, Telehealth, and Community Health Centers,
the overall proposal for rural health is insufficient. There
are many programs at the center of our rural health
infrastructure which are proposed to be zeroed out. These
grants have demonstrated an essential link between critical
access hospitals and providers. My district stretches over
23,000 square miles, 12 counties, and much of that distance is
rural, creating considerable challenge in ensuring access to
health care for eastern Washington residents.
Though the President's budget provides many great
initiatives, there is one specific proposal that I believe
could be detrimental to the economy and the livelihoods of the
people of the Northwest. This proposal is the expedited debt-
retiring provisions affecting the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA). As you may be aware, the BPA markets
electric power from a series of hydroelectric dams within
eastern Washington and throughout several other Northwest
States. One of my top priorities is to provide economic growth
for our region, part of which is ensuring affordable energy.
The Pacific Northwest economy was built on inexpensive
renewable energy. This rural proposal would seize a portion of
BPA's future revenue and use it toward an escalating repayment
of its Federal debt, essentially reversing BPA's ability to use
its sale of surplus power to decrease electric rates in the
Northwest.
The surplus is often assumed during good water years in the
Northwest, years which can often be few and far between. BPA
needs the revenue from this surplus not to pay down a debt
which BPA is already ahead of paying off, but to use it for
flexibility in those years in which they must adjust for other
conditions.
However, debt repayment is not the issue here. In fact, BPA
has already prepaid the Treasury $1.46 billion in the last 5
years and plans to continue additional debt prepayments in the
future. A proposal such as this could raise rates as high as 10
percent and will have an enormous impact in our region, a
region where electricity rates are almost 50 percent higher
than those in place before the 2001 energy crisis.
This increase would build upon the already increased rates
we are paying for salmon recovery costs. In 2004 alone, BPA
paid over $414 million toward salmon recovery programs, costs
which are expected to rise within the next several years. That
cost is then absorbed into every individual customer,
translating into 21 percent of their bill. Between salmon rates
and the effects of the administration's proposal on BPA, energy
consumers will simply not be able to foot the bill.
At a time of rising energy and electricity costs around the
country, a proposal that effectively increases these rates in
Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon is simply not
acceptable.
It is my understanding that although this provision is in
the President's budget, it would not need congressional
approval, but would rather be implemented by a simple
rulemaking procedure by the administration. This is of great
concern to me and something I will work on with my colleagues
in the House and the Senate to prevent. Our communities and
businesses are dependent on the low-cost energy rates which BPA
provides. These same businesses operate because of these low
electric rates and will face major problems should this
proposal be enacted.
In summary, I believe funding to help combat our Nation's
drug problems, improve the quality of health care, provide
economic opportunities, all of which are supported in the
President's budget, will help carry our Nation forward.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time, and I
look forward to your leadership as we move forward on the 2007
budget.
Mr. Ryun. Ms. McMorris, thank you very much for your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McMorris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Washington
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me
to speak on the importance of the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Resolution
and its impact on Eastern Washington.
My primary reason in testifying today is to discuss several
important budget items the Committee will soon consider, including
fighting meth, ensuring quality, affordable health care, training our
21st century workforce and provisions regarding the Bonneville Power
Administration. And, above all, support the President's efforts to
control spending and eliminate the deficit.
One of my top priorities in Congress is to keep our nation, and
communities, safe. In Eastern Washington, we deal on a daily basis with
the devastating effects of methamphetamine (meth) and other drug abuse.
In Spokane alone, it is estimated that 80 percent of crime and 90
percent of check fraud is drug and meth related. In 2004, Washington
ranked 6th in total meth seizures, ahead of California. Imagine the
increased safety of our communities if meth production and abuse were
reduced, and substance abuse programs were more effective. That is why
I strongly support the President's call for $40 million toward meth lab
cleanup, as well as a proposed $69 million to increase our nation's
drug courts to offer treatment and alternatives for non-violent
offenders.
Creating a technical and educated workforce is key in promoting
economic development in Eastern Washington and throughout our region
and nation. I support the President's call toward advancing our 21st
Century Workforce. Specifically, I applaud the proposal for the High
Growth Job Training Initiative, as well as the Career Advancement
Accounts to assist workers who are entering the workforce,
transitioning to new jobs, or advancing in their current jobs.
In addition to building our workforce and encouraging economic
growth, we must also maintain a healthcare system that is affordable
and accessible. That is why I strongly urge the Committee to maintain
the President's budget request of $169 million for health information
technology programs. National coordination on Health IT is vital in
streamlining systems, reducing overall medical costs, improving quality
of care, and strengthening preventative medicine. The use of health
technology throughout Eastern Washington has led to more efficient
patient treatment, expanded rural health, and improved doctor care.
Strengthening and improving Health IT is essential to the future of
healthcare.
Though I recognize the increased funding for the Office of Rural
Health Policy, Telehealth and Community Health Centers, the overall
proposal for rural health is insufficient. There are many programs at
the center of our rural health infrastructure which are proposed to be
zeroed out, including Rural Hospital Flexibility Grants and all of
Title VII, which funds our Area Health Education Centers. These grants
have demonstrated an essential link between Critical Access Hospitals
and providers, increasing quality of care, and producing collaboration
for these safety net hospitals within our communities.
My district stretches over 23,000 square miles. Much of that
distance is rural, creating considerable challenge in ensuring access
to health care for Eastern Washington residents. We continue to see
increasing shortage of health care professionals. In towns like Odessa,
Republic and Davenport primary care coverage is sparse. People in our
rural region deserve to have access to the same quality of care as
people in large, urban areas. I will work to restore increased funding
for critical rural health programs.
Though the President's budget provides many great initiatives,
there is one specific proposal that I believe could be detrimental to
the economy and livelihoods of people of the Northwest. This proposal
is the expedited debt retiring provisions affecting the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA). As you may be aware, the Bonneville Power
Administration markets electric power from a series of hydroelectric
dams within Eastern Washington, and throughout several other Northwest
States. One of my top priorities is to provide economic growth for our
region, part of which is ensuring affordable energy. The Pacific
Northwest economy was built on inexpensive renewable energy.
This rule proposal would seize a portion of BPA's future revenue
and use it toward an escalating repayment of its Federal debt,
essentially reversing BPA's ability to use its sale of surplus power to
decrease electricity rates in the northwest. The surplus is often
assumed during good water years in the Northwest, years which can often
be few and far between. BPA needs the revenue from this surplus not to
pay down a debt which BPA is already ahead of paying off, but to use
for flexibility in those years in which they must adjust to other
conditions.
However, debt repayment is not the issue here. In fact, BPA has
already prepaid the Treasury $1.46 billion in the last 5 years, and
plans to continue additional debt prepayments in the future.
A proposal such as this could raise rates as high as 10 percent and
will have an enormous impact in our region--a region where electricity
rates are almost 50 percent higher than those in place before the 2001
energy crisis. This increase would build upon the already increased
rates we are paying for salmon recovery costs. In 2004 alone, BPA paid
over $414 million toward salmon recovery programs, costs which are
expected to rise within the next several years. That high cost is then
absorbed by every individual customer, translating to 21 percent of
their bill. Between salmon rates and the effects of the
Administration's proposal on BPA, energy consumers will simply not be
able to foot the bill. At a time of rising energy and electricity costs
around the country, a proposal that effectively increases these rates
in Washington, Idaho, Montana and Oregon is simply not acceptable.
It is my understanding that although this provision is in the
President's budget, it would not need Congressional approval, but
rather would be implemented by a simple rulemaking procedure by the
Administration. This is of great concern to me, and something I will
continue to work on with my colleagues in the House and Senate to
prevent.
Our communities and businesses are dependent on the low cost energy
rates which BPA provides. These same businesses operate because of
these low electric rates, and will face major problems should this
proposal be enacted.
In summary I believe funding to help combat our nation's drug
problems, improve the quality of health care, and provide economic
opportunities, all of which are supported in the President's budget,
will help carry our nation forward.
Once again Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time and I look forward
to your leadership as we move forward on the 2007 budget.
Mr. Ryun. Are there any questions by any Members?
Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. Yes. I want to commend the gentlewoman for her
excellent summary of the challenge we face with this BPA
proposal. Put that into context, we have seen substantial rate
increases over the last several years. It has caused
devastating unemployment in parts of our region. It hit farmers
hard, and it hit our school districts hard. An additional raise
in rates would be very, very difficult, especially when you
have so many power-dependent industries. And I applaud the
gentlewoman and pledge to work with her.
I also appreciate and respect very much her commitment to
dealing with the problem of methamphetamine. I agree it is a
good thing that the President has called for an increase in
drug courts. The one thing I would call to your attention,
however, that we have looked at is the President has proposed
significant cuts and zeroing out, indeed, of fundamental
programs for law enforcement that are used to fight meth, among
them the Byrne grant program, which he has proposed to zero
out; $300 million in COPS and Safe and Drug-Free Schools would
be slashed.
Overall, we calculate about an 80-percent cut in programs
that are federally funded and that are used by local law
enforcement to fight meth. So maybe we could work together on
that, perhaps through the Meth Caucus, to fight
methamphetamine, because I can tell you that my local sheriffs
and law enforcement, and I am sure it is the same with you when
you go back home, will tell you they depend on Byrne grants and
COPS, et cetera, and our drug efforts depend on Safe and Drug-
Free Schools money.
It is the number one drug of use, as you so well put. It is
behind a host of crimes, and now is not the time to be cutting
back to this magnitude on our Federal commitment to fight meth.
So perhaps we can work on that as well.
Ms. McMorris. I look forward to it.
Mr. Ryun. Are there any other questions by any other
Members at this point?
Ms. McMorris, thank you very much for your testimony.
At this point we are going to turn to Mr. Regula for his
proposal, and we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH REGULA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Regula. Well, thank you very much. I don't have my copy
with me of my written testimony.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Regula, may I encourage you to turn your
microphone on.
Mr. Regula. I say I don't have a copy of my written
testimony, but you all have copies, and I would end up reading
it to you anyhow.
Just some generalities. Let me say you have an extremely
important challenge. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
and to share a little bit the challenge that confronts us in
the Labor-Health-Education Subcommittee. I think it is an
extremely important function because we deal with things that
touch people's lives.
If you could go to the days where we had a couple days of
outside witnesses, and families come in with children with all
kinds of diseases and problems and medical conditions, and it
is almost heartbreaking to listen to their cries for some kind
of research through NIH to find a solution; or maybe it is a
parent with Alzheimer's, and on and on, and I know there just
isn't enough money.
One of the things we are going to do this year, and I know
historically that many of you have been part of the decision to
actually quintuple the budget of NIH, and as a result they have
gone from something like $12 billion to $28 billion. At the
hearing I am going to ask the Director this year and our
subcommittee to give us an accounting of what has been done,
what has changed as a result of all this money. Are we getting
results? Are we helping people?
And I will say that Director Zerhouni testified recently
that every 5 years life expectancy in the United States goes up
a year. I said a little tongue in cheek to him that he should
go to the Ways and Means Committee, because the significance of
that is enormous in terms of Social Security and Medicare. I
think whomever is filling your seats here in years to come are
going to have some really tough decisions. You already are
faced with trying to replicate that story in the Bible where
they fed 5,000 with 5 loaves and 5 fishes.
I would just plead with you to think about in your
allocation of the enormous importance of medical research to
the well-being of all of us; and, secondly, of education. I
don't know how many of you read Tom Friedman's book, ``The
World Is Flat,'' it is a bit sobering to realize how aggressive
other countries are, particularly China, India, Taiwan and
Korea, and places like that. I was struck by the fact that
Intel sponsors a competition among high school, I think
seniors, in basically math and science. They had 65,000 Chinese
and 6,500 American students involved. It is indicative of what
is taking place.
It is not going to be overnight. Friedman says it is 25
years from now when we will be faced with a highly competitive
situation for skills. I told him 1 day, I said, you are a
modern-day Paul Revere because you are saying to the American
people, get ready, they are coming. And he pointed out in his
book that last year 400,000 American tax returns were done in
India. I thought that was a bit of a stretch, and then my chief
of staff in the district said his wife is a CPA with one of the
big accounting firms, and her job assignment was to train
Indian tax preparers on how to do Ohio tax returns.
What I am simply saying is that the coin of the future is
going to be brainpower and the way in which we utilize those
skills. And that is why I think it is so important that now we
address the challenges of education. Not that the Federal
Government is going to replace the State and the local
community for basic funding of education, but what we do in
Labor-H is try to put in carrots, so we have the Pell Grants to
incentivize poorer students from poorer environments to go and
get some education; and we have programs for one-stops, where
people are laid off and where they can go back and acquire a
new skill. It is really a people's bill in so many different
ways and touches the lives of them.
I said when I took the chairmanship, and I hadn't been on
the subcommittee, but Bill Young asked me to chair it, and I
said, so you know where I am coming from, it is very simple.
The Bible says there are two great commandments. The first is
to love the Lord, and the second is the like unto it, to love
your neighbor. I said this is the Love Your Neighbor Committee,
and to do that you have to recognize these programs.
I know that you just had testimony on math and science and
the importance of this, and we heard about the competitive
program in the President's State of the Union. But keep in mind
you can't do math and science if you can't read. So you have to
start out with the fundamentals, and what we have are some
reading programs in Labor-H where you try to give incentives to
schools to put in upgrades of their reading program.
I put some extra money in last year to upgrade the
advancement of teachers and principals. I feel strongly if you
have a good principal, you have a good school. And if you have
good teachers, you have a good school, and we have to encourage
that. We not only looked into the programs from the Department
of Education to incentivize teachers to go back and get
additional skills, but we also had testimony from the colleges
of education, because it starts there.
Too often the colleges of education have been sort of an
afterthought for our universities and colleges, and they do not
put enough emphasis on encouraging talented people to get in
the education field. Yet there isn't one of you that would not
be able to remember a teacher that made a difference in your
life because that individual was an inspirational type of
person.
We fund the Teach for America in part because it is a great
program. These are young college students who care about their
fellow man, if you will, and they sign up for 2 years to go
wherever they are sent. And they are sent into the poor
districts, the poorest of the poor districts in cities for 2
years, and many of them will stay in the profession. They work
with the young people, they have certain standards that they
have to meet in the Teach for America program, and the same
thing is true of charter schools, because they are a little bit
outside the box.
Another program we fund is Troops to Teachers. This is to
get individuals that get out of the military, usually they get
some how-to courses and they are usually in their 40s, they
have medical care, they have been around the world a lot of
them, they have managed people, and they make great teachers. I
think last year the Teacher of the Year in America, in the
United States was a Troop to Teacher individual. There is a
certain element of maturity that enables them to handle a
classroom.
So we need to take programs, and we try to do that in our
bill to continually upgrade the quality of teaching in the
classroom and the principalship, because that individual is an
inspiration to students and teachers alike. I might say I spent
7 years as an elementary principal and teacher, and went to law
school at night, and I know how much difference even to this
day 50 years later, but I bonded with those kids, and it makes
a difference with them.
Another thing that troubles me a lot is the dropout rate.
The average nationwide is 32 percent. Now, we can ill afford
this as a nation, to have 32 out of 100 students drop out
before they finish high school. Interesting, a little footnote
on that, I just read the other day that 85 percent of the
individuals in the penal system across the board are dropouts,
and that gives you some idea of the social cost of dropouts,
and then also welfare and all sorts of social problems that
arise as a result of individuals dropping out of high school.
And we are trying to develop programs that we can encourage,
with a little bit of help, schools to address the problem of
dropouts because we need to reduce those numbers. The big
cities are anywhere from 60 to 70 percent do not finish high
school, and that is a terrible waste of human capital.
And I just was reading this morning in the Wall Street
Journal where the Secretary of Defense wants to get a leaner,
meaner, smaller, long-term Quadrennial Report that looks into
the future. Well, to do what he hopes to achieve he has got to
have individuals that have gone through high school at least
and can read a manual and can operate this sophisticated
equipment, so the Defense Department has a stake. I think the
defense budget ought to have a section in it on supporting
education, because unless they can get quality people to enlist
and be part of the team they are not going to have what they
seek.
I don't want to bore you with a lot of details, but simply
to say that what we try to do in Labor-H is address the human
element, the medical research which is vitally important to
people, to address the incentives in education that will
address the dropout rate, that will teach kids to read. I said
the decision to drop out isn't made at the ninth grade, it is
made at the third grade when you don't learn to read
adequately. So we try to use the dollars we have; last year our
budget was roughly $2 billion less than the year before and the
budget that is being proposed for this year is another $2-
billion cut. I don't know how we are going to stretch it to
meet what I think are the needs of the future in education. So,
anything you can do to make a larger allocation for those
functions, medical, NIH, Centers for Disease Control (CDC). We
are asking CDC and policemen to keep bird flu away from us, to
keep out these other things that can be brought to the United
States. People don't realize the importance of the role of CDC.
They are the watchdog. They are people in 43 countries
constantly looking out for things that might get brought to the
United States via the jets and who knows what.
So, again, it is an important thing, and this budget that
is being proposed takes a cut at CDC, takes NIH flat-funded,
Health and Human Services Department are both down, education
is down. It is going to be a tough challenge, and I think if we
care about the future of the United States, we need to address
those needs of people, and that is essentially what we do in
Labor-H, and I hope you will give us consideration in the
allocation of resources. I know it is a tough job, I spent
several years on the Budget Committee and I realize the
challenges that come your way, and I appreciate the service you
are all doing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Regula follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ralph Regula, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Ohio
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Spratt, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to testify before your Committee. As you begin
deliberations in the coming days on the fiscal year 2007 budget, I
wanted to share with you the tremendous importance of and remarkable
progress being made by programs funded in the Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education appropriations bill.
Whether it is a job training program for the unemployed, research
to find a cure for the thousands of diseases our citizens suffer from,
or education for our youth, the programs in this bill provide hope to
Americans in search of a better life.
The dreams of a better life take root in a foundation of solid
education. Education creates the opportunity for sustainable
livelihood, improves quality of health, reduces crime, raises
industrial productivity, and increases the level of civic
participation. It is essential to the preservation of democracy.
Four years ago, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act and provided
record funding increases to the Department of Education, and in turn,
to our local school districts. For the first time ever, we required
high standards and accountability in our nation's public schools.
Multiple studies and reports have shown that our efforts are
working.
The long-term Nation's Report Card (NAEP) results,
released in July 2005, showed elementary school student achievement in
reading and math at all-time highs and the achievement gap closing.
For America's 9-year-olds, there's been more progress in
reading the last 5 years than in the previous 28 combined.
America's nine and 13-year-year-olds posted the best
scores in math the test ever recorded.
Reading and math scores for African American and Hispanic
9-year-olds reached an all-time high.
Math scores for African American and Hispanic 13-year-olds
reached an all-time high.
Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and
minority 9-year-olds are at an all-time low.
The state-by-state Nation's Report Card results, released in
October 2005, showed the number of fourth-graders who learned their
fundamental math skills increased by 235,000-enough to fill 500
elementary schools.
Despite the record gains, Mr. Chairman, much work remains. High
quality public education has assumed a much greater significance in the
context of our rapidly changing world and the emergence of new
technologies. Where oceans and mountains once limited trade and the
rapid transmission of ideas, as Tom Friedman tells us in his book The
World is Flat, technology has flattened our world and made borders more
permeable to products and highly skilled labor.
The United States has always depended on the inventiveness of its
people in order to compete in the world marketplace. Now, preparation
of a well educated workforce is a vital arena for national
competitiveness. Since 1980, the number of science and engineering jobs
has grown at more than four times the rate of the U.S. labor force as a
whole. This is an average annual growth rate of 4.9 percent compared
with 1.1 percent for the entire labor force.
The average age of the science and engineering workforce is rising.
The proportion of foreign-born students in science and engineering
fields and workers in science and engineering occupations continues to
rise dramatically. Global competition for science and engineering
talent is intensifying, such that the United States may not be able to
rely on the international science and engineering labor market to fill
unmet skill needs. The number of native born science and engineering
graduates entering the workforce is likely to decline unless the U.S.
intervenes to improve success in educating students from all
demographic groups.
My Subcommittee has recognized this challenge and provided
substantial dollars to the math and science partnerships program since
FY2002. The President senses the importance of this initiative and has
requested $380 million in new funding to improve math and science
instruction in schools.
Just as education, health, too, is important to the economic
advancement of a nation.
For over a century, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has
played a key role in improving the health of the nation. More than 80
percent of NIH's funding is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive
grants to more than 212,000 researchers at over 2,800 universities,
medical schools, and other research institutions in every state.
Many important health and medical discoveries of the last century
resulted from research supported by NIH. In part because of NIH
research, our citizens are living longer and better. Life expectancy at
birth was only 47 years in 1900; by 2000, it was almost 77 years.
In the past several decades, NIH-supported research, and its
national programs to communicate the results of research to patients
and their doctors, played a major role in achievements such as the
following:
Death rates from heart disease and stroke fell by 40
percent and 51 percent, respectively, between 1975 and 2000.
The overall 5-year survival rate for childhood cancers
rose to nearly 80 percent during the 1990's from under 60 percent in
the 1970's.
The number of AIDS-related deaths fell by about 70 percent
between 1995 and 2001.
Infectious diseases--such as rubella, whooping cough, and
pneumococcal pneumonia--that once killed and disabled millions of
people are now prevented by vaccines.
The quality of life for 19 million Americans suffering
with depression has improved as a result of more effective medication
and psychotherapy.
And, the progress continues. The sequencing of the human genome,
completed in 2003, set a new course for developing ways to diagnose and
treat diseases like cancer, Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's
Disease, as well as rare diseases.
NIH should be applauded for their successes. However, I also
believe we need to continue our oversight of NIH programs, not to
direct the science--for that is best left to scientists--but to ensure
that scientific opportunity drives funding decisions within the agency.
Similar to the efforts of the Department of Education and the
Department of Health and Human Services, programs at the Department of
Labor play a vital role in society. A number of communities continue to
experience plant closings and other layoffs, an ongoing reminder of
global competition. We need to support dislocated worker training
programs that assist workers return to gainful employment. In my
district, the local One-Stop in Canton is extremely effective. Over 90
percent of the participants complete their training, and more than 90
percent of the trainees secure jobs paying a similar or higher wage
than their previous employment.
Another example is the Job Corps program, which provides a
comprehensive and intensive array of training, career development, job
placement and support services to disadvantaged young people between
the ages of 16 and 24. Many people who enroll in Job Corps Centers
never completed their high school education and may have other barriers
to maintaining a job. This program ensures that disadvantaged young
people are afforded an opportunity to successfully participate in the
Nation's workforce, and most of the participants secure gainful
employment.
I can point to many other examples of good programs in my bill.
Whether it is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program in
New Mexico to investigate emerging diseases, or a Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration drug prevention and
rehabilitation clinic in Maine, Corporation of National and Community
Service funded efforts in Louisiana to rebuild communities ravaged by
the hurricanes, a Department of Education grant in Iowa to develop and
support a high-quality teaching force, every dollar in this bill is
dramatically altering the lives of Americans.
As you begin consideration of the FY2007 budget, I would like to
point out that in the FY2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education appropriations bill, we provided almost $900 million in
administrative cost to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) and the Social Security Administration to implement a mandatory
program-the Medicare Modernization Act. We provided for this increase
in spending for a mandatory expense by eliminating and reducing several
programs. The final FY2006 budget for the bill was $1.6 billion below
FY2005 and contained no earmarks.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for the Budget Committee to note that
the trend of shifting costs of mandatory programs to discretionary
accounts continues. In 2006 the Budget Deficit Reduction Act, again,
included legislation to shift $600 million in administrative expenses
for another mandatory program, this time Student Aid Administration
(Pell Grants), to the discretionary side of the budget as one way of
meeting its reductions in mandatory programs. OMB has recognized this
shift by showing the $600 million in additional Budget authority in
FY2006 and allocating the funds to the discretionary budget in the
request for FY2007. It is critical that the Budget Committee also
include the additional funds needed to fund administrative expenses for
Student Aid in the discretionary allocation. If this is not done, we
will be faced with the difficult task of eliminating or severely
reducing programs that have significant support of the Members of the
House such as Rural Health, Vocational Education State Grants, GEAR-UP,
and TRIO, to name a few. Equally noteworthy, we will not be able to
provide the necessary dollars for new programs to prepare our students
for success in a competitive world.
I would like to close with this: When I became Chairman of the
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations
Subcommittee, I told my colleagues that the Lord says there are two
great commandments. The first is to love your Lord, and the second is
like unto it, to love your neighbor. I told them that this is the Love
Your Neighbor Committee.
Last year, we made many difficult choices, cutting the bill by $1.6
billion and eliminating 29 programs. The Administration's FY2007 budget
proposes to further reduce the spending on the Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education by nearly $4 billion. As you consider the
budget, I strongly urge you to be mindful of the considerable impact
the programs in this bill have on Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
testify, and at this time I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Regula, thank you very much for your
testimony. You have certainly presented a lot of ideas, and it
is a lot to put our arms around, and you can see the passion
with which you carry a lot of this. And one of them I will just
mention is the life expectancy, how that increases. It
certainly does put us with difficult decisions for the future
because of policies that we have here, but I am hoping as a
Congress that we will put aside partisanship and genuinely look
to what we need to do.
Mr. Regula. Well, I think the only way out of it is a
strong economy that will produce the revenues to meet Social
Security and Medicare, and a strong economy is predicated on an
educated population.
Mr. Ryun. Are there any questions by any of the members
that are present?
Mr. Spratt. Let me assure the chairman that he will have
our full support in fully funding particularly the education
component of the Labor-H bill. Thank you very much for your
time.
Mr. Regula. Thank you.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Regula, thank you.
At this point we will turn to Mr. Young from Alaska for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. I have done this so many times that it is always a
pleasure to be before you.
I appreciate the assistance this committee gave us last
year. We worked together jointly to reach a budget solution.
And of course the Transportation Committee, which I am chairman
of, will meet later this week to approve its views and
estimates for 2007, and my testimony reflects those views and
it will be adopted.
First and foremost, I am pleased that the President's
budget almost completely is consistent with last year's Surface
Transportation Reauthorization Act, known as SAFETEA-LU. The
budget supports the fiscal year 2007 SAFETEA-LU funding levels
with only one major exception: The 2007 funding level for the
Federal Transit Administration is $100 million lower than what
was authorized due to administrative failure to fully fund the
Small Starts programs.
Unfortunately, the budget does not make a similar
commitment to meeting our Nation's aviation infrastructure and
investment needs. Under the President's budget, aviation
capital programs would receive $5\1/4\ billion, which is $1.6
billion or 23 percent less than the level guaranteed by Vision
100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. This reduction is
extremely shortsighted and will only serve to accelerate the
impending crisis of congestion and delays in our Nation's
aviation system.
It wasn't long ago, Mr. Chairman, all we heard about was
the Fliers Bill of Rights and the congestion and how airports
weren't working, and now there is an attempt to cut it further
back. The slowing economy and the terrorist attacks of
September 11 temporarily reduced aviation congestion beginning
in 2001. However, the number of air travelers has since
rebounded in 2005 to pass the previous record high level
experienced in 2000. Unless we make necessary investments in
our airport and air traffic control infrastructure, delays will
increase significantly as air travel continues to increase.
The FAA forecasts the number of air travelers will grow
from 739 million people in 2005 to more than 1 billion by 2015.
This growth will place even greater demands on a system already
plagued by delays. To ensure the aviation system remains safe,
reliable, efficient and able to accommodate the increased
number of passengers anticipated in the near future, the
committee recommends that aviation capital programs be funded
at least to the level of $6.8 billion guaranteed by Vision 100.
I would also like to address several other proposals in the
budget that are a concern to me. For example, the
administration proposes to cut funding for Amtrak from $1.3
billion in 2006 to $900 million in 2007. Over the years
proposed cuts in Amtrak funding have been repeatedly rejected
by Congress. Now, if the budget resolution assumes just $900
million for Amtrak, but Amtrak funds are subsequentially
restored during the appropriation process, other important
programs will have to be cut in order to make up the
difference.
In addition, the President's budget proposes to cut funding
for the clean water State revolving fund and Army Corps of
Engineers. These proposals would produce shortfalls that are of
significant concern to the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. And may I explain why? Estimates of the clean water
infrastructure needs over the next 20 years exceeds $400
billion. Current spending by all levels of government addresses
only one-half of this need, and that is a problem. Water is our
next big crisis, this is a problem that requires investment at
all levels of government. However, cutting the size of the
Federal program will only make an already very bad situation
much worse.
Under the funding of the Corps of Engineers, there has been
a chronic problem that has resulted in outdated and aged
infrastructure. I think you see this down in Katrina where the
levees were built that were not repaired and should have been
repaired. The transportation benefits that could be achieved
through greater investments in Corps navigation projects would
help American products compete in the world market. Greater
investments in flood control infrastructure today will reduce
the risk that we will have to pay later larger sums of disaster
relief at some later date.
Finally, I would like to discuss an area in which we could
be using our scarce resources more wisely. Since the creation
of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, the Department
and Congress have tended to throw money at problems before
having the proper mechanisms or programs in place to ensure
that money is well spent. And I think you have seen some recent
disclosures of how money has been misspent, and we have to stop
that and structure it in a much better way.
Millions of dollars have been wasted due to a lack of
authorization statutes and insufficient coordination between
the authorizing and appropriations committees. I think we can
and I know we must do a much better job in this arena.
More comprehensive information on the committee
recommendation will be provided in its views and estimates to
be adopted by the committee later this week. These views and
estimates will demonstrate that we are significantly
underfunding many of our transportation infrastructure
investments. This investment puts our economy and global
competitiveness and quality of life at risk. While the cost of
meeting our Nation's transportation and infrastructure
investment seems to be high, the cost of not meeting them is
clearly much higher.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, I listened to Mr. Regula with
great interest, and, yes, education is one of the keys,
transportation is the second key. Without a good transportation
infrastructure within our country, we cannot be competitive nor
will our economy grow. I have argued this for 6 years. I am
going to continue to argue, because we are lacking the courage
to raise the money necessary to fulfill the obligation that I
think is important to the future generations.
I know you have a difficult job. I have said this every
year. I expect you to do the best you can. I am not wedded
totally to the numbers the President has brought down, as I
mentioned. I think we have to look at the total package of the
Congress. We are the ones that write the budget, it is not the
President. He submits the budget under the Constitution; but it
is our duty to write the budget. I think there are many areas
that money can be shifted around for better purposes, than has
been proposed by the President's budget. And I will answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Don Young, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Alaska
Thank you Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt for this
opportunity to testify before you on behalf of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
I appreciate your assistance during last year's surface
transportation reauthorization, and look forward to continuing to work
cooperatively with you as the budget process moves forward this year.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will meet later
this week to approve its views and estimates for the 2007 budget. While
my testimony today precedes the formal adoption of the committee's
views, it is consistent with what I anticipate will be adopted.
First and foremost, I am pleased that the president's budget is
almost completely consistent with last year's surface transportation
reauthorization act, known as SAFETEA LU.
The budget supports the fiscal year 2007 SAFETEA LU funding levels
with only one major exception. the 2007 funding level for the Federal
transit administration is $100 million lower than what was authorized
in due to the administration's failure to fully fund the ``small
starts'' program.
Unfortunately, the budget does not make a similar commitment to
meeting our nation's aviation infrastructure investment needs.
Under the president's budget, aviation capital programs would
receive $5.25 billion, which is $1.6 billion or 23 percent less than
the level guaranteed by the vision 100--century of aviation
reauthorization act.
This reduction is extremely shortsighted, and will only serve to
accelerate the impending crisis of congestion and delays in our
nation's aviation system.
The slowing economy and the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, temporarily reduced aviation congestion beginning in 2001.
however, the number of air travelers has since rebounded, and in 2005
surpassed the previous record-high level experienced in 2000.
Unless we make the necessary investments in our airport and air
traffic control infrastructure, delays will increase significantly as
air travel continues to increase. the faa forecasts that the number of
air travelers will grow from 739 million in 2005 to more than one
billion in 2015. This growth will place even greater demands on a
system that is already plagued by delays.
To ensure that our aviation system remains safe, reliable,
efficient, and able to accommodate the increased number of passengers
anticipated in the near future, the committee recommends that aviation
capital programs be funded at least at the $6.81 billion level
guaranteed by vision 100.
I would also like to address several other proposals in the budget
that are of concern to me.
For example, the administration proposes to cut funding for Amtrak
from $1.3 billion in 2006 to $900 million in 2007. Over the years,
proposed cuts in Amtrak funding have been repeatedly rejected by
Congress.
If the budget resolution assumes just $900 million for Amtrak, but
Amtrak funds are subsequently restored during the appropriations
process, other important programs will have to be cut in order to make
up the difference.
In addition, the president's budget proposes to cut funding for the
clean water state revolving fund and the army corps of engineers. These
proposals would produce funding shortfalls that are of significant
concern to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Estimates of the clean water infrastructure needs over the next 20
years exceed $400 billion. Current spending by all levels of government
addresses only one-half of this need.
This is a problem that requires investments by all levels of
government; however, cutting the size of the Federal program will only
make what is already a very bad situation much worse.
Under funding of the corps of engineers has been a chronic problem
that has resulted in an outdated and aging infrastructure. The
transportation benefits that could be achieved through greater
investments in corps navigation projects would help american products
compete on the world market. Greater investments in flood control
infrastructure today will reduce the risk that we will have to pay
larger sums in disaster relief at some later date.
Finally, I would like to discuss an area in which we could be using
our scarce resources much more wisely. Since the creation of the
department of homeland security in 2003, the department and congress
have tended to throw money at problems before having the proper
mechanisms or programs in place to ensure the money is well spent.
Billions of dollars have been wasted due to a lack of authorizing
statutes, and insufficient coordination between the authorizing and
appropriations committees. I think we can--and must--do much better in
this area.
More comprehensive information on the committee's recommendations
will be provided in the views and estimates to be adopted by the
committee later this week.
These views and estimates will demonstrate that we are
significantly under-funding many of our transportation and
infrastructure investments. This underinvestment puts our economy,
global competitiveness, and quality of life at risk.
While the cost of meeting our nation's transportation and
infrastructure investment needs may seem high, the cost of not meeting
them is clearly higher.
I urge your support for the transportation and infrastructure
committee's recommendations as you develop the 2007 budget resolution.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your
comments. It does not take much for those of us that travel a
lot either by air or on the ground to recognize the seriousness
of the problem. And there does need to be a fix, and we will
certainly take a close look at it on this committee.
Are there any questions by any of the members? Yes, Mr.
Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick
comment. I want to thank Chairman Young for not only obviously
his drive to make sure that our infrastructure around the
country is as good as it can be, but one of the things that I
think needs to be noted is that Chairman Young has personally
been to, I think, just about every congressional district in
the country and really knows----
Mr. Young. Most of the Democrat and Republican.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Absolutely. And the thing that struck me
is he knows the details of the infrastructure needs in every
part of the country, in many cases even better than the Members
that represent those areas. So I just want to thank him for not
only his hard work, but really it takes a lot of effort and a
lot of time to get on a plane or get in a car, particularly if
you are from a country that is pretty far away, Mr. Chairman,
and so I just want to thank him for his commitment and his
willingness to spend an incredible amount of time and effort to
try and make sure that he understands every single detail and
all parts of the infrastructure of this great Nation of ours.
It takes a lot of work, and here is a man that is willing to do
that, and I think we all owe him a great deal.
Thank you.
Mr. Ryun. I would like to yield at this point to Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I
want to thank you for being here as well. I am from Kansas, and
I agree with some of the witnesses who testified in a prior
panel here. When they talked about an investment in education,
it is not spending money, it is a wise investment in our
future. And I feel the same way about our transportation
infrastructure as well, and I commend you for bringing this
proposal here and I thank you very much.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your testimony. At
this point we will turn to Mr. Hinojosa for his comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUBEN HINOJOSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairman Ryun. I am pleased that I
got to see Ranking Member Spratt and other members of the
committee, Congressman Dennis Moore and Congressman Diaz-
Balart. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you on
the fiscal year 2007 budget. I ask that my written statement be
included in the record.
Mr. Ryun. Without objection.
Mr. Hinojosa. I agree wholeheartedly with the previous
speakers, particularly with Chairman Regula's plea to get
budget increases in his budget, some areas very important to my
constituents and that I will be addressing at least some areas
during my comment period.
The Federal budget is our most direct and telling statement
of the Nation's values and priorities. Unfortunately, when the
people of my Texas 15th Congressional District, hard-working
people, many who live in rural areas, most of whom are
Hispanic, look at this Federal budget, they do not see their
community's well-being and prosperity treated as a national
priority.
I am here today to share with you some areas where the
Federal budget could better reflect the values and priorities
of my congressional district and similar communities across the
Nation from West to East Coast. I will focus my remarks on
three critical areas: Education, health, and community
development.
Nothing demonstrates our misplaced national priorities more
than our failure to invest in education, particularly our
failure to invest in the key programs that are making a
difference in the Hispanic community throughout the country.
Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the country. By
2010, Hispanics will be the largest minority group in our
Nation's workforce. Yet Hispanic children are the least likely
to attend preschool, the most likely to drop out of school
before earning a high school diploma, and the least likely to
earn a college degree.
We know what we need to do and we have an investment plan.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus focuses on a group of Federal
educational programs that are critical to the Hispanic
community. They are Title I and Title III of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, the migrant education programs, the
dropout prevention program, HEP and CAMP as well as TRIO and
GEAR-UP, as well as Hispanic Serving-Institutions, Even Start,
Adult English As a Second Language, and Civics Education. We
call these programs the Hispanic Education Action Plan.
The fiscal year 2006 education budget cut every single
program in this plan. Unfortunately, the President's 2007
budget calls for an even greater assault on Hispanic education
programs with the proposed cuts of $855 million to the HEAP and
$2.1 billion to the education overall. These cuts include the
elimination of key programs such as the dropout prevention as
well as the GEAR-UP and the TRIO programs of Upward Bound and
Talent Search.
We must turn this around and significantly increase the
investment in all of these programs. The stakes could not be
higher. I urge you to reject the administration's proposed cuts
and restore funding that has been cut over the past several
years, and I urge you to put us on a path of increased
investment in our children starting with fiscal year 2007.
Without these investments, our Nation will no longer be
economically competitive in the future.
In addition to creating an educated workforce, we also need
a healthy workforce to remain competitive. Unfortunately, many
people in my district do not have access to quality health
care, particularly those in rural communities. Rural
communities cannot compete against urban wages and benefits in
this time when we are facing a national shortage of nurses and
allied health professionals. Yet the President's budget
eliminates health profession training grants and slashes
funding by 83 percent for rural health activities. Diabetes is
afflicting my constituents at an ever younger age and in near
epidemic numbers, yet this budget for 2007 cuts critical
diabetes programs at the Centers for Disease Control that
bridge the gap between the theoretical research at the National
Institutes of Health and real community-based treatment.
Provider cuts in Medicare will make it more difficult for
my senior citizens to find a physician to treat them, and
higher co-pays will make even Medicaid unavailable for
thousands of my constituents. My returning veterans from Iraq
will have difficulty accessing services because VA funding is
$10.1 billion below what is needed just to maintain its 2006
purchasing power.
I urge this committee to reconsider these policies that
will undermine the health of millions of Americans. Rural
America truly is the heartland of this great country. It is up
to all of us here in Congress to ensure its continued vitality.
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget seems geared to do
just the opposite. The $2.77 trillion budget that the President
sent to us last week cuts $1.5 billion from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, which we call HUD. The President
is proposing these cuts despite HUD's recently reporting that
$5.18 million very low income families have critical housing
problems. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget imposes
severe cuts to Sections 202 and 811 programs that provide
housing to the lowest income seniors and people with
disabilities at a time when the baby boom generation is
beginning to retire.
One of the programs that is fundamental to the success of
rural cities is the Community Development Block Grant Program
(CDBG). The President's budget proposes cutting the CDBG
program by another 20 percent from $3.7 to $2.9 billion. And
this cut and HUD's intention to revamp the program to award
grants to undefined areas of greatest needs will devastate
rural America. State and local authorities rely on those grants
for community revitalization. Now is not the time to abandon
our commitment to these communities in the guise of reform.
Mr. Chairman, recently HUD awarded Texas only $74,523,000
in CDBG funds despite its request for approximately $1 billion
in assistance to provide relief to the hurricane evacuees.
Texas will not have enough funds to provide for the hurricane
evacuees much less its own population if Congress cuts CDBG
program funding.
The pending supplemental makes it clear: We need to
actually increase funding for this CDBG program. The Rural
Housing and Economic Development Program, the Housing
Assistance Council, and the National Community Development
Initiative are all key programs for our rural America. The
President's budget has either zero funded or eliminated all of
them.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the President's budget has
proposed no funding for the construction of low income housing
and calls for the elimination of all funding for the
construction or preservation of affordable housing units in
rural areas.
One ray of hope lies in the fact that the proposed budget
maintains the Community Development Financial Institutions
Program. However, it reduces this important program 85 percent
from its current funding of $46 million to a mere $8 million
for this fiscal year 2007.
In conclusion, let me say last year I fought to keep the
Resource Conservation and Development Program intact and
prevent closure of Farm Service Agencies, and yet again the
President is recommending consolidating funding for the
programs that are vital to a rural America. At a time when we
are trying to rebuild the gulf coast, it is a mystery to me
that programs people rely upon to get back on their feet face
such drastic cuts.
Thank you for allowing me to testify here before you. I
encourage you to maintain an increased funding for programs
that are essential to the education, health, economic
development of our country. And if you have any questions, I
will be glad to address them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ruben Hinojosa, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas
Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member Spratt and Members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you on the
fiscal year 2007 budget. I ask that my written statement be included in
the record.. The Federal budget is our most direct and telling
statement of the nation's values and priorities. Unfortunately, when
the people of my congressional district--hard working people--many who
live in rural areas--most of whom are Hispanic--look at the Federal
budget, they do not see their values reflected in the budget; and they
do not see their community's well-being and prosperity treated as a
national priority.
I am here today to share with you some areas where the Federal
budget could better reflect the values and priorities of my
congressional district and similar communities across the nation. I
will focus my remarks on three critical areas: education, health, and
rural development.
EDUCATION
Nothing demonstrates our misplaced national priorities more than
our failure to invest in education--particularly our failure to invest
in the key programs that are making a difference in the Hispanic
community.
Our census figures tell the story. Hispanics are now the largest
minority group in the country. Hispanic children are now second to only
non-Hispanic whites in our nation's schools. By 2010, Hispanics will be
the largest minority group in our nation's workforce. Yet Hispanic
children are the least likely to attend preschool, the most likely to
dropout of school before earning a high school diploma, and the least
likely to earn a college degree.
Strengthening educational opportunities for Hispanic Americans from
pre-school through graduate school must become a national priority.
Literally, our future depends on it. Unfortunately, the opposite has
been true.
We know what we need to do. We have an investment plan. The
Congressional Hispanic Caucus focuses on a group of Federal education
programs that are critical to the Hispanic community--Titles I and III
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, migrant education
programs, dropout prevention, HEP and CAMP, TRIO, GEAR UP, Hispanic-
Serving Institutions, Even Start Adult English as a Second Language and
Civics Education. We call these programs the Hispanic Education Action
Plan.
The fiscal year 2006 education budget cut every single program in
this plan. For the first time in 10 years, the Federal support for
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) has been reduced, in spite of the
fact that half of all Hispanic college students attend HSIs. For the
first time in 10 years, funding for Title I, the cornerstone of the No
Child Left Behind Act has been cut. TRIO programs have been put on the
chopping block. Even Start, which provides literacy services to low-
income families, over half of whom are Hispanic, has been slashed by
more than 50 percent. Programs for English language learners and
migrant students have been cut for the third year in a row. These cuts
are coming at a time when the Department of Education estimates that
there are 5.4 million English language learners in our schools and
projects that the number will double by 2025.
Unfortunately, the President's budget calls for an even greater
assault on Hispanic education programs with cuts of $2.1 billion to
education overall--a reduction of 3.8 percent from last year. These
cuts include the elimination of key programs such as dropout
prevention, GEARUP, and the TRIO programs of Upward Bound and Talent
Search. In total, the President's budgets cuts the Hispanic Education
Action Plan by more than $855 million.
We must turn this around and significantly increase the investments
in all of these programs. The stakes could not be higher. I urge you to
reject the Administration's proposed cuts. I urge you to restore
funding that has been cut over the past several years. And I urge you
to put us on a path of increased investment starting with fiscal year
2007. Without these investments, our nation will no longer be
economically competitive in the future.
HEALTH
In addition to creating an educated workforce, we also need a
healthy workforce if we are to remain competitive. Unfortunately, many
people in my district do not have access to quality healthcare,
particularly those in rural communities. Rural communities suffer from
a lack of trained medical personnel because they cannot compete against
urban wages and benefits in this time when we are facing a national
shortage of nurses and allied health professionals. Yet the President's
budget eliminates health profession training grants and slashes funding
by 83 percent for rural health activities.
My district is plagued by the ever increasing scourge of diabetes
which is afflicting my constituents at an ever younger age and in near
epidemic numbers. Yet the 2007 budget cuts critical diabetes programs
at the Center for Disease Control which bridge the gap between
theoretical research at the National Institutes of Health and real
community based treatment.
The Centers for Disease Control will also lose $290 million in
programs for programs like the Preventative Health and Social Services
Block Grant, Emergency Medical Services for children and the Universal
Newborn Screening even while we all know that early prevention can save
billions in future health costs.
Provider cuts in Medicare will make it more difficult for my
seniors to find a physician to treat them and higher copays will make
even Medicaid unavailable to thousands of my constituents. My returning
veterans from Iraq will have difficulty accessing services because VA
funding is $10.1 billion below what is needed to maintain its 2006
purchasing power. This will severely impact the VA's ability to treat
new veterans.
I urge the committee to reconsider these policies that will
undermine the health of millions of Americans.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Finally, I strongly urge this committee to provide the funds
necessary to operate key programs that help bolster economic
development in Rural America. Rural America truly is the heartland of
this great country. It is up to all of us here in Congress to ensure
its continued vitality. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget seems
geared to do just the opposite.
The $2.77 trillion budget that the President sent to us last week
cuts $600 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), a 1.8-percent decrease from the FY06 appropriations. The
President is proposing these cuts despite HUD recently reporting that
5.18 million very low-income families have critical housing problems.
It seems illogical at best for the Administration to be recommending a
reduction of $1.15 billion in funding for housing programs when the
agency responsible for those programs is aware of the need to do just
the opposite--to increase funding for critical housing needs.
At this juncture in our history, and in light of the nation's
demographics, we need to begin increasing funding for lowest income
seniors and people with disabilities. Contrary to this logic, the
President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget imposes severe cuts to Sections 202
and 811 programs that provide housing to the lowest income seniors and
people with disabilities. This budget adds insult to injury by
targeting seniors and people with disabilities twice for reduced
assistance: first by reducing funding for health care and again by
substantially reducing not only the funding for housing programs but
the availability of key programs to those most in need. This budget is
far from being compassionate.
President Bush recently noted that he and former President Clinton
will turn 60 this year, as will a considerable number of other members
of the Baby Boom generation. He and his Administration should realize
that the Sections 202 and 811 programs should be expanded considerably
to prepare for the future housing needs of these people and for the
housing needs of the Baby Boomers in general. The Baby Boom generation
is going to place a huge drain on our economy, and we need to prepare
for that now by providing the funds necessary to maintain programs that
are going to be vital to the continued success of our country.
One of the programs that is fundamental to the success of rural
cities is the Community Development Block Grant Program. The
President's budget proposes cutting the CDBG program by 20 percent--
from $3.7 billion to $2.975 billion. This cut, and HUD's intention to
revamp the program to award grants to the ``areas of greatest needs''--
terminology which has yet to be defined--will devastate Rural America.
State and local authorities rely on those grants for a variety of
purposes. The reduction in funding is bad enough, but HUD has made
statements that the CDBG program will be reformed but has not expounded
on its proposal.
In the aftermath of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, Texas needs a
considerable amount of CDBG funding. Following Hurricane Katrina,
Texans were more than happy to open our hearts, our homes, our
communities and our resources to the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina, and
we remain committed to helping them in any way we can. However, we need
the Federal Government, particularly HUD, to provide us with greater
assistance.
Recently, HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson announced the allocation
of $11.5 billion in disaster funding to be divided among the five Gulf
Coast states impacted by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. He, HUD
and the Administration decided to provide ``relief'' through the CDBG
Program to Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama and Texas.
Unfortunately, Texas received only $74,523,000 from HUD despite its
request for approximately $1 billion in assistance. In response, the
Texas Delegation sent a letter to HUD Secretary Jackson requesting a
detailed explanation of the Department's allocation of CDBG funds. The
Secretary himself has yet to respond. I hope that this committee will
take HUD's treatment of Texas into consideration when it decides
whether or not to increase funding for CDBG. It is obviously a key
ingredient to addressing housing needs of communities in need as
demonstrated by HUD's use of the funds for Hurricane relief.
The Rural Housing and Economic Development (RHED) Program, the
Housing Assistance Council (HAC), and the National Community
Development Initiative (NCDI) are all key programs for Rural America.
The President's budget has either zero-funded or eliminated all of
them. Furthermore, the President's budget has proposed no funding for
the construction of low-income housing, and the budget calls for the
elimination of all funding for the construction or preservation of
affordable housing units in rural areas. This is at best irresponsible.
One ray of hope lies in the fact that the proposed budget maintains
the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Program.
However, it reduces this important program 85 percent, from its current
funding of $46 million to a mere $8 million for Fiscal year 2007.
Last year I fought to keep the Resource Conservation and
Development Program (RC&D) intact, and prevent closure of Farm Service
Agencies, and yet again the President is recommending consolidating
funding for the programs. Farmers and ranchers are the backbone of our
economy, and we need to do all we can to support them, not continue
slashing programs that assist them.
All of these programs directly help low-income and rural
communities across the country. At a time when we need to maintain
funding for CDBG, RHED, CDFI, HAC, and other low-income and rural
housing programs, especially in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, it's a mystery to me that programs people rely upon to get back
on their feet face such drastic cuts.
I urge the committee to stand up for rural America and oppose these
cuts.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Hinojosa, thank you very much for your
testimony. Are there any members that have questions at this
point? Hearing none--Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. May I comment very briefly? Thank you, Mr.
Hinojosa, for being here and for your presentation. I just want
to comment on two, very quickly, areas that you covered. One is
you talked about a budget being a values document. I think you
are exactly right. I have learned in the 7 years I have been
here in Congress that our job is about setting priorities for
how we are going to spend our money. And people can talk all
they want about values, but what it comes down to, a real
demonstration of values is how we choose to the spend the money
for the people in this country, and you mentioned in particular
two areas I want to comment on very quickly.
One is education. I think it is a drastic mistake to be
cutting back on college student loans. I don't know that you
mentioned that, but you mentioned several other work and
education programs. And the second, you did mention health. You
talked about cutbacks in diabetes programs and cutbacks in
provider cuts for Medicare beneficiaries--and for providers,
excuse me. And I think, again, those are places we should not
choose to make cuts. I believe in a balanced budget, I believe
in fiscal responsibility, but we have got to make hard
decisions here, and we can't sacrifice the least among us.
Thank you.
Mr. Hinojosa. Congressman Moore, if I may, I would like to
respond by saying that one thing I have learned here in
Congress these 10 years, and that is that issues divide us.
Values, as I addressed in the opening of my remarks, is what
unites us. And that is why I am making such a plea for
increases in funding in these areas. And, Mr. Chairman, if I
may, I would like to ask unanimous consent that to my remarks,
that we also add two documents that I have which are a history
from 1995 to 2006 of the funding that we have received in the
HEAP programs, which is our Hispanic Education Action Plan, so
that you can see that we were on a good route, a good track to
be able to increase funding which is very necessary to address
the programs that are helping our community be able to graduate
and go on to college.
Mr. Ryun. Without objection, those will be put into the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS HISPANIC EDUCATION ACTION PLAN (HEAP) FUNDING
[Amounts in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic Serving Institutions............................... $12 $10.8 $10.8 $12 $28 $43 $69 $86 $92.4 $94 $95.1 $94.9
Bilingual Education......................................... $156.7 $128 $156.7 $199 $224 $248 $296 \1\ $665 $683.7 $681 $676 $669
Migrant Education HEP/CAMP.................................. $10.29 $9.47 $9.47 $9.72 $13 $22 $30 $38 $39 $34.5 $34 $33.9
Migrant Education (Title I of ESEA)......................... $305.5 $305.5 $305.5 $305.5 $354.7 $355 $380 $396 $395.5 $393.6 $390.4 $386.5
Adult Education\2\ (State Grant)............................ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $25 $70 $70 $70 (571.3) $70 (574.4) $68.5 (569.7) $67.8 (564)
TRIO--Total................................................. $463 $463 $500 $529.7 $600 $645 $730 $803 $827.1 $832.6 $836.5 $828.2
GEAR-UP..................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A $120 $200 $295 $285 $293.1 $298.2 $306.5 $303.4
Title I (LEAs).............................................. $6,698 $6,730 $7,295 $7,375 $7,676 $7,940 $8,336 $10,350 $11,684 $12,342.3 $12,738.6 12.713.1
Dropout Prevention (Title I, Part H)........................ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $7 $11 $5 $4.9 $4.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The No Child Left Behind Act consolidated bilingual and immigrant education programs into a state formula grant program under Title III. Immigrant education had been funded at $150 million
in previous fiscal years.
\2\ Adult English as a Second Language and Civics setaside from the Adult Education State Grant Program.
FY 2006 BUDGET PRIORITIES--HISPANIC EDUCATION ACTION PLAN (HEAP)
[Amounts in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Admin
2004 2005 Request CHC House Senate Final
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (Title V of HEA)............... $94 $95.1 $95.9 $125 $95.9 $100.8 $94.9
English Language Acquisition (Title III, ESEA) \1\........... $681 $676 $676 $900 $676 $683.4 $669
Migrant Education HEP/CAMP................................... $34.5 $34.3 $34.3 $50 $34.3 $37.1 $33.9
High School Equivalency Program (HEP)........................ ($18.9) ($18.7) ($18.7) ($27) ($18.7) ($21.6) (18.5)
College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP).................... ($15.7) ($15.5) (15.6) ($23) ($15.6) ($15.5) (15.4)
Migrant Education Programs (Title I of ESEA)................. $393.6 $390.4 $390.4 $455 $390.4 $395.2 $386.5
Adult ESL/Civics \2\......................................... $70 $68.5 $68.5 $100 $68.5 $72 $67.8
(Adult Education State Grant)................................ ($574.4) ($569.7) ($200) ($604.4) ($569.7) ($572.9) (564)
TRIO......................................................... $832.6 $836.5 $369.4 $900 $836.5 $841.5 $828.2
GEAR-UP...................................................... $298.2 $306.5 $0 $350 $306.5 $306.5 $303.4
ESEA Title I (LEAs).......................................... $12,342.3 $12,738.6 $13,342.3 Full $12,839.6 $12,839.6 $12,713.1
Dropout Prevention (new program)............................. $5 $4.9 $0 $11 $0 $4.9 $4.85
Local Family Information Centers............................. $0 $0 $0 $5 $0 $0 $0
(Parent Information Resource Centers \3\).................... ($42) ($42) ($0) ($60) ($0) ($48.5) ($39.6)
Even Start................................................... $247 $225 $0 $230 $200 $0 $99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Previously bilingual and immigrant education, these programs were consolidated by NCLB.
\2\ Under the Adult Education State Grants: earmark for English Literacy and Civics for immigrant and LEP populations.
\3\ Local Family Information Centers cannot be funded until Parent Information and Resource Centers reach $50 million.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Ryun. At this point I would like to turn to the
gentleman from Kansas, a colleague of mine, Mr. Tiahrt, for his
proposal.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD TIAHRT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice being here
with half the Kansas delegation. And Mario, we will just go
ahead and adopt you, and that way all four of us will be here.
I want to talk to you about saving some money. Instead of
about spending more money, I want to talk to you about how we
can save some money. And I appreciate the gentleman from
Kansas, Mr. Moore's, comments and also Mr. Hinojosa's comments
about this being a values document. It is--our values are
embedded in this budget document, and one of the things I think
that we all want in those values that should be included in
here is accountability and integrity and fiscal responsibility.
This is an option that I am going to present that will help
us get to a balanced budget. I have a formal testimony that I
would like to submit for the record.
Mr. Ryun. Without objection.
Mr. Tiahrt. And then I am going to give you some brief
comments and take your questions. The bill I am presenting that
I would like to be part of the budget document is called the
Commission on Accountability and Reform of Federal Agencies, or
CARFA for short. Basically, it sets up an agency to help us do
oversight.
Now, it is no secret that the Federal budget has got a lot
of examples of duplicative, inefficient, failed Federal
agencies and programs, and it is a serious problem facing our
Nation today. The House Budget Committee put out a 421-page
report outlining as much as $100 billion in waste, fraud, and
abuse throughout the Federal Government. But there is other
examples. The Office of Management and Budget said there is
about $90 billion of waste and abuse out there in the Federal
Government. The Congressional Budget Office said it could be as
high as $140 billion in spending waste. There is also reports
from Government Affairs Committee, from the General Accounting
Office, and the Senate Government Affairs Committee has also
put out a document.
So what do we do with that information? Well, one of the
biggest frustrations I have as a Member of the House and an
appropriator is dealing with the size and scope of the Federal
Government. It has gotten so big that our attention is focused
on the crisis of the day rather than stepping back and looking
at the effectiveness of what we are trying to do. Oversight is
the term or the word that sort of sums up that process.
Now, if we were to do some oversight, just taking an
average legislative day, we ought to be looking at $30 billion
worth of spending on any given legislative day. I think we have
to ask ourselves: How much oversight did we provide today? Was
it $30 billion worth of oversight? Did we find any waste,
fraud, or abuse today? One of the examples that is very--since
we have most of the, or a majority of the Kansas delegation
here, I have found out that, according to the Congressional
Research Service, that one out of four payments that Kansas
makes in Medicaid is wrong. One out of four payments. Can you
imagine FedEx running a commercial saying, if you will give us
four boxes to ship, we will get three of them there and then we
will go find the other one. And you have got three out of four
chances of getting that one sent to the right place. But if we
lose it again, we will find it again and we will finally get it
there. The fact that we make one out of four of our payments
inefficiently means that we need some oversight. They need some
reforms and they need some help.
CARFA is about helping with that process. Even the
Appropriations subcommittees which do a fabulous job of
oversight don't have the time to deal with all of the--with the
size and the scope of the number of agencies and the amount of
spending that is out there.
There is also--I am not talking about any earmarks here at
all. What I am talking about is agencies that are out there,
both of them doing good work. Say there is two agencies, both
of them doing training activities, both of them doing good
work, not aware that they are competing for the same clientele,
not aware that they have duplicative overhead, and that we are
wasting money by having a structure that has two redundant
programs. Well, there are over 100 training programs in the
Federal Government. And where is the coordination of all that
activity? We don't have it. We just need to have somebody step
back and take a look at it.
CARFA basically would be a commission of 12 people. They
would be volunteers. There would be a 2-year term limit. This
whole thing is really for 2 years and 3 months with the final
report at the end. But basically they would have access to
staff, they would have their expenses covered, their travel
expenses, given a per diem. Their staff would have sufficient
space to work and also expenses. They would have the right to
bring information before their committee. And at the end of 2
years they would submit to Congress in a BRAC-like fashion
programs that they have found to be duplicative, inefficient,
or wasteful, and we would bring it to the floor for an up or
down vote in the same fashion that we do as in BRAC. So this is
a BRAC-like commission to help us do the oversight
responsibility that we have here in Congress but we don't spend
enough time doing. And, as I said, any given legislative day we
ought to be doing about $30 billion worth of oversight, and I
think we are far behind that goal to try to achieve that on any
given day even at the end of the session.
So CARFA is the bill and I would like to have that concept
in the budget resolution. I think that it would be a very
effective way to reduce the waste, fraud, and abuse that is in
our Federal Government, and it would save us money.
If we could save $140 billion, that would be a tremendous
step to reducing the budget deficit. If we could save $100
billion, still a significant step. If we could save $1 billion,
that is a lot of money. Any of us could retire on that amount
of money. So CARFA I think is a good concept, it is a good
idea, and ought to be included in the budget document.
I stand for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tiahrt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Tiahrt, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Kansas
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
committee today.
As I think you would agree, the President's tax cuts are to be
commended for getting our economy moving in a positive direction again.
However, the other half of the formula for economic success is to cut
wasteful and unnecessary spending. It is certainly no secret that the
Federal budget is filled with examples of duplicative, inefficient, and
failed Federal agencies and programs. I am here today to discuss
legislation that I have introduced that I believe would eliminate much
of the fraud and abuse that persists in our Federal Government in a
politically viable manner.
When Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, we proposed to
eliminate wasteful and deficit spending. In fact, in the Contract with
America, which several of us in this room signed, we pledged to (and I
quote) ``restor(e) fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress,
[by] requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as
families and businesses.'' For several years, we held to that promise
by modestly curtailing spending growth and balancing the budget in 1998
for the first time since the 1960's. Since that time, however, Federal
spending has jumped drastically and we have returned to a time of
massive budget deficits.
Some of this increased spending is understandable--especially in
the defense budget, considering the one-two punch of being under-funded
by the previous administration and the exigencies of 9/11. But these
events do not justify the fact that non-defense discretionary outlays
have increased by over 30 percent over the past 3 years. These
tremendous spending increases have been a significant cause of the
deficits that we now face.
This problem can also be traced to the billions of taxpayer dollars
that go every year to Federal programs and agencies that are redundant,
wasteful, and altogether irrelevant. I certainly support a 1-percent
cut in non-defense, non- homeland security discretionary spending as
well as a cap of 1 percent on the rate of growth of mandatory spending.
These are measures that we must take given our current fiscal climate.
But I also think there are other meaningful ways that we can confront
the deficit, including by rooting out fraud and abuse in our
government.
Some say that a growing national debt will force us to curtail
government growth. So far we have seen none of that. It is also
commonly believed that economic growth will reverse the effects of
running up the national credit card. Although the economy is perking
up, we cannot become complacent. As a matter of fact, former Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned us that ``impressive gains'' in
our economy would not outshine the negatives of our growing budget
deficits. Mr. Greenspan promised that the Fed will hold short-term
interest rates; now at a 45-year low of 1 percent, then he warned that
these rates ''will not be compatible indefinitely'' with the Fed's
fight against inflation.
If interest rates go up, what will happen to the stock market, the
housing market and personal credit card debt? A rise in interest rates
could stall economic growth by damaging fledgling business projects and
cause other complications.
We now have just about $380 billion left to spend before we have to
start borrowing again! We are spending a few billion dollars a day, so
it won't be long. As you know, deficits REQUIRE the Treasury to borrow
money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. Yes, our
economy is rebounding, but we are simply not keeping pace with our rate
of spending--therefore the deficit is growing like a gelatinous monster
from a ``B-grade'' movie.
Concerned grassroots conservative organizations including The Club
for Growth, The Free Congress Foundation, Citizens Against Government
Waste, The Heritage Foundation, The American Conservative Union,
Citizens for a Sound Economy have been vocal in their criticism of the
rate of growth of the deficit and the large spending increases that we
have witnessed over the past few years. We can no longer ignore the
fact that all this spending is endangering our economic vitality. The
government cannot spend or give anything until they have collected the
money to do so. Magic does not happen. Taxes and borrowing happen.
It has become increasingly clear that Congress' normal procedures
cannot address the spending and waste problems that persist within our
Federal Government. Time and again, we see congressionally-authorized
programs become institutionalized, ultimately becoming a permanent
fixture at the expense of taxpayers. This ties up precious Federal
resources that could be used toward paying down the national debt or
higher Congressional priorities. By cutting out unnecessary Federal
programs and agencies, we will send a strong message that we are
serious about exercising fiscal responsibility and controlling
government spending. With this in mind, I have introduced a bipartisan
piece of legislation that will accomplish this very purpose.
A first step toward a stable financial future for this country
currently can be found in H.R. 2470, which is also known as the
Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies Act
(CARFA). CARFA is based on a process with an established record of
successful program-elimination and prioritization of spending--the Base
Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). H.R. 2470 will ``establish a
commission to conduct a comprehensive review of Federal agencies and
programs and to recommend the elimination or realignment of
duplicative, wasteful, or outdated functions...'' CARFA provides for a
disciplined spending review process for non-defense, non-entitlement
programs. Congress will have to simply vote up-or-down on the
commission's recommendations in their entirety. The congressional log-
rolling that normally bogs down the process will be short-circuited. In
this way, real reform can emerge, and the deficit and debt problems can
be brought under control. H.R.2470 offers Congress and the
Administration a unique opportunity: rather than simply re-fund and
increase funding for every Federal program, CARFA will eliminate
unproductive, duplicative and outdated programs.
Here's how CARFA would work. The Commission would consist of 12
members, appointed by the President, no later than 90 days after the
enactment of this Act. Members would be appointed for the life of the
Commission, and would be required to meet no later than 30 days after
the date on which all members of the Commission have been appointed.
CARFA's duties would then include conducting a top to bottom review of
all Federal programs and agencies--excepting the Department of Defense
and any agency that solely administers entitlement programs. CARFA
would seek to identify those programs or agencies that could be
considered duplicative in mission, grossly wasteful or inefficient,
outdated, irrelevant, or failed. The assessment of these programs would
be based primarily upon the achievement of common performance measures,
financial management, and other factors determined by the President. No
later than 2 years after the enactment of this Act, the Commission
would be required to submit to the President and Congress a plan with
recommendations of the agencies and programs that should be realigned
or eliminated and propose legislation to implement this plan. CARFA
would require congressional consideration of the review's findings
under expedited legislative rules. In short, Congress would be voting
``up or down'' to continue or stop wasteful spending.
CARFA's main focus would be to make our government smarter and more
efficient, and also to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to
support programs such as the ``Federal Tea-taster,'' who until 1995
headed the ``Board of Tea Experts'' which was created by the Imported
Tea Act of 1897. Until this program's elimination just 10 short years
ago, the Federal Government was spending $120,000 in salary and
operating expenses per year to taste tea. Obviously this is only one
example of the type of programs that CARFA would target, but I am
convinced that our Federal Government is replete with programs such as
this that make a mockery out of the hard-earned tax dollars that
Congress provides. Other examples of government waste that CARFA would
target include surplus lands owned by the Department of Energy, which
if sold would save taxpayers $12 million over 5 years. In addition,
eliminating four duplicative bilingual education programs at the
Department of Education would save taxpayers over $800 million over a 5
year period. We could save $1 million dollars every year by simply
eliminating overlapping responsibilities and reducing administrative
positions at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The examples of
inefficient and wasteful government practices that CARFA could target
are far too numerous to cite in this short amount of time. However, it
is clear to me that the need for CARFA is very real.
The strict time limits governing the Commission, which would expire
shortly after submitting its findings, would ensure that its costs are
kept to a minimum. I believe that the savings that would occur as a
result of the Commission's findings will more than justify the minimal
expenses that the study might incur. In addition, it is worth noting
that CARFA requires that ALL funds saved by the implementation of this
plan can ONLY be used for supporting other domestic programs or paying
down the national debt.
H.R.2470 offers Congress and the Administration a test: Can we
address a real and present problem by adopting a method that has been
successful in the past? The answer will tell us much about the
prospects for our country in the 21st century. CARFA offers an idea
other than hiding our heads in the sand and ignoring this problem.
CARFA is a realistic plan that will make genuine reform possible. It
takes LEADERSHIP to point out hard truths and LEADERSHIP to find and
implement a workable answer. We welcome support to this politically
viable solution to government spending gone awry. If the CARFA
commission comes to fruition, it will give Congress arms-length
distance to do the right thing and vote down ridiculous, redundant and
outdated programs. Over forty-five of my colleagues in the House have
agreed to co-sponsor this legislation and our numbers are growing
stronger. We hope to see the CARFA commission hard at work cutting
wasteful spending by this time next year, if not sooner.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Ryun. I would like to begin just with a brief comment
actually from your testimony here. You have a statement from
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warning that impressive
gains in our economy would not outshine the negatives of a
growing budget deficit.
Now, I know in your proposal with the oversight you would
look for perhaps ways to save money. If you look back at the
Katrina situation where you have all the mobile homes that are
sitting down on the runways in Arkansas that are not being
used, that is a waste of money. You threw out a number of
numbers. Do you have any estimate, and perhaps it is in your
testimony or I didn't hear it, with regard to how much
potentially can be saved through this process?
Mr. Tiahrt. Well, I think that would be difficult to
estimate right now, but I think it could be as much as $100
billion. This is like an experiment. If this works, I am sure
we would want to repeat, like we have had several BRACs. But
what I think is important now is that they would have the
opportunity, this commission would have the opportunity to go
out and look for these examples. There is plenty of examples
out there, and they can set a list of priorities. I don't think
they could work through the complete list in only 2 years
because our Federal Government is so large. I mean, it is $2.7
trillion. That is a lot of money. But I think that they could
save money for us, but, more importantly, put mechanisms or
give us the ideas to put mechanisms in place so that we don't
have decisions made that buys $400 million worth of trailer
houses that sit on a runway in northwest Arkansas.
Mr. Ryun. I appreciate the gentleman's proposal. Are there
any other questions by members? Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you very much, Congressman Tiahrt, for
being here. I really appreciate the concept here and I do have
a couple of questions, but first I have just a couple of
comments as well. But I really do appreciate the concept here.
We have in this country an $8.2 trillion national debt. In
the past 4 years, since 2003 at least, in 2003 we had a $378
billion deficit; 2004, a $412 billion deficit; 2005, a $318
billion deficit; 2006, the projected deficit is $423 billion.
Since June of 2002, the first debt limit increase was $450
billion; May of 2003, a $984 billion debt limit increase;
November of 2004, an $800 billion debt increase; and a pending
increase has been requested I understand of $781 billion. So I
very much like the concept of your proposal here, and I would
like to see more specifics.
My questions about your proposal--and I just got this
statement, but it says on page 7, here is how CARFA would work.
The commission would consist of 12 members appointed by the
President. Is that a bipartisan appointment, or does the
President appoint 12 members of his party, or how does that
work, sir?
Mr. Tiahrt. Well, it would be up to--of course the
President would make that selection. He would, I would hope, do
it after consultation with both minority and majority Members
of the House and Senate. I think it would be more effective as
a bipartisan commission.
Mr. Moore. Well, I certainly agree with that. What we don't
need is more partisanship here in Washington, D.C.
The second question is this. It says on the same page:
Commission having been appointed, CARFA's duties would then
include top to bottom review of all Federal programs and
agencies, excepting the Department of Defense and any agency
that solely administers entitlement programs.
Are you suggesting there is no waste or abuse or fraud in
the Department of Defense or entitlement programs?
Mr. Tiahrt. Absolutely not. And this would be subject to
the amendment process as it moves forward. And I think, for
example, in the Department of Defense, the procurement where
they have over 75,000 people just buying stuff is a system that
is archaic and behind the times and needs to be reformed. What,
this was designed on BRAC, it sort of bases the fundamental
concept. BRAC is focused on the Department of Defense, so I
said why don't we look at the rest of the Government. That is
why it was segregated. It was more an artificial separation. I
do think there needs to be reform, and I would be open to an
amendment like that.
Mr. Moore. I would appreciate if you would send a copy of
your proposal, if it is in writing right now, over to my
office.
Mr. Tiahrt. Absolutely. And one other thing I wanted to
mention to you, we are going to increase the Federal debt later
on this year sometime. I hope that we can get some reforms in
exchange for doing that so that we can save money in the
future. But this January was very encouraging. I believe that
the President's tax policies are paying off in that we ran over
$20 billion in surplus in the first month of this calendar
year. Hopefully, it will be able to--we will have less than a
$412 billion deficit. And I believe that if January is an
indication, we may have some hope of hitting that.
Mr. Moore. I hope as well your comments about the tax
policy are correct, but I fear they may be misguided because it
seems like for the last 4 years we have had nothing but more
and more deficits. Thank you.
Mr. Ryun. I would like to thank the gentleman from Kansas
for his initiative and his testimony. And we will now turn to
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fossella.
STATEMENT OF HON. VITO FOSSELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Fossella. Thank you, Mr. Ryun and colleagues. I thank
the committee for the opportunity to testify. And as we know,
the President's budget provides Congress with a blueprint that
we will refer to as we move forward with the budget for 2007. I
think Congress' responsibility is to build on the strengths in
that blueprint and also work to develop alternatives to ensure
that the final product best serves the interests of the
American people.
As our troops lead the world in the war on terrorism, it is
essential that we continue to provide them with the resources
and tools they need to keep themselves and our Nation safe from
future attacks. The President's budget calls for a 7-percent
increase in defense spending next year, representing an
aggregate increase of 48 percent since 2001. At the same time,
with our military so bravely battling terrorism abroad, we must
continue to strengthen and protect our homeland from the
continuing threat of a terrorist attack.
The President's budget would provide an 8-percent increase
in nondefense homeland security funding. In addition, the
budget includes a number of proposals geared toward increasing
the Nation's preparedness against a variety of threats, from
bioterrorism attacks to natural disasters to an influenza
pandemic. As a priority, we need to ensure that the homeland
security programs are adequately funded and that this funding
is directed to the cities that face the greatest threat.
Indeed, I introduced legislation this Congress to reform
the current system for allocating anti-terror funding, making
risk the only criteria for distributing the nearly $2.5 billion
in Federal homeland security aid. While we have made progress
on this issue in recent years, the only rule that should apply
is this: Congress should send resources to fight terrorism
where they are needed most, not based on arbitrary formulas. I
look forward to working with all parties to achieve this
important goal.
Tragically, Hurricane Katrina provided evidence that our
current system for disaster response and recovery is inadequate
for catastrophic events like those that devastated the Gulf
States last year. The President's budget also includes $1.94
billion for the Disaster Relief Fund and $3.1 billion for FEMA
activities to continue and strengthen recovery and relief
efforts. In addition, the President requested continued funding
to the Inspector General within the Department of Homeland
Security to oversee the allocation of relief funds and ensure
the dollars are flowing to those who truly need them.
There is no greater priority of the Federal Government than
protecting the people of our Nation. It is the most essential
function of government, and I look forward to working with you
to build on these strong points. At the same time, we also have
a responsibility to care for America's seniors by protecting,
preserving, and strengthening Social Security and Medicare and
helping those less fortunate by enhancing Medicaid. Therefore,
I would like to take this opportunity to raise concerns over
several budget proposals that I believe need to be considered.
With Medicare expected to grow 17 percent this year alone
from $330 billion to almost $390 billion, and an average of 8.5
percent a year through 2016, the program will increase from 3.3
percent of GDP in 2005 to 4.2 percent of GDP in just 10 years.
Therefore, it is important that we explore ways to create
efficiencies so our Nation's seniors continue to have access to
the high quality care they need. However, several proposals to
increase out-of-pocket expenses for beneficiaries and reduce
anticipated payments to hospitals and health systems could make
it more difficult for beneficiaries to access that care. I also
have concerns about the proposals aimed at the specific
specialties commonly needed by the Medicare population, such as
reduced payments for hip and knee replacements and the
inclusion of inpatient rehabilitation facilities and skilled
nursing facilities and the elimination of market-basket
updates.
I believe Congress should focus on principles that can
produce savings over the long term. The President proposes
initiating and expanding to health savings accounts for
Medicare beneficiaries and increasing cost efficiencies through
the use of competitive bidding for durable medical equipment,
outpatient drugs, initiating competitive bidding for Medicare
laboratory services as examples.
Additionally, on top of the $1.1 billion provided for the
health care fraud and abuse control, the President requested
$118 million for the targeted efforts to protect the new
prescription drug benefit and Medicare Advantage programs from
waste, fraud, and abuse. We need to protect and enhance the
Medicare program to ensure its sustainability for future
generations. To meet that challenge, we should focus on cost
effectiveness and quality assurance measures that will not harm
our senior citizens. I look forward to working with you toward
that end.
Medicaid outlays in 2005 will reach $182 billion and more
than $300 billion when State expenditures are included.
Spending on Medicaid will increase by 5.2 percent in 2006, and
an average of 8 percent over the next 10 years. As a share of
gross domestic product, Medicaid spending will rise from 1.5
percent in 2006 to 2 percent in 2016. The Deficit Reduction Act
included significant reforms authored by the bipartisan
National Governors' Association aimed at improving the overall
fiscal health of Medicaid. Without congressional action,
Medicaid would have begun bankrupting States or, as some
Governors have revealed, forced them to drop beneficiaries from
coverage altogether.
As we work to fix Medicaid's problems, we should also be
wary of initiatives included that would reduce access to care
for those who need it and truly cannot afford it.
On Social Security reform, I believe we can find a
bipartisan solution to strengthening Social Security if
politics is cast aside and the best interests of the American
people take priority. As I have said in the past, I stand ready
to work with Democrats and Republicans to find common ground
that will allow our generation to renew the sacred covenant.
Indeed, I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that
Social Security is strong and solvent for today's seniors, baby
boomers, our children, grandchildren, and future generations of
Americans. Partisanship and unwillingness to compromise has
stalled efforts to improve Social Security. Therefore, I
believe the best course of action at this time is to appoint a
bipartisan commission that would be charged with developing a
plan to strengthen Social Security for all Americans.
By all accounts, it seems the American people do not
support the personal accounts of progressive indexing as a way
to secure Social Security. Therefore, we should really and
truly explore other proposals to strengthen this program.
Mr. Ryun, as we begin the budget process, America is faced
with great challenges and even greater opportunities. I look
forward to working with Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member Spratt,
the Budget Committee, and all my colleagues in the House to
develop a budget that best reflects the priorities and best
interests of the American people. Thank you for the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fossella follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Vito Fossella, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New York
Thank you Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt for the
opportunity to testify before your committee this afternoon. As you
know, the President's budget provides Congress with a blueprint that we
will refer to as we move forward with a budget for 2007. Congress'
responsibility is to build on the strengths of that blueprint and also
work to develop alternatives to ensure that the final product best
serves the interests of the American people.
As our troops lead the world in the War on Terrorism, it is
essential that we continue to provide them with the resources and tools
they need to keep themselves and our nation safe from future attacks.
The President's budget calls for a 7-percent increase in defense
spending next year, representing an aggregate increase of 48 percent
since 2001. At the same time, with our military so bravely battling
terrorism abroad, we must continue to strengthen and protect our
homeland from the continuing threat of a terrorist attack. The
President's budget would provide an 8-percent increase in non-defense
homeland security funding. In addition, the budget includes a number of
proposals geared toward increasing the nation's preparedness against a
variety of threats, from bioterrorism attacks to natural disasters to
an influenza pandemic.
As a priority, we need to ensure that homeland security programs
are adequately funded--and that this funding is directed to the cities
that face the greatest threat. Indeed, I introduced legislation this
Congress to reform the current system for allocating anti-terror
funding, making risk the only criteria for distributing the nearly $2.5
billion in Federal homeland security aid. While we have made progress
on this issue in recent years, the only rule that should apply to
homeland security funding is this: Congress should send resources to
fight terrorism where they are needed most, not based on arbitrary
formulas. I look forward to working with all parties to achieve this
important goal.
Tragically, Hurricane Katrina provided evidence that our current
system for disaster response and recovery is inadequate for
catastrophic events like those that devastated the Gulf states last
year. The President's Budget includes $1.94 billion for the Disaster
Relief Fund and $3.1 billion for FEMA activities to continue and
strengthen recovery and relief efforts. In addition, the President
requested continued funding to the Inspector General within the
Department of Homeland Security to oversee the allocation of relief
funds and ensure the dollars are flowing to those who truly need them.
There is no greater priority of the Federal Government than
protecting the people of our nation. It is the most essential function
of government, and I look forward to working with you to build on these
strong points.
At the same time, we also have a responsibility to care for
America's seniors by protecting, preserving and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare and helping those less fortunate by enhancing
Medicaid. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to raise
concerns over several budget proposals that I believe need to be
reconsidered.
With Medicare expected to grow 17 percent this year alone (from
$330 billion to $390 billion) and an average of 8.5 percent a year
through 2016, the program will increase from 3.0 percent of GDP in 2005
to 4.2 percent in just 10 years. Therefore, it is important that we
explore ways to create efficiencies so that our nation's seniors
continue to have access to the high-quality care they need.
However, several proposals to increase out-of-pocket expenses for
beneficiaries and reduce anticipated payments to hospitals and health
systems could make it more difficult for beneficiaries to access that
care. I also have concerns about proposals aimed at specific
specialties commonly needed by the Medicare population, such as reduced
payments for hip and knee replacements and the inclusion of inpatient
rehabilitation facilities and skilled nursing facilities in the
elimination of market-basket updates.
I believe Congress should focus on principles that can produce
savings over the long term. The President proposes initiating and
expanding access to Health Savings Accounts for Medicare beneficiaries,
and increasing cost efficiency through the use of competitive bidding
for durable medical equipment, outpatient drugs, and initiating
competitive bidding for Medicare laboratory services. Additionally, on
top of the $1.1 billion provided for Health Care Fraud and Abuse
Control, the President requested $118 million for targeted efforts to
protect the new prescription drug benefit and Medicare Advantage
programs from waste, fraud and abuse.
We need to protect and enhance the Medicare program to ensure its
sustainability for future generations. To meet that challenge, we
should focus on cost effectiveness and quality assurance measures that
will not harm America's senior citizens. I look forward to working
toward that end.
Medicaid outlays in 2005 will reach $182 billion and more than $300
billion when state expenditures are included. Spending on Medicaid will
increase by 5.2 percent in 2006 and an average of 8.0 percent over the
next 10 years. As a share of GDP, Medicaid spending will rise from 1.5
percent in 2006 to 2.0 percent in 2016.
The Deficit Reduction Act included significant reforms--authored by
the bipartisan National Governors Association--aimed at improving the
overall fiscal health of Medicaid. Without Congressional action,
Medicaid would have begun bankrupting states or, as some Governors have
revealed, forced them to drop beneficiaries from coverage altogether.
As we work to fix Medicaid's problems, we also should be wary of
initiatives included in the Budget that would reduce access to care for
those who need it and truly cannot afford it.
On Social Security reform, I believe we can find a bipartisan
solution to strengthening Social Security if politics is cast aside and
the best interests of the American people take priority. As I have said
in the past, I stand ready to work with Democrats and Republicans to
find common ground that will allow our generation to renew this sacred
covenant. Indeed, I believe we have a responsibility to ensure Social
Security is strong and solvent for today's seniors, baby boomers, our
children, grandchildren and all future generations of Americans.
Partisanship and an unwillingness to compromise has stalled efforts
to improve Social Security. Therefore, I believe the best course of
action at this time is to appoint a bipartisan commission that would be
charged with developing a plan to strengthen Social Security for all
Americans. By all accounts, the American people do not support personal
accounts and progressive indexing as a way to fix Social Security.
Therefore, we should explore other proposals to strengthen the program.
Lastly, I believe we must work to restore funding to public
broadcasting, which would be hit with budget cuts in excess of $150
million over the next 2 years. Last year, I voted for an amendment that
restored $100 million in cuts to the Center for Public Broadcasting.
While tight fiscal times require us to make difficult choices, I
believe there is more to lose than gain by slashing funding to this
important educational resource. Indeed, such a cut would negatively
affect PBS programming in my district of Staten Island and Brooklyn and
potentially leave our children without access to some of the most
effective educational shows on television today.
As we begin the budget process, America is faced with great
challenges and even greater opportunities. I look forward to working
with Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member Spratt, the Budget Committee and
my colleagues in the House to develop a budget that reflects the
priorities and best interests of the American people. Thank you for
this opportunity today.
Mr. Ryun. I thank the gentleman for his testimony and
proposals. And you have touched on a number of very important
things trying to figure out what we can do in a bipartisan way,
finding common ground for the future. And that is my hope as we
push forward with this committee.
Any questions from other members? Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congressman, for being here today,
and I really appreciate what I consider to be a very thoughtful
proposal and statement here. I would like to send over to your
office a couple of proposals I have. One addresses the Social
Security situation, and what it would do is take Social
Security funds out of the unified budget so that when we report
to the American people, and Congress knows what we have in the
way of a deficit or surplus right now, a lot of that money that
keeps the deficit from being so large is in fact Social
Security tax revenues coming in.
I practiced law for 28 years before I came to Congress, and
lawyers in Kansas and most other States are required to have a
trust fund to segregate their own funds from client funds, and
I think that would probably be good here in this case. And I
approached one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
and I said, I know you are a fiscal conservative, I know you
believe what you say about that. You should be on this bill.
And he said, well, there is a problem, Dennis. And I said, what
is that? He said, it would make our deficits look even larger.
And I said, that is called telling the truth to the American
people. And I think we need to start doing that as a Congress.
And I really applaud your recommendation that there be a
bipartisan commission. I would like to see that, and I probably
would join with you on that.
No. 2, with regard to the Medicare, I have a bill that--I
got a call from Secretary Tommy Thompson back at the time of
the night of the Medicare vote that happened at 3 or 4 in the
morning. It was about 5:00, and Secretary Thompson said,
Congressman, can you be with us on this vote? And I said I
have--it is a $500 billion bill; there is good news and bad
news. And he says, what is your concern about this bill? I
said, Mr. Secretary, I wish you had the authority to negotiate
with pharmaceutical companies to get a group discount for
Medicare beneficiaries, 43 million in this country, just like
the Secretary of Veteran Affairs has had for veterans since
1992. And he says, I do, too. But as you know, this bill
specifically prohibits that.
I filed a bill that would in fact give the Secretary of
Health and Human services that authority. When Secretary
Thompson, the day he left office, was asked do you have any
regrets about your tenure, he says, I regret I didn't have the
opportunity to negotiate.
I think we should give that to Secretary Leavitt now, and I
would like to send a copy of that bill over to you. Please take
a look at it. This should not, as you say, be about Democrats
and Republicans. In fact, 80 percent of what we do in Congress
shouldn't be about Democrats and Republicans; it ought to be
about taking care of our people and our country. And I hope we
can put aside all this partisan stuff on both sides and come
together and start working for our country. Thank you.
Mr. Ryun. Does the gentleman have a question?
Mr. Moore. Yes. Would you like us to send those bills over?
Mr. Fossella. Yes.
Mr. Moore. Thank you.
Mr. Ryun. Thank you very much for your testimony. At this
point, Mrs. Capito, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLY MOORE CAPITO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Budget Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
the Budget Committee. As you know better than I, the annual
budget resolution charts the course for our Federal spending,
and I am pleased to testify regarding programs that are of
great importance to West Virginia that I represent.
During the last budget cycle, we took a step forward toward
greater fiscal responsibility by controlling the growth of both
discretionary and entitlement spending. I continue to support
these efforts to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from our budget,
and provide the most efficient government for our taxpayers.
Because the tax relief passed in 2001 and 2003 has grown
our economy and helped American families, I fully support the
extension of the increased child tax credit and the permanent
repeal of the marriage penalty and death tax that are assumed
in this budget. Congress should work within its means to ensure
that these taxes do not return to increase the burden on the
American people.
The President's budget provides funding increases both in
homeland security and defense that are crucial to continuing
the war on terror, and I fully support that. Given the presence
of the chemical industry in the Kanawha Valley in West
Virginia, I am especially pleased that the budget would fund a
new Chemical Security Office to work with the industry and
other interested parties to keep these plants safe from attack.
West Virginians have a long and distinguished record of
service to our Nation. We have a responsibility to meet the
medical needs of our veterans who have sacrificed for our
Nation. This budget proposes an increase of over $2.5 billion
for VA and medical programs. We need to make sure that we
provide this increase to meet the health care needs of our
veterans.
Mine safety is a critical issue for the people I represent.
So far just this year, 16 miners have been killed in coal
mining accidents in West Virginia. In response, West Virginia's
congressional delegation has introduced legislation to enhance
mine safety requirements. All the legislative and regulatory
efforts in the world will not improve safety if the Mine Safety
and Health Administration does not have adequate resources to
carry out its enforcement mission. The President's budget
requests an increase of 3.6 percent for MSHA to $290 million. A
more significant increase is necessary if we are to improve
inspections and also evaluate new technologies that can improve
safety for our miners. I firmly believe that we need more
inspectors in our mines and more engineers examining the next
generation in safety equipment at MSHA. And I hope my
colleagues will join with me in working to further increase
this funding level through the appropriations cycle.
Coal is an essential part of our energy supply, providing
over half of the Nation's electricity. I was pleased that the
President mentioned the need to provide more funding for clean
zero emissions coal programs in his State of the Union. This
budget provides $268 million for research and development on
new clean coal technologies that will allow coal to continue to
provide low cost electricity while also working to protect the
environment.
It is also important that we provide the proposed increase
to the Department of Energy's Office of Science so that we can
examine new ways to use coal, wind power, solar energy,
biomass, and other innovative methods that will help us end our
dependency on oil. Only through investment now will we ever be
able to solve the problem of high gasoline prices that all of
our constituents face at the pump.
I want to commend the administration for proposing the
American Competitiveness Initiative. We all agree that
attracting more of our students to engineering technology--I
would like to say I was a zoology major--and other science
fields is important to growing our economy and ensuring that
America will continue to be the worldwide leader in innovation.
Despite this initiative, I am troubled by several parts of
the President's education budget. The budget would end funding
for GEAR-UP and TRIO, Upward Bound, and Talent Search programs.
These successful education programs help us aid in the
transition from high school to college for those first
generation college students. West Virginia's education system
is making significant progress and sending more students to
college than ever before. As a result, many of today's students
are the first in their families to attend college. TRIO and
GEAR-UP programs found at both public and private institutions
in my State are of great benefit in preparing these students
for college. Last year, Congress was able to restore funding
for these two programs during the appropriations process, and I
hope we will do the same this year.
Also like last year's budget, the President's budget
eliminates funding for the Vocational Education Program.
Vocational education funds provide money for job training for
high school students and at community and technical colleges.
For some students who will not attend college, vocational
education provides those skills necessary to find a good-paying
job. For other students, the hands-on learning will bring
motivation and encouragement needed for the student to move on
to higher ed. The House reauthorized the vocational education
programs by a vote of 416 to 9 last year, demonstrating, I
believe, our overwhelming bipartisan support.
Finally, I want to address the proposal to achieve further
reconciliation savings through Medicare and Medicaid. I voted
for the Deficit Reduction Act because I believe we must get a
handle on spending in mandatory programs and I believe most of
the savings achieved targeted waste in those programs. As we
consider further savings, we must make sure--I emphasize, we
must make sure that medical care for those in need and in
particular our seniors and children are not jeopardized. I have
serious questions with the proposal to reduce Medicare payments
to providers because I believe that such an action would limit
the access to medical care and especially access to specialists
for those served by the programs.
If the budget resolution is to ask the full House to
achieve more savings, we must be careful that we do not inhibit
access to care and quality care. The rising cost of health care
affects every American on several fronts. They have less money
in their personal budgets for expenditures on other goods and
services. On a Federal level, it could lead to a greater tax
burden for future generations if nothing is done to make health
care more affordable and accessible.
I am pleased the President's budget provides provisions for
tax credits for individuals who make contributions to health
savings accounts. This, coupled with efforts to make health
savings accounts more portable, will allow consumers to have
greater control of their health care and less concern when they
move from one job to another.
Our small business owners should be allowed to pull
together through associations so they can provide similar
benefits to their employees that large corporations currently
are offering. Health savings accounts and association health
plans will allow American employers to offer more affordable
coverage and give the employee an enhanced role in the
decision-making process.
I do believe we have a long ways to go before we meet our
goals of full accessibility to health care and affordability of
health insurance.
Your committee faces a challenging task over the next weeks
as you work to craft a budget that provides for our security
and grows our economy. I thank you for considering the impact
the programs I have discussed have on the people of West
Virginia, and I again thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Capito follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Shelley Moore Capito, a Representative in
Congress From the State of West Virginia
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Budget Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the Budget Committee. The annual budget
resolution charts the course for our Federal spending, so I am pleased
to testify regarding programs that are of great importance to West
Virginia.
During the last budget cycle, we took a step toward greater fiscal
responsibility by controlling the growth of both discretionary and
entitlement spending. I continue to support efforts to cut waste,
fraud, and abuse from our budget and provide the most efficient
government possible for American taxpayers.
Because the tax relief provided in 2001 and 2003 has grown our
economy and helped American families, I fully support the extension of
the increased Child Tax Credit and the permanent repeal of the Marriage
Penalty and Death Tax that are assumed in this budget. Congress should
work within its means to ensure these taxes do not return to increase
the burden on the American people.
The President's budget provides for funding increases both in
Defense and Homeland Security that are crucial to continuing the war on
terror. Given the presence of the chemical industry in the Kanawha
Valley, I am especially pleased that the budget would fund a new
Chemical Security Office to work with the industry and other interested
parties to keep these plants safe from attacks.
West Virginians have a long and distinguished record of service to
our nation. We have a responsibility to meet the medical needs of our
Veterans who have sacrificed for our nation. This budget proposes a
increase of over $2.5 billion for VA Medical programs. We should
provide this increase to meet the health care needs of our veterans.
Mine safety is a critical issue for the people I represent. Sixteen
miners have been killed in coal mining accidents in West Virginia so
far this year. In response West Virginia's congressional delegation has
introduced legislation to enhance mine safety requirements.
All the legislative and regulatory efforts in the world will not
improve safety if the Mine Safety and Health Administration does not
have adequate resources to carry out its enforcement mission. The
President's budget requests an increase of 3.6 percent for MSHA to $290
million. A more significant increase is necessary if we are to improve
inspections and also evaluate new technologies that can improve safety
for our miners. I firmly believe that we need more inspectors in our
mines and more engineers examining the next generation in safety
equipment at MSHA, and I hope my colleagues will join me in working to
further increase this funding level through the appropriations cycle.
Coal is an essential part of our energy supply, providing over half
of the nation's electricity. I was pleased that the President mentioned
the need to provide more funding for clean, zero emissions coal
programs in his State of the Union. This budget provides $268 million
for Research and Development on new clean coal technologies that will
allow coal to continue to provide low cost electricity while also
protecting our environment.
It is also important that we provide the proposed increase to the
Department of Energy's office of Science so that they can examine new
ways to use coal, wind power, solar energy, biomass, and other
innovative methods that will help us end our dependence on oil. Only
through investment now will we ever be able to solve the problem of
high gasoline prices that all of our constituents face at the pump.
I want to commend the administration for proposing the American
Competitiveness Initiative. We all agree that attracting more of our
students to engineering, technology, and other science fields is
important to growing our economy and ensuring that America will
continue to be the worldwide leader in innovation.
Despite this initiative, I am troubled by several parts of the
President's Education budget. The budget would end funding for Gear-up
and TRIO Upward Bound and Talent Search programs. These successful
education programs help to aid in the transition from high school to
college for first generation college students. West Virginia's
education system is making significant progress and sending more
students to college than ever before. As a result, many of today's
students are the first in their families to attend college. TRIO and
Gear-Up programs found at both public and private colleges in my state
are of great benefit in preparing these students for college. Last
year, Congress was able to restore funding for these two programs
during the appropriations process, and I hope we will do the same this
year.
Also like last year the President's budget eliminates funding for
the vocational education program. Vocational education funds provide
money for job training both for high school students and at community
and technical colleges. For some students who will not attend college,
vocational education will provide the skills necessary to find a good
paying job. For other students, the hands on learning will bring the
motivation and encouragement needed for the student to move on to
higher education. The House reauthorized vocational education programs
by a vote of 416 to 9 last year, demonstrating overwhelming bipartisan
support. We should fund this important program.
Finally, I want to address the proposal to achieve further
reconciliation savings through Medicare and Medicaid. I voted for the
Deficit Reduction Act because I believe we must get a handle on
spending in mandatory programs and I believe most of the savings
achieved targeted waste in the programs. As we consider any future
savings, we must make sure that medical care for those in need, and in
particular our seniors and children, is not jeopardized. I have serious
questions with the proposal to reduce Medicare payments to providers
because I believe such an action would limit the access to medical
care, and especially access to specialists, for those served by the
program.
If the Budget resolution is to ask the full House to achieve more
savings from health programs, we must take special care to target waste
and abuse, rather than access to care.
Your committee faces a challenging task over the coming weeks as
you work to craft a budget that provides for our security and grows our
economy. I thank you for considering the impact the programs I have
discussed have on the people of West Virginia, and I again thank you
for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Ryun. I want to thank the gentlelady for her testimony
and her proposals and her initiatives. There are many of these
that I can agree with. I will just highlight, the
reauthorization of vocational education, I know I have been a
beneficiary of that and as have many others and how important
it is.
I would like to turn to members if they have any questions
at this point? Hearing none, thank you for your time.
Mr. McGovern, your opportunity to give us your initiatives.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of
the committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today on the direction I believe the Budget
Committee should take as it begins work on the fiscal year 2007
budget resolution.
Mr. Chairman, over the past few years I have had
differences--I have had several opportunities to talk about the
direction and priorities of the Federal budget, and I do not
intend to take up the committee's time by repeating that
discussion here. As you well know, there are many issues that I
believe require more funding than what the President has
proposed in his fiscal year 2007 budget or what Congress has
provided in past budgets. My concerns range from fully funding
our veterans, education and conservation programs, to reducing
our historic Federal deficit. I have dealt with these and many
other matters in my written testimony, and would like to ask
permission of the chairman to insert my full testimony in the
record at this time.
Mr. Ryun. Without objection.
Mr. McGovern. But this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to focus on just one issue; namely, the need to
substantially increase funding for programs that reduce hunger
in the United States and around the world.
Recent reports by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
the Census Bureau find food insecurity and hunger are rapidly
rising in America and now affect nearly 20 percent of all our
children. The number of food insecure households grew by nearly
2 million in 2004, and in 2005 an additional million people in
America fell into poverty. Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to
reduce our commitment to feed the hungry.
I firmly believe the budget resolution can be a road map
that could dramatically contribute to the fight to end hunger
here at home and to reduce it by half around the world. The
committee and Congress should focus on these worthy goals in
the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution and increase funding for
our domestic and international food, nutrition, and food aid
programs, both for those administered by USDA Function 350--
which for the fourth year in a row has suffered a severe blow
in the President's budget proposal, and for those international
food aid programs that are under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Agency for International Development, International Affairs
Function 150.
Domestically, we have an obligation to make sure that our
Nation's children do not go hungry. This is why the school
breakfast and school lunch programs were developed, along with
programs that help provide nutritional meals for pregnant women
and nursing mothers, infants and children under the age of 5.
Unfortunately, the school breakfast and lunch programs are not
universal and they are not year round. This means that some of
the poorest families receive a free school meal during the
school year while others only qualify for a reduced price meal.
To Congress' credit, the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
phased this inequity out, but it is subject to appropriations,
and appropriations is subject to budget caps, and so the
inequities remain.
Under the President's budget, approximately 40,000 low
income children will no longer receive a free school lunch. It
is past time we fully fund this program so that we could
finally eliminate the reduced price meal at our Nation's
schools. Additionally, millions of our children who receive
meals during the school year lose access to this food when
school is out of session.
The Summer Food Service Program was designed to combat this
problem, but its funding is also woefully inadequate. Fifteen
million poor and low income children qualify to receive food
during the school year, but only 2.9 million children receive
food during the summer. That is an 81-percent decrease, Mr.
Chairman. We simply must do better than that.
The President's budget request eliminated funding for
commodity supplemental food program. Currently, this modest
food program provides vital food assistance to over 420,000
elderly poor and to 50,000 low income pregnant women and
children. Eliminating this $108 million program guarantees that
these vulnerable people will no longer obtain their monthly
supply of groceries.
Now, I recognize that the administration believes we can
simply enroll the women and children in Women, Infants, and
Children program (WIC) and the seniors in the Food Stamp
Program, but this program was created precisely to fill the
eligibility gap WIC and food stamps fails to cover. In short,
Mr. Chairman, most of the low income recipients of these food
packages will not be eligible for these other programs, but
they will end up hungry and be faced with choosing between
food, medicines, rent, child care, heat, electricity, and other
basic needs.
On the international level, emergency and other food aid
programs provided under Public Law 480, Title II, receive only
$1.2 billion in funding under the President's fiscal year 2007
budget proposal. Now, this may sound like a lot of money, Mr.
Chairman, but unfortunately by the end of the year, just as has
been the case in the past 3 years, the United States will most
likely expend between $1.7 billion and $2.2 billion for
international emergency and other food aid programs. Since we
know this is the likely reality based on past experience, then
we should include that level of funding for Title II up front
and not off budget in emergency appropriations or through a
reprogramming request that robs Peter to pay Paul, taking the
funds from other urgent development, emergency disaster and
food aid programs.
Another successful program, the George McGovern-Robert Dole
International Food For Education Program, is also flat funded
at $99 million for fiscal year 2007, a level that actually
reflects the fiscal year 2006 1-percent across-the-board cut to
all programs.
Mr. Chairman, you might not be aware that when USDA puts
out the call each year for proposal submissions for McGovern-
Dole projects, it receives proposals that would total over $1
billion if all were funded. Now, I am not asking for that level
of funding, but such a response clearly demonstrates that the
need is great, well identified, and well documented. Yet we are
freezing this program just as it begins to make a modest
recovery from the devastating cuts of fiscal year 2002 when it
was reduced from $300 million to $50 million.
Now, last year Secretary Johanns described some of
McGovern-Dole's positive results as including, and I quote,
increased school enrollment especially among girls, declines in
absenteeism, improved concentration, energy, and attitudes
toward learning, and infrastructure improvements, including
classrooms, kitchen, storage facilities, water supplies, and
latrines. The McGovern-Dole country programs have been made so
successful that some have begun to graduate and become self-
sustaining, such as in Lebanon, Moldova, and Vietnam.
Additionally, the success of McGovern-Dole has resulted in
other donors becoming involved in school feeding programs,
including the European Union, Germany, Japan, Canada, and the
World Health Organization.
Mr. Chairman, all of us support national security and the
global war on terrorism as priorities, but ensuring national
security is not just the result of soldiers, guns, and bombs.
Our Nation's security is strengthened and safeguarded by
thousands of individuals and organizations who serve on the
front lines of the battle against hunger and poverty. Their
work daily combats the hate, fear, despair, and hopelessness
that contribute to acts of desperation, terror, and war.
The 9/11 Commission report acknowledged this important
reality in its final recommendations, and Senator Roberts,
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has stated on
more than one occasion that initiatives like the McGovern-Dole
program are critical to winning the war against global
terrorism. And, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, you know far
better than I since you represent one of the finest farm States
in our country how much our farmers appreciate and take pride
in the fact that part of their hard work and their crops go to
help the neediest Americans and the most vulnerable people
around the world.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission to enter into
the record and to provide the committee with a copy of a letter
sent to President Bush on December 20th from 108 bipartisan
Members of this House asking that the President restore the
funding for the McGovern-Dole program to its original $300
million level.
Mr. Ryun. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC,
December 20, 2005.
Hon. George W. Bush, President
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are writing to thank you for your support of
the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education
Program, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
As Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns has attested, this program has
made a critical difference in the lives of thousands of children and
their communities around the world. We believe it is urgent to sustain
and expand this program and to restore funding for the McGovern-Dole
program to levels similar to those of the original pilot program. For
these reasons, we strongly urge you to provide $300 million for the
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program in your Fiscal
Year 2007 Budget Proposal.
We recognize the difficult financial constraints that will govern
your decisions as you determine priorities for the Fiscal Year 2007
budget. We believe increased funding to sustain and expand the
McGovern-Dole program contributes to achieving U.S. priorities to
increase food security and access to education among many of the
world's most vulnerable children. It also plays a role in combating
terrorism and building and consolidating democracy in the Middle East,
southern Asia, the Near East and other regions critical to our national
security.
As you well know, one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Report stated that ``a comprehensive strategy to counter terrorism must
include economic policies that encourage development, more open
societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their
families and to enhance prospects for their children's future,'' a
priority you echoed in your remarks before the United Nations General
Assembly in September. Both the initial pilot program and the current
McGovern-Dole program have a proven track record at reducing the
incidence of hunger among school-age children and improving literacy
and primary education enrollment, especially among girls, in areas
devastated by war, hunger, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the mistreatment and
marginalization of girls. School meals, teacher training, and related
support have helped boost school enrollment and academic performance.
McGovern-Dole nutrition and school feeding programs improve the health
and learning capacity of children both before they enter school and
during the years of primary and elementary school.
With over 300 million children suffering from chronic hunger and
over 100 million of them not attending school, reaching those who could
benefit from the McGovern-Dole program requires a firm commitment to
continued support and significant resources. At the same time, U.S.
leadership and the success of the McGovern-Dole program have played an
important role in encouraging other donor nations to provide new
resources for school feeding programs, as well as promoting ``best
practices'' among those organizations that carry out these programs in
the field. And after just four short years, we are already witnessing
how the success of the McGovern-Dole program has resulted in an
increased commitment by local communities to school feeding and
universal education, setting the stage for some country projects to
``graduate'' from the program and assume local administration of their
school feeding programs.
For just a few cents a day, the McGovern-Dole program has made a
critical difference in the lives of children and communities, promoted
American values in the most positive terms, and helped achieve U.S.
foreign policy and national security goals. The program's flexibility
and ability to be tailored to local needs ensure that American
products, commodities, and financial and technical support are directly
associated with hunger alleviation, educational opportunity, and
sustainable development. Few programs deliver so much for such a
minimal investment.
Once again, we thank you for your commitment to the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, and we
strongly urge that you restore the capacity of this critically
important program by providing $300 million for Fiscal Year 2007.
Sincerely,
James P. Jo Ann Emerson, Tom Lantos, Todd Tiahrt,
McGovern,
Ike Skelton, Sam Graves, Earl Pomeroy, Thaddeus G.
McCotter,
Bob Etheridge, John Shimkus, Jim Marshall, Jim Leach,
Vic Snyder, Christopher Sanford Bishop, Phil English,
Smith, Jr.,
Nancy Pelosi, Doc Hastings, Donald Payne, James Walsh,
Mike Doyle, Jose Serrano, Bill Delahunt, Gary Ackerman,
Raul Grijalva, Dale Kildee, Emanuel Cleaver, Betty McCollum,
II,
Hilda L. Solis, Dennis Kucinich, Elijah Cummings, Stephanie
Herseth,
Bernard Sanders, Marcy Kaptur, Maxine Waters, Rush Holt,
George Miller, Tammy Baldwin, Chris Van Steve Rothman,
Hollen,
James Oberstar, Mark Udall, Joseph Crowley, Carolyn Maloney,
Jan Schakowsky, Sherrod Brown, Corrine Brown, John Olver,
Stephen Lynch, Carolyn McCarthy, Gregory Meeks, Juanita
Millender-
McDonald,
Bobby Rush, Pete Stark, Rosa DeLauro, Anthony Weiner,
Neil Abercrombie, Jim Moran, Michael R. Martin O. Sabo,
McNulty,
Jim McDermott, Lynn Woolsey, Charles A. Marion Berry,
Gonzalez,
Richard Neal, Adam Schiff, Jim Costa, Barney Frank,
Howard Berman, Patrick Kennedy, Doris Matsui, Martin Meehan,
Robert A. Brady, Alcee Hastings, Ed Markey, Julia Carson,
Henry Waxman, Lois Capps, Barbara Lee, Tim Holden,
Lloyd Doggett, Debbie Wasserman John Tierney, Allyson
Schultz, Schwartz,
Mike Capuano, Dianna DeGette, Louise Danny K. Davis,
Slaughter,
Chaka Fattah, Sam Farr, Joe Baca, Sheila Jackson
Lee,
Sander Levin, Bobby Scott, Ellen Tauscher, Major R. Owens,
Frank Pallone, Jerry Moran, Robert Wexler, Bob Filner,
Dan Lipinski, Donna M. John Lewis, Stephanie Tubbs
Christensen, Jones,
Eddie Bernice Adam Smith, Tom Allen, Henry Cuellar,
Johnson,
Members of Congress.
Mr. McGovern. Mr. Chairman, since this did not occur in the
President's budget, I urge the committee to increase the
overall agriculture account to make room for such an increase.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today
on the priorities that I believe face this Nation and have made
other recommendations in my written testimony. However, I want
to conclude with this one final point.
We have an opportunity and we have a responsibility to
prioritize programs that will benefit the people who need help
the most, whether that is a victim of Hurricane Katrina or a
poor working family trying to make ends meet or a hungry child
in Africa, Asia, or Latin America. Investing today in programs
that help these individuals and families will pay off in the
future.
The fiscal year 2007 budget resolution that this committee
will draft could provide the necessary increase in funding for
domestic and international food and nutrition programs, and you
can indeed create a road map that charts a new course for the
United States.
Once again, I appreciate your granting me this time and I
certainly welcome any questions or comments any Member may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGovern follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Massachusetts
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Spratt and Members of the Budget
Committee,
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
on the direction I believe the Budget Committee should take as it
begins work on the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Resolution.
Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, you and I have had several
opportunities to talk about the direction and priorities of the Federal
budget, and I do not intend to take up the Committee's time by
repeating that discussion here. As you well know, there are many issues
that concern me and which I believe require more funding than what the
president has proposed in his Fiscal Year 2007 budget, or what Congress
has been providing in past budgets. My concerns range from:
providing the necessary funding for our veterans'
programs;
to the urgent need of reducing the historic Federal
deficit;
to the urgent need of fully funding our K-through-12
education programs and our higher education student financial aid;
to honoring our promise and legal responsibility to fully
fund the Federal share of IDEA;
to preserving our parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and
local recreation areas and open spaces, most especially by fully
funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including the state-side
program, from its allocated trust fund revenues; and
to significantly increasing funding for programs that
combat hunger and poverty, both here at home and around the world.
First, let me begin this discussion by urging the Committee to make
sure that the FY 2007 Budget Resolution fully funds our Veterans
Affairs (VA) system. Contrary to recent claims about adequate funding
for veteran's needs, the facts are that the VA has been perennially
underfunded. For each year that passes by, the VA estimates that a
minimum budget increase of 13-14 percent is required just to stay
afloat, when inflation is taken into account. The President's request
for FY06 was less than a 1-percent increase, well short of the funding
necessary for the VA to operate at its current level. This pattern of
inadequate funding for the VA has resulted in a decrease in veterans'
access to health care and has forced a series of emergency supplemental
budgets to keep the system up and going.
Mr. Chairman, I believe our veterans should not have to rely on
emergency funding. They should be the very first on our list of
priorities. The health care that they earned through their service to
country, and which was promised to them, should be assured through
sufficient budget requests, allocations and appropriations. Instead of
proposals imposing a $250 enrollment fee, the doubling of veteran
prescription co-payments, and denying health care access to 260,000
veterans, the FY 2007 budget for the VA needs to provide adequate
funding for every veteran. A budget request that truly reflects the
needs of every veteran, from those of the Greatest Generation to those
newest veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, is what's deserved
and required--and it is truly one of the best ways we can genuinely
honor out troops.
Second, I believe that education at all levels of schooling--from
early childhood education and development through college--is
significantly under-funded in the president's budget proposal. While we
often hear how the FY 2007 budget is focused on our national security,
I cannot imagine how our national security and our economic security
can succeed if we short-change the education of our children and
citizens.
Just like last year, the president cynically eliminates programs
that Congress will need to find a way to fund later in the year, such
as Vocational Education, Safe and Drug Free Schools, Even Start,
Technology State Grants, TRIO Programs, GEAR-UP, Tech-Prep State
Grants, and a host of others. In order to ensure that we can restore
these programs' funding and provide the appropriate level of funding to
those programs whose funding was reduced or frozen--such as IDEA or
after-school programs--Congress needs to increase the Education Account
(Function 500) to accommodate at least another $14 billion for the No
Child Left Behind Act, including the necessary increase for the IDEA
that is absent from the president's proposed budget; and we need to
increase higher education funding by at least another $2 billion to
secure adequate Federal funds for an increased number of Pell Grant and
SEOG beneficiaries and an increase in the size of the average grant.
Third, I am disappointed and frustrated that once again the
president's budget fails to fund the Federal and state-side programs of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the funding for which is
designated by law from royalty receipts from drilling done in the outer
continental shelf.
As you well know, Mr. Chairman, the LWCF is based upon a simple
concept: It takes revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling and
invests them in our country's public land, letting States take the
lead, and for 40 years this program has had a proven track record and
benefited from strong bipartisan support.
When Congress decided to open the Outer Continental Shelf to oil
drilling, we pledged to use some of its revenues for the public good.
And with the goal of meeting the nation's growing need for recreation
sites, Congress established the LWCF trust fund and agreed to reinvest
an annual portion of OCS revenue into Federal land acquisition and
State assistance development programs. Even though LWCF takes in $900
million annually from oil and gas receipts, in recent years just a
fraction of this funding has been used for its rightful purpose. For FY
2007, the president provides for only $85 million for LWCF programs,
and all of these are in the federal-side (not the state-side) part of
the program.
The state-side portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund has
helped our states and local communities preserve open space, slow urban
sprawl, and give our children safe places to play. This program is a
true partnership, with Federal grants requiring a full match from
states and local communities. It's a program that has worked, and
worked well. In all, the State-side program has helped communities by
funding 40,000 recreation projects nationally--success stories that can
be found in every state and in 98 percent of U.S. counties.
The elimination of funding for the LWCF state-side grants is
particularly harmful to our nation's under-served areas. In fact, in
many low-income urban communities, the state-side grant program is
responsible for virtually all of their parks and open spaces. At a
minimum, the FY 2007 Budget Resolution needs to provide full funding
for the LWCF, Federal and state-side, and ensure that the revenues
designated by statute for funding the LWCF are used first and foremost
for the LWCF.
Fourth, while the International Affairs 150 Account is one of the
few accounts in the president's budget to receive a modest increase, I
am deeply concerned that Development Assistance overall and other
critical international health, education, agriculture, food security,
clean water, and other core development programs are either reduced or
receive modest if any increases. Scarcely one-third of international
affairs funding is devoted to these critical development programs. Once
again, development assistance for Latin America is short-changed, at a
time when U.S. relations with our closest neighbors are at their lowest
point in history. I would like to see the Millennium Challenge Account
receive the $3 billion in funding requested by the president--a
doubling of its current funding levels. But this Congress was promised
by the president when he first announced the creation of the MCC that
its funding would be in addition to existing foreign aid priorities--
and not rob funding from other critical accounts. Therefore, I believe
the Budget Committee must increase the International Affairs by at
least $1.5 billion, and that the Committee should direct this increase
at core development assistance programs aimed at increasing access to
health care, nutrition and education and at reducing hunger and
poverty, as stated in the first Millennium Development Goal.
The 9/11 Commission Report said it best when it described how our
national security requires a strong commitment to economic and
development assistance if we are to triumph over terrorism,
fundamentalism and fanaticism.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the
importance of addressing hunger and poverty, both here in the United
States and around the world. Once again, the Agriculture Account took
one of the hardest hits in the president's budget, just as it has for
the past 4 years in this Committee's reported budget resolutions. I
would like to read a few sentences from the U.S. Catholic Conference of
Bishops regarding ``Moral Responsibilities for Public Life,'' from
their statement on ``A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility":
The first priority for agriculture policy should be food security
for all. Food is necessary for life itself. Our support for Food
Stamps, the Special Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC), and other programs that directly benefit poor and low-income
people is based on our belief that no one should face hunger in a land
of plenty. Those who grow our food should be able to make a decent
living and maintain their way of life. Farmers who depend on the land
for their livelihood deserve a decent return for their labor. Rural
communities deserve help so that they can continue to be sources of
strength and support for a way of life that enriches our nation.
I cite this passage to underscore the recent reports by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the Census Bureau that find food
insecurity and hunger are rising rapidly in America and now affect
nearly 20 percent of all our children. The number of food insecure
households grew by nearly two million in 2004; in 2005, an additional
million fell into poverty. Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to reduce
our commitment to feed the hungry.
I firmly believe the budget resolution can be a road map that, if
followed by the Appropriations Committee, could dramatically contribute
to the fight to end hunger here at home, and to reduce it by half
around the world. We should focus on these worthy goals in the FY 2007
budget resolution and provide the necessary funding for the domestic
and international food and nutrition programs funded and administered
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Function 350), which for the
fourth year in a row has suffered a severe blow in the president's
budget proposal; and for those international food aid programs that are
funded under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (Function 150 International Affairs).
Domestically, we have an obligation to make sure that our nation's
children don't go hungry. This is why the school breakfast and school
lunch programs were developed, along with programs that help provide
nutritional meals for pregnant women and nursing mothers, infants, and
children under the age of five.
Unfortunately, the school breakfast and lunch programs aren't
universal and they aren't year round. This means that some of the
poorest families receive a free school meal during the school year,
while others only qualify for a reduced price meal. To Congress's
credit, the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act phased this inequity
out, but it's subject to appropriations--and appropriations is subject
to budget caps--and so the inequities remain. Under the president's
budget, approximately 40,000 low-income children will no longer receive
a free school lunch. It's past time we fully fund this program so that
we can finally eliminate the reduced price meal at our nation's
schools.
Additionally, millions of our children who receive meals during the
school year lose access to this food when school is out of session. The
Summer Food Service Program was designed to combat this problem, but
its funding is also woefully inadequate. Fifteen million poor and low-
income children qualify to receive food during the school year, but
only 2.9 million children receive food during the summer. That's an 81-
percent decrease, Mr. Chairman. We simply must do better than that.
The President's budget request eliminated funding for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program. Currently, this modest program provides
vital food assistance to over 420,000 elderly poor, and to 50,000 low-
income pregnant women and children. Eliminating this $108 million
program guarantees that these vulnerable people will no longer obtain
their monthly supply of groceries. I recognize that the Administration
believes we can simply enroll the women and children in WIC and the
seniors in the Food Stamp Program, but this program was created
precisely to fill the eligibility gap WIC and Food Stamps fails to
cover. In short, Mr. Chairman, most of the recipients of these food
packages will not be eligible for these other programs, but they will
end up hungry--and faced with choosing between food, medicines, rent,
childcare, heat, electricity, and other basic needs.
On the international level, emergency and other international food
aid programs provided under PL 480 Title II will receive only $1.2
billion in funding under the president's FY07 budget proposal. This may
sound like a lot of money, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, by the end of
the year, just as has been the case in the past 3 years, the U.S. will
most likely expend between $1.5 billion and $2.2 billion for
international emergency and other food aid programs. Since we know this
is the likely reality based on past experience, then we should include
that level of funding for Title II up front--and not off-budget in
emergency appropriations or through reprogramming requests that rob
Peter to pay Paul, taking the funds from other urgent development,
emergency disaster, and food aid programs.
Another successful program, the George McGovern-Robert Dole
International Food for Education Program, is also flat-funded at $99
million for FY 2007, a level that actually reflects the FY 2006 1-
percent across-the-board cut to all programs. Mr. Chairman, you might
not be aware that when USDA puts out the call each year for proposal
submissions for McGovern-Dole project funding, it receives proposals
that would total over one billion dollars if all were funded. I'm not
asking for that level of funding, but such a response clearly
demonstrates that the need is great, well-identified, and well-
documented. Yet we are freezing this program just as it begins to make
a modest recovery from the devastating cuts of FY 2002, when it was
reduced from a $300 million program to $50 million.
Last year, Secretary Johanns described some of McGovern-Dole's
positive results as including ``increased school enrollment, especially
among girls; declines in absenteeism; improved concentration, energy,
and attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure improvements,
includi9ng classrooms, kitchens, storage facilities, water systems, and
latrines.'' The programs have been so successful that some have begun
to ``graduate'' and become self-sustaining, such as in Lebanon, Moldova
and Vietnam. Additionally, the success of McGovern-Dole has resulted in
other donors becoming involved in school feeding programs, including
the European Union, Germany, Japan, Canada and the World Health
Organization.
Mr. Chairman, all of us support national security and the global
war on terrorism as priorities, but national security is not just the
result of soldiers, guns and bombs. Our national security is
strengthened and safeguarded by thousands of individuals and
organizations who serve on the front lines of the battle to reduce and
eliminate hunger and poverty. Their work daily combats the hate, fear,
despair and hopelessness that contribute to acts of desperation, terror
and war. The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledged this important reality
in its final recommendations--and Senator Roberts, Chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, has stated on more than one occasion
that initiatives like the McGovern-Dole program are a critical to
winning the war against global terrorism.
And quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, you know far better than I, since
you represent one of our finest farm states, how much our farmers
appreciate and take pride in the fact that their hard work and their
crops go to help the neediest Americans and the neediest people around
the world.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the Record and provide the
Committee with a copy of a letter sent to President Bush on December
20th from 108 bipartisan Members of this House asking the president to
restore the funding for the McGovern-Dole program to its original $300
million level. Since this did not occur in the president's budget, I
urge the Committee to increase the overall funding for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture in order to make room for such an increase.
Given these critical needs, these harsh realities, we need a
pragmatic approach to addressing them, one that doesn't make believe
that these needs will simply go away if we do nothing or cut funding
for the very programs that tackle these difficult problems head on. I
therefore believe this Committee must restore at least $2.5 billion to
the Agriculture Account of the budget.
Mr. Chairman, I know you must be scratching your head and saying to
yourself, how do I suggest paying for such substantial increases in our
overall budget?
I could say that we should reduce the defense spending account--but
quite frankly, that's something the Pentagon should have done when it
issued its new Quadrennial Report. Instead, rather than transforming
their budget the way they describe transforming our armed forces to
meet the challenges of today and the future, they simply added more
billions of dollars to the nearly half trillion dollar budget they
received in FY 2006. And the FY 2007 budget doesn't even reflect the
so-called emergency supplemental appropriations the president will soon
send to Congress to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, once again,
off-budget.
The Budget Committee is the only Committee capable of reporting out
a resolution that makes these subtle shifts of priorities. This
Committee is capable of shifting $20 billion or so out of defense and
into education, the LWCF Federal and state-side programs, international
development assistance, and domestic and international food aid and
agriculture programs.
This Committee can also call on Ways and Means to increase revenues
by that same amount, so as to cover these increased budget allocations.
These needs won't disappear; they will only get worse the longer we
neglect them.
I urge the Committee to rise to this challenge, and to find the
courage and leadership to increase these accounts and others, so that
our genuine national security is reflected by our support for strong
communities, modern infrastructure, a well-educated citizenry, and the
compassion and fortitude to tackle the challenges of hunger and poverty
locally and globally.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
priorities that I believe face this nation. However, I want to conclude
with this one, final point. We have an opportunity and the
responsibility to prioritize programs that will benefit the populations
that need the most help today. To me, that means focusing on the
neediest Americans--whether that's a victim of Hurricane Katrina or a
poor working family trying to make ends meet or a hungry child in
Africa, Asia or Latin America. Investing today in programs that help
support these individuals and families will pay off in the future. The
FY 2007 Budget Resolution that this Committee will draft can indeed
provide the necessary funding for domestic and international food and
nutrition programs, as well as the other needs I have described this
afternoon, and help provide a road map for a new course for the United
States.
Once again, I appreciate you granting me this time, and I welcome
any questions you might have.
Mr. Ryun. I don't have any questions, but I certainly
appreciate your initiative and I know they will be passionately
debated on this committee as well as before the full Congress.
Are there members that have questions? Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, I don't have questions either, I
just want to commend Congressman McGovern for his very
comprehensive and caring statement, and I agree with almost all
of the proposals, or at least the thoughts he set forth here. I
look forward to the debate on these as well. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Ryun. I recognize Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was
listening to you eloquently talking about issues important to
you and you were asking for more funding, I was actually
literally scratching my head and asking myself, How do you
suggest paying for them? And then I noticed, by the way, in
your statement, that on page 7 you actually mentioned that. You
say, ``Mr. Chairman, I know you must be scratching your head
and saying to yourself, How do I suggest paying for such
substantial increases in the overall budget?''
I want to make sure I read this right. You then go on to
say, This committee is capable of shifting $20 billion or so
out of defense into education, et cetera. This committee can
also call on Ways and Means to increase revenues by that same
amount.
In other words, are you suggesting that we take, if I read
this correctly--in order to do the initiatives you so
eloquently spoke of, cut defense--and that this committee,
according to what it says here, shifting $20 billion or so out
of defense and also call on the Ways and Means Committee to
increase revenues?
In other words, taxes; you are asking to cut defense and
raise taxes in order to fund the issues that you talked about
today?
Mr. McGovern. First of all, it is up to this committee to
decide how they would want to spend the money. But one of the
things that I believe is that the Defense Department's budget
does not reflect the new priorities outlined in the new
Quadrennial Review. It simply piles on more spending.
I think the Pentagon can weather a $3 billion shift of
funds to these food and nutrition programs fairly easily, quite
frankly. All you need to do is read The New York Times or The
Washington Post or the Washington Times, if that is what you
read, over the last several months to look at how so much of
our defense budget has been squandered and wasted, whether it
is through graft or corruption or on programs that quite
frankly don't work.
The other thing is that I think we have to ask ourselves
what is more important at this particular point, making tax
cuts permanent, whether it is a total repeal of the estate tax
or capital gains tax cut or whatever; or is it to make sure we
don't have anybody in this country that starves, that is food
insecure, that is going hungry.
I don't know about you, Mr. Diaz-Balart, but since we had a
long winter break here, I spent a lot of time going around to
hospitals in my district. And one of the things that shocked me
was going to emergency rooms and finding out there is an
alarming increase in the number of senior citizens showing up
in emergency rooms who are taking their medications on an empty
stomach because they can't afford to pay for their medications
and food. So they end up in the emergency room because
literally the medicine has eroded away at their stomachs and
they have holes in their stomachs as a result of having to make
these choices.
So I guess if we are creative enough, we can find ways to
do this. And I guess the reason why I focused solely on these
hunger and nutrition programs is because I can't think of
anything more important, quite frankly, for us to do as a
Congress than to make sure we don't have people in this country
who fall through the cracks, children who don't have food in
the summertime, and senior citizens who can't afford food.
And internationally I think we can do more to combat
terrorism. And I quote Senator Roberts, who is a pretty
conservative Member of the other body, when he says some of
these international school feeding programs do more to increase
goodwill and combat terrorism and dry up, the places where
people like Osama bin Laden go to try to find recruits than
almost anything else we can do.
I made some suggestions here, and you can agree or disagree
with them, but there are ways I think we can cut back and we
can transfer some of the funding on some of the programs that
we are now spending and that would be better spent on this.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I want to
commend you, Mr. McGovern. You are one of the few people who
have actually come up with a list of priorities--again, as you
say, we can agree or disagree with it--and also ways to fund
them. And you are saying raise taxes and cut defense?
I happen to disagree with you, but I think it is important
that you actually have put in writing here what you believe is
one of the ways we should look at it. And I think it is
important for argument's sake and debate to put these things on
the table. So whether we agree or disagree, I commend you for
putting this out there
Mr. McGovern. I appreciate that comment, I think. But let
me just again end on this note. This is something we can't
ignore, and it is a problem that is getting worse, and it is
getting worse each and every year. The documentation coming out
of this administration's agencies is telling us that. I think
it would be a shame if we were to come up with a budget that
didn't address the fact that hunger is becoming a bigger
problem in America today than it was last year and the year
before and the year before that. We are going in the wrong
direction. We have to do something and we have to do it now--we
cannot put it off.
Mr. Ryun. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and I
appreciate his passion for this issue, and of course I invite
everyone to come back on the evening--and actually the long day
we have when we have a budget markup, when these issues will be
very hotly and passionately debated. They are very critical for
the future of our country, and I welcome the other side to
present a budget as we look forward to that markup. And I thank
the gentleman for his time.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ryun. We are going to go into a brief recess as we wait
for other Members. It will be subject to the call of the Chair
and we will resume when other Members appear.
[Recess.]
Mr. Ryun. We are going to resume the hearing on Member
initiatives, and we will begin with Ms. Carson.
STATEMENT OF HON. JULIA CARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Ms. Carson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
your courtesy and your willingness to let me put my little 2
cents in on this budget.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
committee on the budget resolution. I believe that the
President's budget proposal leads us perhaps in the wrong
direction, by depriving our most vulnerable seniors of vital
resources.
The budget proposal eliminates funding for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). Each month the CSFP provides
over 475,000 low-income individuals with nutritious food
packages, including fruits, vegetables, cereals and other
items. This program provides a balanced dietary supplement for
recipients, 85 percent of whom are seniors, all with income
levels below a meager $12,400 a year.
In Indiana, 4,979 seniors are currently enrolled in this
program. This year, over 600 of them could go hungry because
USDA reduced the CSFP caseload for 2006. Next year, the rest
could go hungry if this program is eliminated. Is this really
the message we want to send the world about how we care for and
treat our seniors?
The budget proposal enables participants in the Commodity
program to enroll in a transitional food stamp program once the
Commodity program is eliminated. The food stamp program, while
extremely important, does not offer the same benefit,
flexibility, and convenience that the Commodity program does,
nor does it provide a long-term solution to these cuts. The
food packages that seniors currently receive from the Commodity
have a retail value of approximately $30-$40 in Marion County
in Indiana. Under the budget proposal, seniors would receive
just $20 per month in food stamps.
In Indiana, where I come from, the average income for a
senior enrolled in the Commodity program is between $700 and
$800 each month. These limited resources must provide help with
housing, utilities, medical costs, and food. Any reduction in
benefits would further impoverish seniors.
In addition to decreasing seniors' monthly benefits, the
food stamp programs would offer reduced access for seniors. In
Indianapolis, we have what you call the Gleaners Food Bank that
administers the Commodity program. Volunteers from Gleaners
deliver and distribute food boxes in various locations,
including senior housing sites. These boxes are delivered to
seniors who are immobilized by ill health, physical infirmities
or lack of transportation. This personalized service ensures
that our seniors have access to food and are treated with the
dignity and respect that they deserve.
They deliver boxes to homeless veterans who call the space
under bridges in my district their homes. We have a volunteer
corps that also gives out blankets to homeless people in the
freezing cold weather. We travel under those bridges to give
them some method of warmth and comfort.
Congress must carefully consider the impact of eliminating
a program that feeds our seniors and replacing it with one that
may not. I have heard many stories about how the CSFP has
changed lives. Pudding is a luxury a woman on the Commodity
program told us she had not been able to afford until she
received her first CSFP box. Let us not forget that as we craft
a budget resolution, something as simple as a pudding cup is a
great luxury for some of our Americans.
I would impose upon you, beg you, please, do something
about this major cutback on these, the very least of these, as
we move forward to creating the budget resolution for fiscal
year 2007.
I appreciate your patience, your indulgence, and I would
certainly appreciate your consideration for restoring this
amount to our very most vulnerable citizens in our country.
Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Mr. Ryun. Ms. Carson, thank you very much for your
testimony. I don't have any other questions at this point, so I
appreciate your coming today before the Budget Committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Carson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Julia Carson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Indiana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before the committee on this year's Budget Resolution. I believe the
President's budget proposal leads us in the wrong direction by
depriving our most vulnerable seniors of vital resources.
The President's budget proposal eliminates funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program. Each month the CSFP provides over
475,000 low-income individuals with nutritious food packages including
fruits, vegetables, cereals and other items. This program provides a
balanced dietary supplement for recipients, 85 percent of whom are
seniors, all with income levels below a meager $12,450 per year.
In Indiana, 4,979 seniors are currently enrolled in this program.
This year, over 600 of them could go hungry because the USDA reduced
the CSFP caseload for 2006. Next year, the rest could go hungry if this
program is eliminated. Is this really the message we want to send the
world about how we treat our elders?
The budget proposal enables participants in the CSFP to enroll in a
transitional food stamp program once the CSFP is eliminated. The food
stamp program, while extremely important, does not offer the same
benefit, flexibility and convenience that the CSFP does, nor does it
provide a long-term solution to these cuts.
The food packages that seniors currently receive from the CSFP have
a retail value of approximately $50. Under the budget proposal, seniors
would receive just $20 per month in food stamps. In my home state of
Indiana, the average income for a senior enrolled in the CSFP is
between $700 and $800 each month. These limited resources must provide
housing, utilities, medical costs and food. Thus, any reduction in
benefits would further impoverish seniors. When $30 could be the
difference between purchasing medication or food or paying your heating
bill, how do you decide which to eliminate?
In addition to decreasing seniors' monthly benefit, the food stamp
program would offer reduced access to seniors. In Indianapolis,
Gleaners Food Bank administers the CSFP. Volunteers from Gleaners
deliver and distribute food boxes in various locations, including
senior housing sites. CSFP boxes are delivered to seniors who are
immobilized by ill health, physical infirmities or lack of
transportation. This personalized service ensures that our seniors have
access to food and are treated with the dignity and respect they
deserve. They deliver boxes to homeless veterans who call the space
under bridges their homes.
Some seniors are also hesitant to participate in the food stamp
program because they perceive it as a welfare program. Yet these same
seniors participate in the CSFP in Indiana because the CSFP does not
carry the same stigma. Congress must carefully consider the impact of
eliminating a program that feeds our seniors and replacing it with one
that may not.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program provides a wonderful
service that touches the lives of many people. I was touched by the
story of a senior who received her first CSFP box from Gleaners. She
cried after discovering 12 pudding cups in her box. Her case manager
explained, ``Pudding is a luxury she has not been able to afford in a
very long time.'' Let's not forget that as we craft a budget
resolution, something as simple as pudding cups are a great luxury for
some Americans.
The budget proposal not only jeopardizes seniors' food assistance,
but it also cuts their housing opportunities. In the proposed budget
for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the President has
made across the board cuts totaling $1.5 billion. One of the programs
receiving a major cut is HUD's Section 202 program, which provides
grant money to non-profits and faith-based organizations that construct
or rehabilitate affordable housing for seniors with supportive
services. Some of these services include transportation, cleaning and
cooking. The $190 million proposed to be cut from this program would
have been used to develop new housing facilities or rehabilitate closed
or dilapidated facilities. These cuts are not how our government should
react to budget shortfalls. We should not further deprive those who are
``the least of these''.
The proportion of elderly in the population is steadily increasing
as the affordable housing units are decreasing. Housing units are being
filled almost immediately, and waiting lists can be as long as 3 years.
In my hometown of Indianapolis, the demand for senior services and
senior housing will sharply increase within the next 15 years,
including the need for LIHEAP funds. It is important that we plan ahead
and start developing more affordable housing units for seniors before
it is too late.
And finally, the President's budget will cut Medicare by $36
billion over 5 years and $105 billion over the next 10 years. These
cuts will partially be achieved by shifting costs, a strategy that is
unpardonable for a group of people who are already living on a fixed
budget. Medical costs are continuing to rise, with an America that is
living longer. How can we expect seniors to deal with these rising
costs as we cut the program that helps ensure they receive affordable
healthcare? Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that if Congress does not act, we
are going to find out.
Our budget is a reflection of our values and priorities. Yet it
cuts food, housing and medical care for the elderly. In the words of
Tim Robertson, President of the National Commodity Supplemental Food
Program, this budget proposal contains ``the unkindest cut for our
greatest generation.'' Our seniors deserve the very best from us, and
it is incumbent upon us to keep them in mind when determining our
budget allocations. I'd like to thank the Committee for giving me the
opportunity to address these pressing needs.
Mr Ryun of Kansas. At this point we will turn to Mr. Bishop
for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Bishop of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me
start by asking unanimous consent to enter into the record my
full statement.
Mr. Ryun. Without objection.
Mr. Bishop of New York. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss
with the Budget Committee why the Federal higher education
programs, as outlined in the President's budget request to the
Congress, should be a higher priority. I worked on a college
campus for nearly three decades before I came to the Congress,
and during that time I came to fully understand how difficult
it is for students and their families to afford a higher
education. There was not a day that went by during my time on
the campus that I didn't work with a student to help them
figure out how they were going to pay for their education.
I appear today before this committee as a concerned member
of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and I appreciated
hearing the President discuss the future of education during
the State of the Union message. But I am hopeful, but also
skeptical, that the reality will rise to the level of his
rhetoric in terms of what we support financially.
I share disappointment with the President's budget, as I
think everyone does who places a high value on a college
degree. The greatest disservice that we can do to middle- class
families in America is to convince them of the necessity of a
college education but then place in their way barriers that
prevent them from accessing higher education.
Estimates show that financial barriers will prevent 4.4
million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public
college over the next decade--that is, a public college--and
prevent another 2 million high school graduates from attending
any college at all. As families face these harsh realities,
they are right to question why the President and the Congress
continue to ignore steps that we can take to make college more
affordable.
For example, the President's budget freezes the maximum
Pell grant award at $4,050 for the fourth year in a row,
despite the fact that the maximum Pell grant being authorized
in the House version of the reauthorization of the Higher Ed
Act is $6,000.
The President's budget also freezes funding for both SEOG
and the Federal Work Study Program, two programs that provide
the neediest students additional money for college.
And in what might be the most disturbing portion of the
budget, the President proposes recalling the Federal portion of
the revolving fund for the Perkins loan program. As a result,
this year more than 460,000 low- and middle-income students
will be denied low-cost loans to help pay for their college
education.
Now, the President made the same request to Congress last
year and the Congress did not accede to that request, and I
remain hopeful that our colleagues in the Congress will once
again validate the importance of the Perkins loan program.
The President's budget is particularly devastating when one
views it within the context of the $12 billion cut to student
loans recently authorized under the Deficit Reduction Act. The
combination of the President's budget and these cuts will
present an enormous hardship for students.
The President has much to say recently about
competitiveness, and I think all of us agree with that, but I
think the commitment to increasing the quality of K through 12
education is best seen as meaningless if we don't offer access
to higher education. If the American Competitiveness Initiative
is to have any real meaning, we must ensure access and
affordability to higher education. And in order to do that, we
must fully fund Pell Grants, Perkins loans, and other student
aid programs in the budget resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Bishop, thank you very much for your
testimony. These will be issues that will be very passionately
debated when we come to the budget markup, and I appreciate
your coming before this committee today.
Mr. Bishop of New York. Thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop of New York follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in
Congress From the State of New York
Mr. Chairman, ranking member Spratt, and distinguished members of
the Budget Committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss why
Federal higher education loan programs should be higher priorities in
the President's budget if we're really serious about helping students
pursue the dream of a college education and keeping our workforce
competitive.
With every academic milestone, a high school diploma, vocational
certification, an undergraduate degree or graduate degree, a person's
lifetime earning potential grows. For many young Americans, higher
education is the ticket to success. Some even consider it a basic human
right. But each one of us can agree that every high school senior who
qualifies academically deserves the chance to go to college.
After working at Southampton College on Long Island for nearly
three decades, I have come to fully understand how difficult it is for
students and their families to afford a higher education. Every day, I
worked with them--to scrape up the money, grants, scholarships,
whatever we could find--to help them realize part of the American
dream--the opportunity to go to college.
Therefore, I appear before this committee, not on behalf of a
special interest or a local project for New York's first congressional
district, but as a concerned member of the Education and the Workforce
Committee, who appreciated hearing the President say during the State
of the Union that America's ``greatest advantage in the world has
always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people--and we're
going to keep that edge.''
Unfortunately, the budget shortfall for education--a decrease of
$2.1 billion or 3.8 percent below last year's level--belies the
President's pledge, and deflates the promise of the proposed American
Competitiveness Initiative, which would fund 70,000 new high school
advanced math and science teachers. The ongoing impasse over our
failure to reauthorize the Higher Education Act is another setback
making it harder to meet this pledge.
Like many who have always voted to support student loans, and who
place a higher value on the benefits of a college degree than the
President's budget request provides, I share your disappointment. And
those of you who are the proud parents of a college student are
undoubtedly aware that college tuition at public universities increased
14 percent last year, with jumps of 20 to 30 percent in several states.
These rates are increasing faster than the financial assistance
given to students, which makes attending college all that more
difficult and limits the choices that graduates can make, discouraging
many of them from seeking a college education at all. The greatest
disservice that we have done to middle class families in America is to
convince them of the necessity of a college education, but then place
this education financially out of their reach.
In fact, the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance estimates that financial barriers will prevent 4.4 million
high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the
next decade, and prevent another 2 million high school graduates from
attending any college at all. As a result, the United States is
projected to face a shortage of up to 12 million college-educated
workers by the year 2020, directly threatening America's economic
strength and global competitiveness.
As families face these harsh realities, they are right to question
why the President and Congress continue to ignore steps they can take
to make college more affordable and to make sure that this American
dream does not slip out of reach. Still, we are not yet making the
investments needed in higher education to support these costs.
For example, the President's budget freezes the maximum Pell grant
award at $4,050, for the fourth year in a row, despite rising tuition
and stagnant Federal investment. In 1975, the Pell Grant covered 80
percent of the cost of a 4-year public college education. Today, that
number is closer to 40 percent. President Bush made a promise to
students 6 years ago, that under his administration the maximum Pell
Grant award would increase to $5,100, but thus far, that promise is an
empty one.
Furthermore, although investing $100 million into an unproven
school voucher program, the President's budget freezes funding for SEOG
and Federal work-study, two programs that provide the neediest students
additional money for college.
And in what might be the most disturbing portion of this budget,
the President proposes recalling the Federal portion of the revolving
fund for the Perkins Loan Program. The funds, which are made up of
Federal ``capital contributions,'' institutional matches, and repaid
Perkins loans, are used to make new loans to students from low-income
and middle-income families. The budget calls for the government to
recall the revolving funds used by institutions, requiring colleges and
universities to pay back nearly $644 million. As a result, this year
more than 460,000 low- and middle-income students will be denied low-
cost loans to help pay for their college education.
This cut, when coupled with the $12 billion in cuts to student
loans authorized under the Deficit Reduction Act, is particularly
devastating and will present an enormous hardship for the student in
the future.
The ``Education'' President has had much to say recently about
competitiveness. State of the Union rhetoric sounds inspiring but it
doesn't keep tuition in check or sharpen our competitive edge. Only
real actions can do that. Therefore, I suggest we back up our promises
to America's students by fully funding Pell grants, Perkins loans, and
other student aid programs in the budget resolution. I look forward to
working with you toward that end and am happy to answer any questions
you may have at this time.
Mr. Ryun. We will now go into another brief recess as we
wait for other Members, subject to the call of the Chair.
[Recess.]
Mr. Ryun. We will now resume the Members Day hearing on the
Budget Committee, and at this point we will turn to Mr. Mica
from Florida.
Mr. Mica, first of all, we have not received your written
testimony, but we will be happy to submit that for the record
when it is submitted.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Mica. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do have a
copy and ask unanimous consent that it be included in the
record.
Mr. Ryun. Without objection.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Budget
Committee. I come before you today, the chair of the House
Aviation Subcommittee, and I will not read my testimony but I
would just like to summarize some of my viewpoints,
particularly for some of the staff that are here and you, Mr.
Chairman.
This is not the official dogma of the Transportation
Committee or the subcommittee, but I want to just make very
clear for the record the situation we find ourselves in with
aviation security and, in particular, passenger screening. The
administration has proposed an increase in the passenger
screening fee. The way it is currently proposed, I have told
Josh Bolten and others that I do have problems with the way it
is currently proposed.
As you may know, we now spend some $5.6 billion on aviation
security. When we set up aviation security fees in the
beginning, under the original TSA legislation which I helped
draft, we had proposed having the user pay, which is a very
fair system. The screening would be a government service, and
the passenger would pay for it. It was supposed to be a $2.50
per flight segment, $5 maximum per one-way trip fee, and that
covered your screening costs.
The airlines who had previously had the responsibility in
cost testified before our committee when we were developing
this formula that their cost was about $1 billion, and they
agreed to reimburse the Government approximately $1 billion a
year for giving up that responsibility. They were willing to
pay just to exempt themselves from the liability of screening.
So we were to fund the system initially with the $2.50/$5 fee
and contributions from the airlines.
Of course initially, the TSA number of screeners was a much
smaller estimate. I think at one time it went to 19,000 and
then to 26,000. Finally, Congress capped it somewhere in the
45,000 range, and we probably have more than that in TSA. We
have a $2 billion shortfall, which is now contributing to the
national deficit because we have no money to pay that. It is
out of the general Treasury and we have no money to pay that,
so we should be increasing the fee.
But if we just increase the fee and continue the same
process, we have a problem because the current process is
broken. The 9/11 Commission and their predecessor have reviewed
the performance of passenger screening and given it an F score,
but not me. In addition, I get audited reports, and I have one
here I would like to be submitted for the record, OIG-05-16,
this is a secret classified report. I am only going to give you
the cover and a summary of what I can deal in public with, but
I can tell you that the system is a failure.
Passenger screening is not much better than it was just
after 9/11, and those are the words of the Inspector General
who tested the system. This report is on baggage screening, and
there the failure is even greater. Nearly half of the 45,000
TSA personnel are behind the scenes in the airport going
through people's baggage with trace detection equipment or just
searching, and the more people we have involved, actually the
greater the failure rate.
So we are paying $5.6 billion for a system that gets an F
score and doesn't work well, according to, again, these
classified reports. What is interesting is, I ordered a report
by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review a
system for employing high-tech processing and screening of
checked baggage. They conducted that report, and this is GAO
report 05-365, and that said you could replace 78 percent of
the personnel by automating the system and replacing personnel
with high-tech equipment. And if you did that, the payoff is
anywhere from a 1 to 3 years to pay for the equipment; and then
you have savings, perpetual savings in the system.
So I don't favor the administration proposal of just
increasing the fee and not putting in a high-tech system. If we
did this, the failure rate in the few airports in which we have
these highly automated high-tech passenger baggage screening
equipment, the failure rate is minimal. So it is a very good
working system as opposed to what we are paying for in a
failing system.
So I propose that we double the passenger screening fee for
a period of 3 years. It would raise somewhere in the
neighborhood of $6 billion. We can over that period of time,
instead of just paying for personnel, put in high-tech
equipment both for passenger screening and also for checked
baggage screening. In checked baggage screening, we would
eliminate 78 percent of the personnel, again, a dramatic
savings.
That is the proposal. The airlines have not been supportive
of the administration proposal last year. They are cool, I can
tell you, to my proposal because they say we are raising taxes.
This is a user fee, it is not a tax. We are now $2 billion a
year into the Federal Treasury, adding to the Federal deficit.
The current rate at which we are paying for and deploying high-
tech equipment at our airports and the rate that we are putting
money into equipment versus personnel, we will have this fully
automated high-tech equipment complete in 18 years.
So with $6 billion spent in my plan, you pay this off and
you would save $30 billion. And the most important thing is the
operation and performance of the system. You almost now have,
and I can't quote the exact failure rate, but I can tell you it
is almost a total failure rate for checked baggage, and very
poor rate, not much better than after September 11, for
passenger screening. You replace that system with a high-tech
system, you sunset the increase in the fee after 3 years, and
you have $30 billion worth of taxpayer savings and a safer
system for the American people to fly.
Incidentally and finally, explosives on an aircraft are our
most serious threat at this point. More than likely, terrorists
are not going to take over an aircraft the way they did on 9/
11. We have secure cockpit doors, we have air marshals, and
have even more pilots trained now than air marshals that are
armed and ready to go. And then the final and fourth line of
defense is that we have an informed public which would never
let an aircraft be taken over in the manner in which we saw in
three out of the four instances on September 11.
So that is my testimony. I have asked the administration
also to consider sending Congress an amendment, talked to Josh
Bolten about that, to include this provision as opposed to the
provision that is in their budget.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Florida
Thank you Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt for the
opportunity to testify before you today.
I am here to discuss and urge the Committee's support for an
increase in the aviation security fee that is paid by airline
passengers.
The airline security passenger fee was established by Congress
after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Together with a fee
paid directly by air carriers, it was intended to cover the Federal
Government's cost of taking over passenger and baggage screening
functions from the airlines.
In reality, these two fees have covered less than half of the
Transportation Security Administration's aviation security costs. The
General Fund has had to make up the difference--roughly $2.5-$3.5
billion annually in recent years.
This shortfall between fee collections and TSA's aviation security
costs is paid by deficit spending and absorbed by people who may never
fly.
As Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, it was never my
intent for the General Fund to pick up any of these costs. Aviation
security should be paid for by aviation travelers. No other mode of
transportation has government-funded security, and aviation should be
no different.
General aviation, air cargo, cruise passenger and cargo shipping
lines, trucking, passenger and freight rail, private energy and other
security sensitive businesses all pay their own security screening
costs. The U.S. taxpayer pays $0.
Under current law, the aviation security fee is set at $2.50 per
enplanement, up to $5 per one-way trip. The President's Budget proposes
to change this to a flat fee of $5 per one-way trip, which would raise
an additional $1.3 billion in FY 2007. The Administration proposes to
use this $1.3 billion to offset the cost to the General Fund.
I have a different proposal. I believe the increased fee revenues
should first be used to meet certain critical aviation security needs,
such as the deployment of technology to detect explosives hidden on
passengers' bodies, and the installation of in-line explosives
detection systems (EDS) at airports.
Since TSA was created in 2002, we have spent over $25 billion on
aviation security. Despite this massive spending, we are still relying
on 1960's technology--metal detectors--as our primary method of
screening passengers. We have yet to deploy more than a handful of
explosives detection trace portals even though explosives hidden on
passengers' bodies are a serious threat to aviation. It would take just
one suicide bomber strapped with explosives to further devastate the
U.S. airline industry.
In addition to this urgent need to deploy better passenger
screening technology, we also have critical unmet needs in the area of
checked baggage screening.
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) required TSA to
deploy EDS at all commercial service airports by the end of 2002. The
Homeland Security Act extended this deadline by 1 year. To meet this
deadline, TSA placed hundreds of EDS machines in airport check-in areas
across the country.
Incorporating the EDS machines into in-line baggage systems is a
critical next step, one which is estimated to ultimately cost $4-$5
billion.
Although this is a significant up-front investment, in-line
installation of EDS would significantly reduce TSA operating costs and
pay for itself in just a few years.
According to a March 2005 GAO report, TSA analysis shows that
installing in-line EDS at the nine airports that have received letters
of intent would result in a savings to the Federal Government of $1.26
billion over 7 years, with the initial investment in these systems
recovered in just 1.07 years.
According to TSA's analysis, in-line EDS would reduce by 78 percent
the number of TSA baggage screeners and supervisors required to screen
checked baggage at these nine airports.
Despite the operational cost savings TSA could derive from in-line
baggage systems, progress in installing such systems has been slow. To
date, of more than 440 commercial service airports, only eighteen have
fully converted to in-line EDS.
At the current rate of spending, it will take at least 10 more
years to convert fully to in-line EDS. In the meantime, we will
continue to waste billions of dollars in TSA's operating budget paying
large numbers of screeners to do what in-line EDS could do more
efficiently, and more accurately.
Rather than wasting billions of dollars on a huge and largely
ineffective screening bureaucracy, we need to focus on deploying better
technology as soon as possible.
Under my proposal, the existing fee would be doubled, from $2.50
per enplanement to $5 per enplanement. This would raise enough funds to
install high-tech explosives detection systems at all commercial
service airports within 3 years.
I urge your support for an increase in the aviation security fee. I
also urge you to invest the proceeds from the fee increase in urgently
needed aviation security technology improvements, such as in-line EDS,
and better explosive screening technologies at passenger checkpoints.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Ryun. Thank you very much for your testimony. I just
want to make a comment. You offered some reports to be
submitted. Without objection, I'd like those inserted in the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Ryun. Just one brief comment, because I know I have
other Members ready to testify, but would this speed up the
process at the airport, the technology you are talking about?
Mr. Mica. Absolutely. What is happening now is we actually
have even more passengers going through. We are back to pre-
September 11. One of the problems is the system that uses
nearly half of the 45,000 TSA personnel to hand-search your
baggage is delaying baggage. So we have had baggage slowdowns
and meltdowns across the country, people not matching baggage,
and that is even more dangerous because you really don't know
what is getting on a plane or left behind at times.
So this is a very serious situation. It is not popular for
me, as a conservative right wing Republican, to come and
advocate increasing any fees, but this is a user fee. It was
never intended to be the responsibility of the taxpayer from
the general revenue or add $2 billion a year to our deficit. It
was a PAYGO, a user fee, collected by the airlines and then
passed on to the Government.
Last year, they increased their fees. We monitored some of
their charges for airline tickets and during not a full year's
period, they increased their fees--because their costs went up
or their ticket charges--eight times; yet they oppose the
Government increasing the fees in our costs which have gone up,
to put in a safer, securer system.
And to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, to move the
baggage through in a more expedited fashion that won't delay
our flights around the country.
Mr. Ryun. I thank the gentleman for his testimony and
appearing before the Budget Committee.
We will now move to the gentlewoman from the Empire State,
Mrs. Kelly.
STATEMENT OF HON. SUE W. KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mrs. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just talk
with you a little bit about small businesses and the needs of
small business in the Nation.
You and I both know they are the local engines that drive
our national economy, so we have to keep their needs as a
centerpiece in our budget priorities in Congress. I believe we
need to continue working together to develop ways to provide
our small businesses with the tax relief and regulatory
fairness that they need in order to continue growing and
creating new jobs across the country.
We need a fiscally responsible Federal budget in order to
accomplish essential objectives, but we also need to help our
small businesses. So basically I have three budgetary points.
Too many small business owners, including those in the
Hudson Valley communities I represent in New York, have long
been unfairly punished by the Federal Tax Code. It taxes them
at a higher rate than individual rates and it limits them from
taking the same deductions claimed by large companies.
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act that we
passed in 2003 is addressing some of the problems that are
faced by small businesses. It has helped provide critical tax
relief to 25 million small businesses at an average of more
than $3,235 in 2005. The lower marginal income tax rates have
assisted more than 90 percent of small business owners who pay
their taxes at the individual income tax rates.
So as we analyze our future budget outlook, I want to work
with you to extend and make permanent the small business tax
relief provisions that are addressed in the fiscal year 2006
budget and the tax reconciliation measures. Continuing the
increased expensing rules for small businesses is of particular
importance. It allows our small business owners to plan for the
future and continue taking much-needed deductions on the
hundreds of thousands of dollars that they need to spend every
year on equipment and their other needs to operate and grow
their businesses. The more we do to help small businesses grow,
the more jobs they can create for our local residences.
Another budgetary priority has to be to find a permanent
solution to stop the growing number of middle-income families
and small business owners from being victimized by the
alternative minimum tax (AMT). The AMT has no place in the
lives of middle-income taxpayers and small business owners, and
it is counterproductive to our tax relief efforts on behalf of
small businesses. These and other consensus small business tax
reforms are contained in the Small Employer Tax Relief Act,
which is H.R. 3841, that we are cosponsoring in the Small
Business Committee.
We are hoping to provide opportunities for growth, and
those opportunities begin by eliminating the roadblocks that
small business owners face. We know that duplicative and
unnecessary Federal regulations do nothing but hamper small
business growth and success. So we need to work together to
stop encouraging the expansion of Federal regulations on our
Nation's small businesses.
One way of eliminating redundancy and overlap by our
Federal regulatory agencies is to include language in the
budget resolution reauthorizing the Truth in Regulating Act, or
TRA, which we passed into law in 2000. I am sponsoring the Cut
Unnecessary Regulatory Burden for Small Businesses Act, the
CURB Act, to reauthorize TRA and to enable Congress to keep a
more watchful eye on all Federal agencies.
This would uphold our principles of smaller government,
less Federal intrusion in the lives of local small business
owners, and I want to work with you to prevent the
implementation of unnecessary regulations. Federal agencies can
issue these burdensome regulations totally outside of
congressional control, regulations that have the force and
effect on small businesses of law, and they have to spend
extraneous time, money, and energy completing a lot of
burdensome paperwork rather than hiring new workers and growing
their businesses.
The time has come to make it a budgetary priority to fund
TRA and improve the congressional and GAO oversight of Federal
regulatory decisions that are devastating our small businesses.
Lastly, fiscal government restraint in our overall budget
is critical to ensuring that we can continue to provide
America's small businesses the tax relief and other tools they
need to grow and survive. I believe we should support President
Bush's budget request for $28 billion in government-backed
small business loans for 2007. It is the highest-ever level for
the SBA, but this will help create and it will help retain an
estimated 1 million jobs.
We have to continue to find ways to provide necessary
government services to help small businesses grow and create
the new jobs for local residents and their communities and we
need to do that without growing the size of government. The
Small Business Administration has shown encouraging promise in
this area since 2001. It has cut its own agency staff by nearly
25 percent while at the same time improving customer service
and making record numbers of government-backed loans to small
businesses.
We can work together to hold all Federal agencies to such a
standard: better service, more productivity, lower
administrative costs, and a lot less bureaucracy. If we
eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal budget and
at our Federal agencies, and help them focus--and help us focus
more of our resources directly on the needs of small business
owners or any family across America, I believe we can do this
and it needs to be done.
This committee has many areas where it needs to focus on
budgetary concerns, but I hope this committee will not forget
the needs of America's small businesses. Expanding tax relief
to small business owners, stopping unnecessary regulations, and
eliminating waste and fraud at Federal agencies are all too
critical to continued economic growth. We can work together to
adhere to fiscally responsible budget policies in order to rein
in Federal spending while effectively boosting small businesses
across America.
I thank you for allowing me to testify today. I look
forward to working with you during the budget process to
consistently support our small business owners and help them
retain their employees. Let us reduce their taxes and encourage
their investment and remove these obstacles for our small
business growth.
Thank you so much for letting me testify. I hope you will
truly consider funding at an appropriate level the TRA agency.
It is something that will help our small businesses.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sue W. Kelly, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New York
As a former small business owner myself, I try to keep the
interests of small businesses as the centerpiece of my own policy
agenda in Congress.
Looking both to previous accomplishments in the small business
field, and ahead to our future budget outlook, we have several
opportunities to seek fiscal government restraint and to provide small
businesses--the locomotive of our economy--with the tools to continue
growing.
Providing opportunities for growth begins by eliminating the
roadblocks our small business owners face.
Too many small business owners, including those in the Hudson
Valley which I represent, are being unfairly punished by a Federal tax
code that taxes them at higher individual rates and limits them from
taking the same deductions claimed by large companies.
The first place to provide relief is to extend and make permanent
the provisions addressed on the FY06 budget and tax reconciliation
measures. Many Americans don't realize a major portion of that tax
relief bill is direct tax relief for small businesses. We have seen the
results of this relief from the 2001 and 2003 tax bills--more jobs
created, more opportunities to enter into high cost businesses, and
higher revenues to the Treasury.
Extending increased expensing rules for small businesses is of
particular importance, allowing small business owners to plan for the
future and continue taking needed deductions on the hundreds of
thousands dollars in machinery and operating assets put into use each
year.
Another area I have stressed adamantly over the years and will
continue to do so is the need for permanent relief from the Alternative
Minimum Tax. This renegade penalty imposed each year on millions of
small business owners continues to result in less capital and
investment poured into our economy and less jobs created in towns
across the country. It is a virtual lease on the growth of small
business in America. I urge the committee to address the AMT laws and
find a responsible solution to this now un-ignorable problem.
Looking forward to the impending explosion of mandatory spending by
the Federal Government, we must also look to our own side of the
ledger.
The Small Business Administration is a good example of an agency
that is doing its part. Operating a $65 billion loan portfolio to
millions of Americans helping to grow our economy, as well as owners
recovering in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other local disasters,
the SBA has cut its agency staffing by close to 25 percent since 2001
while seeing a rapid increase and improvement in its services.
All Federal agencies should take a page from this play book:
Greater service, optimal production, less bureaucracy. We must continue
to find ways to provide needed services to help grow and support our
citizens and our economy, without growing the size of our government.
Finally, we need to stop encouraging complication and expansion of
regulations on our nation's small businesses. Duplicative and
unnecessary Federal regulations do nothing but hamper small business
growth and success.
One new way of eliminating redundancy and overlap by our Federal
regulatory agencies can be done by including language in the budget
resolution authorizing the Truth in Regulating Act, or TIRA, which I am
sponsoring here in the House.
TIRA would enable Congress to keep a more watchful eye on Federal
agencies and prevent them from implementing any unnecessary regulations
that force small business owners to spend extraneous time, money, and
energy completing burdensome paperwork rather than hiring new workers
and growing their business.
Specifically, TIRA requires the GAO, at the request of a
subcommittee or full committee chairman in Congress, to evaluate any
promulgated rules and regulations that would have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.
Congress, through the GAO, would have knowledge of and the ability
to fully evaluate unfair costs or impacts on small businesses before
new rules are implemented.
The Truth in Regulating Act is a qualified example of how to
increase accountability in Congress. This is one method of assuring
that not only are Federal administrative agencies doing their job, but
also that Congress is keeping up with its obligation in providing the
authority to the agencies. Agency personnel is not elected. Because
Congress is, we must answer to our small business owners and they are
asking for relief.
We have many areas to improve. More financial relief to small
business owners, less growth by Federal agencies, and fewer unnecessary
regulations to adhere to are all responsible policies to reign in our
Federal budget and effectively serve our small businesses across
America.
Thank you for allowing me to testify in front of the committee
today and I look forward to the committee's support.
Mr. Ryun. Mrs. Kelly, thank you very much for your
testimony. As a Member coming from a small business background,
I am certainly sensitive to the issues that you are offering. I
know that small businesses are one of the engines of our
economic recovery, and I also know that taxes and regulations
put a chokehold on our small businesses' ability to function.
So I am certainly warm to those ideas and will carry those
forward, and I thank you for coming today.
Mrs. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Ryun. At this point, we will turn to Mr. Kucinich for
his testimony, and you are welcome to begin at any time.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Ryun. I want to
thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to testify.
I represent part of Cleveland, Ohio and many of its suburbs,
but I am not here today to advocate for local funds. I am here
to offer a new approach to resolving a national problem. This
issue affects Cleveland to be sure, but it also limits the
economy in every congressional district.
The concern and solution I bring to you today is the
decline and disrepair of the United States' infrastructure
system. I am talking about bridges, highways, schools, water,
wastewater treatment plants, and drinking water systems. Like
every Member of Congress, every member of the Budget Committee,
I can think of at least one major infrastructure project in my
district that laxlacks funding, I am sure every Member has the
same concern, and today I am offering a solution.
I am proposing a financing mechanism that taps the Federal
Reserve as a financing bank to provide zero-interest loans,
thus greatly reducing the cost of infrastructure improvement.
We all see the current crisis in our infrastructure. It is
something we see every day when we sit in traffic, bound by
orange barrels that line our highways. It is something that
school children experience at their desks, crowded together
under leaky roofs, and beachgoers experience, at best the
sidewalk, when municipal sewer systems overflow. These
incidents happen every year and happen with increasing
regularity as systems age. Infrastructure problems threaten our
productivity, our economy, our environment, and our health.
What will it take to fix these problems? Well, nationally,
it will take more than $1.6 trillion to bring our country's
roadways up to speed, according to a report released in 2005 by
the American Society of Civil Engineers. It will take $127
billion to repair and renovate our schools, according to the
National Center for Education Statistics. That estimate was 7
years ago, with more recent estimates at $268 billion. And in a
study by the Water Infrastructure Network, it would take $1.3
trillion over 20 years to build, operate, and maintain drinking
water and wastewater facilities.
If you add these staggering sums of money to the necessary
funding to replace and repair our devastated infrastructure
from the Katrina disaster, estimates from Risk Management
Solutions, a private sector company that provides services for
the management of insurance catastrophe risk, suggests that
total losses, insured and uninsured, from both hurricanes
approach $140 billion, the bulk of which is due to Hurricane
Katrina.
Now, the people of Katrina are returning to nothing, and
the first task is to rebuild the basic infrastructure. The
Center for Business and Economic Research at Marshall
University estimated that Hurricane Katrina has generated
commercial structure damage of $21 billion, commercial
equipment damage at $36 billion, residential structure and
content damages of almost $75 billion, electric utility damages
of $231 million, highway damages of $3 billion, sewer system
damages of $1.2 billion, and commercial revenue loss of $4.6
billion.
The American Waterworks Association estimates the damage
from Katrina requires water supply infrastructure and repair
and replacement costs at $2.25 billion. The Mississippi
Department of Education estimates Katrina damage to
Mississippi's schools at over $1 billion dollars, to replace 14
destroyed schools, repair 246 damaged schools, and repair 159
damaged school buses. Overall, Katrina damaged or destroyed
over 400 school buildings in four affected States.
The State of Louisiana's Department of Transportation
testified to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of our United States Congress that damage resulting from the
hurricane, such as repairing or replacing damaged roads,
bridges, public ports, airports, railroads, and the maritime
and transit systems is estimated at $5.5 billion. And to ensure
future hurricanes do not exact such massive damage to
Louisiana, it will cost $22 billion for levee protection and
pumping capacity.
Now, with these extraordinary needs, it is no wonder
municipalities have not been able to make up the differences as
the Federal Government has gradually decreased infrastructure
support. If you put aside all the partisan issues, the current
deficit is real and everybody agrees it has to be reduced. That
reality makes massive Federal investments unlikely. For
example, the President's 2007 budget is only $18 billion to
address the damage inflicted by Katrina.
Now, Mr. Chairman, my solution would create a low-cost
Federal financing mechanism to administer billions of dollars
in zero-interest loans every year to localities for
infrastructure projects. Financing costs for any project adds
substantially to the cost of the project; therefore, zero-
interest loans make local dollars go significantly further.
States would be totally responsible for choosing which projects
to fund with the loans according to their specific needs.
This bill that I am speaking of would create the Federal
Bank for Infrastructure Modernization. The bank, as an
extension of the Federal Financing Bank under the Treasury,
would administer the loans. The loans would bear a small fee of
one-fourth of 1 percent of the loan principal to cover the
administrative cost of the Federal Bank for Infrastructure
Modernization. In order to provide the money for the loans, the
Federal Bank for Infrastructure Modernization would hold a
portion of the Treasury securities that the Federal Reserve
normally holds.
By transferring billions of dollars annually to the Federal
Bank for Infrastructure Modernization, it would still allow the
Fed to operate as it does now to add liquidity to the system.
The Fed, instead of buying securities, would buy the mortgage
loans of the States. This way, the Federal Bank for
Infrastructure Modernization's finances would be integrated by
the Federal Open Market Committee, so as not to disrupt its
ability to promote economic stability.
The actual amount would be varied so these funds could be
used as a tool to foster stable economic growth. During times
of economic slowdown, the Federal Bank for Infrastructure
Modernization could make more loans available to spur
investment. During times of economic boom, the Federal Bank for
Infrastructure Modernization could make fewer loans available.
The needs are so great that our old ideas just won't work.
If we talk about the hundreds of billions needed to make the
infrastructure a workable, productive system, the sum
overwhelms nearly every idea we had in the past.
The President's nondefense discretionary budget is $375.8
billion. The needs are much greater than that. Even for certain
needs like school construction, we would have to spend one-
third of his budget. To repair structurally deficient bridges,
we would have to spend one-fourth of the budget. It is
unimaginable we would fully address even one of these issues.
We have to be creative. We have to think of ways of solving
problems outside of the box, and that is exactly what this
proposal is and why it needs the support of the Budget
Committee. The Committee's backing this bill will reflect an
understanding that our Nation is asking for innovative
bipartisan solutions.
The Federal Bank for Infrastructure Modernization is a tool
for leveraging the necessary funds. Citizen States would still
be responsible for paying the net cost of the project, but by
making available the loans interest free, it cuts the overall
cost of the project in half. It is a workable solution and it
goes a long way in addressing infrastructure needs.
I come here today to seek the support of the Budget
Committee, and with your leadership this bill could provide the
ingenuity and the essential boost that projects need.
Mr. Ryun. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
At this point in time I have no further questions. The
committee will go into recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
Mr. Ryun. Thank you.
[Recess.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kucinich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Ohio
Thank you Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt for allowing me
to testify. I represent part of Cleveland and many of its suburbs. But
I am not here today to advocate for local funds. I am here to offer a
new approach to resolving a national problem. This issue affects
Cleveland to be sure, but it also drags down the economy in every other
congressional district.
The concern and solution I bring to you today is the decline and
disrepair of the U.S. infrastructure system. I speak of bridges,
highways, schools, wastewater treatment plants, drinking water systems,
etc. Like every Member of Congress, ever Member of the Committee on
Budget can think of at least one major infrastructure project in their
district that lacks funding. And today, I offer us all a solution. I
propose a financing mechanism that taps the Federal Reserve as a
financing bank to provide zero interest loans, thus greatly reducing
the costs of infrastructure improvement.
We all see the current crisis in our infrastructure. It is
something we see everyday when we sit in traffic bound by orange
barrels that line our highways. It is something that schoolchildren
experience at their desks, crowded together under leaking roofs. And
beachgoers experience at best the sidewalk when the municipal sewer
systems overflow. These incidents happen every year and happen with
increasingly regularity as systems age. Infrastructure problems
threaten our productivity, our economy, our environment and our health.
What will it take to fix these problems? Nationally, it would take
more than $1.6 trillion to bring our country's roadways up to speed
according to a report released in 2005 by the American Society for
Civil Engineers. It would take $127 billion to repair and renovate our
schools according to the National Center for Education Statistics. That
estimate was 7 years ago, with more recent estimates at $268 billion.
And in a study by the Water Infrastructure Network, it would take $1.3
trillion over 20 years to build, operate and maintain drinking water
and wastewater facilities.
Add to those staggering sums of money the necessary funding to
replace and repair devastated infrastructure from the Katrina disaster.
Estimates from Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a private-sector
company that provides services for the management of insurance
catastrophe risk, suggest that total losses--insured and uninsured--
from both hurricanes (Katrina and Rita) approach $140 billion, the bulk
of which is due to Hurricane Katrina.
The people of Katrina are returning to nothing and the first task
is to rebuild the basic infrastructure. The Center for Business and
Economic Research at Marshall University estimated that Hurricane
Katrina has generated commercial structure damages of $21 billion,
commercial equipment damages of $36 billion, residential structure and
content damages of almost $75 billion, electric utility damages of $231
million, highway damages of $3 billion, sewer system damages of $1.2
billion and commercial revenue losses of $4.6 billion.
The American Water Works Association estimates that damage from
Katrina requires water supply infrastructure repair and replacement
costs of $2.25 billion.
The Mississippi Department of Education estimates Katrina damage to
Mississippi schools at over $1 billion, to replace 14 destroyed
schools, repair 246 damaged schools, and repair 159 damaged school
buses. Overall Katrina damaged or destroyed 400 school buildings in the
four affected states.
The State of Louisiana Department of Transportation testified to
the Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, that damage resulting
from the hurricanes, such as repairing or replacing damaged roads,
bridges, public ports, airports, railroads, the maritime and transit
systems is estimated at $5.5 billion. And to ensure future hurricanes
do not exact such massive damage to Louisiana, it will cost $22 billion
for levee protection and pumping capacity.
With these extraordinary needs, it is no wonder that municipalities
have not been able to make up the difference as the Federal Government
has gradually decreased infrastructure support. Putting aside all
partisan issues, the current deficit is real and everyone agrees it
must be reduced. That reality makes massive Federal investments
unlikely. For example, the President's 2007 budget has only $18 billion
to address the damage inflicted by Katrina.
My solution would create a low-cost Federal financing mechanism to
administer billions of dollars in zero-interest loans every year to
localities for infrastructure projects. Financing costs for any project
add substantially to the cost of the project, therefore zero interest
loans make local dollars go significantly further. States would be
totally responsible for choosing which projects to fund with the loans
according to their specific needs.
This bill would create the Federal Bank for Infrastructure
Modernization (FBIM). The bank, as an extension of the Federal
Financing bank under the Treasury, would administer the loans. The
loans would bear a small fee of one-quarter of 1 percent of the loan
principle to cover the administrative costs of the FBIM.
In order to provide the money for the loans, the FBIM would hold a
portion of the Treasury securities that the Federal Reserve normally
holds. By transferring billions of dollars annually to the FBIM, it
would still allow the Fed to operate as it does now to add liquidity to
the system. The Fed, instead of buying securities, would buy the
mortgage loans of the states. This way, the FBIM's finances would be
integrated by the Federal Open Market Committee so as not to disrupt
its ability to promote economic stability.
The actual amount could be varied so these funds could be used as a
tool to foster stable economic growth. During times of economic
slowdown, the FBIM could make more loans available to spur investment.
During times of economic boom, the FBIM could make fewer loans
available.
The needs are so great that our old ideas just won't work. If we
talk about the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to make
infrastructure a workable, productive system, the sum overwhelms nearly
every idea we've had in the past.
The President's non-defense discretionary budget is $375.8 billion.
The needs are much greater than that. Even for certain needs, like
school construction, we would have to spend one-third of his budget. To
repair structurally deficient bridges, we would have to spend one-
fourth of his budget. It is unimaginable that we will fully address
even one of these areas.
We must be creative. We must think of ways of solving problems that
are outside-the-box. That is exactly what this proposal is and why it
needs the support of the Budget Committee. The Committee's backing of
this bill reflects an understanding that our nation is asking for
innovative, bipartisan solutions.
The Federal Bank for Infrastructure Modernization is a tool for
leveraging the necessary funds. Cities and states would still be
responsible for paying the net cost of the project, but by making the
loans zero-interest, it cuts the overall cost of the project in half.
This is a workable solution that goes a long way in addressing
infrastructure needs.
I come here today to seek the support of the Budget Committee. With
your leadership, this bill could provide the ingenuity, the essential
boost that projects need.
Mr. Diaz-Balart [presiding]. We will start with Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller, you are recognized, sir. Thank you for being here
today.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for this
opportunity to testify about our Nation's budget priorities. I
actually have little quarrel with what the President said in
his State of the Union about what we need to do to compete in
an unforgiving world economy, but I am dumbfounded by what came
just days later.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Miller, if you would press the
microphone button and make sure we can get your statement on
the record.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today and to testify about our Nation's
budget priorities. Specifically on the point of
competitiveness, I actually have little quarrel with what the
President said in his State of the Union, but I was dumbfounded
by what came just days later when the President submitted his
proposed budget. I wondered, did any of the people who wrote
the President's speech actually talk to any of the folks who
prepared the budget? Did the folks who prepared the budget even
watch the speech on television? Did they go to the refrigerator
just when the President talked about American competitiveness?
Unfortunately, it was not the first time that I have seen a
jarring difference between what the President said in the State
of the Union and what was in his budget. Mr. Chairman, I will
spare you the hackneyed Yogi Berra quotation about deja vu, but
there is another Yogi Berra quotation that fits here: You can
observe a lot just by watching.
Here is what I have observed about this administration from
watching the President's State of the Union and from the
proposed budget that comes a week or so later. The President's
rhetoric about helping working Americans hits the mark. The
budget completely misses.
In 2004 and again last year, the President praised the
important role of community colleges in job training. In 2004,
the President proposed a new $250 million job-training program
in community colleges. The funding for that new program was a
little hard to find in the President's proposed budget, but
Congress that year did fund, did appropriate $250 million for
the program. Unfortunately, half of the appropriation came
dollar for dollar from the Federal Dislocated Workers
Assistance Program, a program that already did pretty much what
the President said his new program would do. Last year,
Congress provided no funds for the new community college
initiative, but the Federal Dislocated Workers Assistance
Program did not get the $125 million back. In fact, programs
that train new and dislocated workers have been cut by about
$120 million over the last three appropriation cycles. In this
year's State of the Union, the President did not mention
community colleges at all, to the great relief of all of us who
really care about community colleges. But this year the
President announced a new American Competitiveness Initiative.
Mr. Chairman, I do care deeply about our need for science
and math education, for research funding, for energy
independence. I was pleased to hear the President lend his
voice to those concerns. I should have known to worry instead.
The President's proposed budget actually cuts science
funding. The President would decrease the Federal science and
technology budget by almost $600 million. Oceanographic and
atmospheric research is cut almost 10 percent. Now, research
into nuclear energy would increase by almost a third, but
research into renewable energy and energy efficiency, including
the new switchgrass initiative, is increased by only 4 percent.
Other programs that are vital to our Nation's competitiveness,
programs that have proven results in creating and saving
American jobs, would either be eliminated or cut drastically.
The proposed budget would cut the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership by 56 percent. The National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce, would
suffer a 23-percent decrease in funding, including all funding
for the Advanced Technology Program, one of the few sources of
patient capital for commercialization of new technologies.
Mr. Chairman, if we really want to match action on
competitiveness to rhetoric, and I do, here is where we should
start: Fully fund the President's community college job-
training program and restore the $125 million taken from the
Federal Displaced Workers Assistance Program. In general,
protect funding for career and technical programs in community
colleges that provide help for the unemployed and for those
trying to improve their job skills.
Now, we also need to protect funding for microloans and
business assistance programs that help low-income entrepreneurs
who do not have access to traditional capital markets, and
provide full funding for the Small Business Administration
Small Business Loan Program that has accounted for 30 percent
of all long-term business lending. And, Mr. Chairman, as you
must know, the vast majority of new jobs is created by small
businesses in this country.
We need to increase funding for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP). The MEP program has helped North Carolina,
my State, helped North Carolina businesses save $85.6 million
in 2002 alone. We need to provide full funding for the Advanced
Technology Program, the ATP, that amounts to $79 million, and
find other ways to help new technology cross the valley of
death from the laboratory to the marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, we need to make a real commitment to science
and math education, to research and innovation, not just give
lip service to those needs.
Mr. Chairman, after having now watched four States of the
Union and four budgets as a Member of Congress, I can offer
this observation: If we can't get the speech writers and the
budget writers to speak to each other, to talk to each other,
maybe we can get them to switch jobs. Let the speech writers
write the budget, let the budget writers write the speech. Mr.
Chairman, the speeches are a lot better than the budgets, and
the budgets are what really matter. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brad Miller, a Representative in Congress
From the State of North Carolina
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about
our nation's budget priorities.
I actually have little quarrel with what the President said in his
State of the Union about what we need to do to compete in an
unforgiving world economy. But I am dumbfounded by what came just days
later when the President submitted his proposed budget.
I wondered: Did any of the people who wrote the President's speech
actually talk to any of the folks who prepared the proposed budget? Did
the folks who prepared the budget even watch the speech on television?
Did they go to the refrigerator just when the President talked about
American competitiveness?
Unfortunately, it was not the first time that I have seen a jarring
difference between what the President said in the State of the Union
and what was in his budget. I will spare you the hackneyed Yogi Berra
quotation about deja vu.
But there is another Yogi Berra quotation that fits here: you can
observe a lot just by watching.
Here is what I have observed about this administration from
watching the president's State of the Union address and the proposed
budget that comes a week or so later. The President's rhetoric about
helping working Americans hits the mark. The budget completely misses.
In 2004 and again last year, the President praised the important
role of community colleges in job training. In 2004, the President
proposed a new $250 million job training program in community colleges.
The funding for the new program was a little hard to find in the
proposed budget, but Congress that year did appropriate $250 million.
Unfortunately, half the appropriation came dollar for dollar from the
Federal Dislocated ``Worker Assistance Program, a program that already
did pretty much what the President said his new program would do.
Last year, Congress provided no funds for the new community college
initiative, but the Federal Dislocated Worker Assistance Program did
not get the $125 million back. In fact, programs that train new and
dislocated workers have been cut by about $120 million over the last
three appropriations cycles.
In this year's State of the Union, the President did not mention
community colleges at all, to the great relief of all of us who care
about community colleges.
This year the President announced a new American Competitiveness
Initiative. Mr. Chairman, I care deeply about our need for science and
math education, for research funding, and for energy independence. I
was pleased to hear the President lend his voice to those concerns.
I should have known to worry instead.
The President's proposed budget actually cuts science funding. The
President would decrease the Federal Science and Technology Budget by
almost $600 million. Oceanographic and atmospheric research is cut by
almost 10 percent. Research into nuclear energy would increase by more
than a third, but research into renewable energy and energy efficiency,
including the new switchgrass initiative, is increased by only 4
percent.
Other programs that are vital to our nation's competitiveness,
programs that have proven results in creating and saving American jobs,
would either be eliminated or cut drastically. The proposed budget
would cut the Manufacturing Extension Partnership by 56 percent. The
National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of
Commerce (``NIST '') would suffer a 23-percent decrease in funding,
including all funding for the Advanced Technology Program, one of the
few sources of ``patient capital'' for the commercialization of new
technologies.
Mr. Chairman, if we want to match action on competitiveness to
rhetoric, and I do, here's where we should start: fully fund the
President's new community college job training program, and restore the
$125 taken from the Federal Displaced Worker's Assistance Program. In
general, protect funding for career and technical programs that provide
help for the unemployed and for those trying to improve their job
skills.
We need to protect funding for microloans and Business Assistance
Programs that help low-income entrepreneurs who do not have access to
traditional capital markets, and provide full funding for the Small
Business Administration's small business loan programs, that has
accounted for 30 percent of all long-term small business lending.
We need to increase funding for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership. MEP programs helped North Carolina businesses save $85.6
million in 2002 alone.
We need to provide full funding for the Advanced Technology
Programs, $79 million, and find other ways to help new technologies
cross the ``valley of death'' from the laboratory to the marketplace.
And we need to make a real commitment to science and math
education, to research and innovation.
Mr. Chairman, after watching four States of the Union and four
budgets as a Member of Congress, I offer this observation: If we can't
get the speechwriters and the budget-writers to talk to each other,
maybe they can switch jobs. Let the speechwriters write the budget, and
let the budget-writers write the speech.
Mr. Chairman, the speeches are a lot better than the budgets, and
the budgets are what really matter.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate
you coming down here and letting us know what your priorities
are. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And now we will listen to Mr. Robin Hayes,
also from the great State of North Carolina. It is a privilege,
sir, to have you here with us today. It always is.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, I was thinking the same thing. I
am pleased to appear before you and appreciate your time,
effort, and patience on this important subject. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to testify before the committee
today. There are several topics I would like to highlight:
funding for Community Development Block Grants, veterans health
care, Impact Aid, and Department of Agriculture programs.
Mr. Chairman, I would first like to address the proposed
cuts in funding to the Community Block Grant Program. The
program provides local municipalities the opportunity to
provide services to the most vulnerable, create jobs, and
expand businesses, provide safe and affordable housing, and
leverage considerable private sector investment in communities.
In my district, which has been particularly hard hit by the
loss of textile and manufacturing businesses, CDBG program has
provided critical assistance to help keep towns on their feet.
The CDBG enables local governments the flexibility, provides
them the flexibility to design programs that are most effective
to meet their specific needs. I urge the committee to make
every effort possible to keep this important program funded at
or above fiscal year 2006 level.
As you know, the 2007 budget proposal for Veterans Affairs
totals $80.6 billion, including $42 billion in mandatory
funding to support benefit programs for our Nation's veterans
and $36 billion for medical care. Though this is a 12.2-percent
health care funding increase from 2006, as the number of
veterans grows and health care costs exponentially increase, it
is important that we provide the maximum possible level of
funding for your care. As you and your committee begin
assembling the budget resolution for 2007, I ask you to do
everything in your power to adequately fund programs for our
Nation's veterans. Providing quality affordable and accessible
health care services to our Nation's veterans is a top priority
for me as a Member of Congress, and must remain a priority for
us all.
In my district of North Carolina, I have fought for a new
community-based outpatient clinic known as CBOC so that local
veterans would have improved health care access. I am very
pleased the Department of Veterans Affairs has announced they
will be establishing a CBOC, and looking forward to working
with them and fellow Members on providing funding for VA health
care facilities across the country. During the time we are
calling on the military to do so much, fully funding VA health
care sends a strong message that we will take care of those who
serve.
As you craft the resolution, there many difficult
challenges to overcome, central priorities such as providing
for our men and women in uniform, ensuring our national
security through continuing operations in the global war on
terrorism, reducing the deficit and taking care of our domestic
needs. So when you focus on these important priorities, I ask
that you consider reducing the funding for foreign operations.
We have so many needs here at home, sending American taxpayer
dollars to fund programs in other countries, international
organizations such as the U.N., should not be a top priority.
We must take care of our own first before sending aid overseas.
Before allocating money for foreign programs, I urge you to
increase funding for veterans programs and fully fund military
requirements.
Mr. Chairman, another issue important to our military
families is Impact Aid. Funded in both defense and education,
this critical program acts like Uncle Sam's tax payment on land
owned by the Federal Government and is vital in sustaining
local school districts that derive no property tax revenue from
military bases. The overall issue and the importance of Impact
Aid is illustrated by my district in North Carolina, which are
typical of many places around the country, with military bases
often the largest employer and land owner. The Eighth District
in North Carolina is home to Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force
Base. Cumberland and Hope Counties are enormously proud of
their affiliation with the military installations. Impact Aid
payments, essentially frozen, the numbers of students returning
to our schools from overseas posts with the military
increasing, the gap in payments is widening both at home and
across the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, we must do more this year to recognize this
burden on our local school districts and increase funding for
Impact Aid. As cochair of the 130-member House Impact Aid
Coalition, I want to work with you to provide a modest increase
in the Department of Education funding to cover the Federal
Government's obligation to these school districts; also
increasingly concerned about how BRAC and global rebasing is
affecting our local schools. A potential increase of 35- to
45,000 students, Congress must step up to meet the needs of
these children in our schools. We cannot leave our school
districts lacking the funding. Department of Defense funding
for Impact Aid is essential, and we have to send a clear
message to the military families we will take care of their
children.
As we seek to prepare students for the 21st century
workforce, community colleges in my district are concerned
about funding for Carl Perkins vocational and technical
education. Funding is vital for retraining, and I fear
eliminating the program may leave behind students in programs
that provide hands-on workforce education in growing trades of
our economy.
Eighth District farmers continue to express to me their
strong opposition to the President's budget regarding
agricultural issues, thousands of producers in communities that
depend on a strong agricultural economy and Federal programs.
It is important to note, spending on agricultural programs is
lower than expected when the farm bill was passed. Through
2005, commodity program costs were $19 billion lower than CBO
projected when the farm bill was passed, and the recent
reconciliation bill also was aided by cuts in agricultural
programs. Appropriation bills have increasingly reduced
mandatory funding for conservation, rural development,
research, and renewable energy; 2006 reduction is $1.7 billion.
In addition, the recently enacted budget reconciliation bill is
projected by CBO to reduce Agriculture Committee spending by
$3.7 billion. A disproportionate burden of the reduction is
placed on America's farmers.
As you know, the farm bill is a 5-year bill, and the 5-year
nature of the bill brings certainty to producers who make their
business plans based upon agricultural programs. Changing
provisions in the law brings a massive amount of uncertainty to
farm assistance. The House Ag Committee is right in the process
of having hearings throughout the Nation, first held in
Fayetteville, North Carolina. I can assure you there is
consensus of farmers who attended the field hearing to change
farm programs during reauthorization for the next farm bill,
not piecemeal during the annual budget process.
I also would like to stress my support for funding our
conservation initiative and other issues that farmers bring up
during farm bill field hearings. Producers are very supportive
of incentive-based conservation initiatives such as Equip and
CRP. Important programs have been a major success in rehabbing
wildlife and improving the environment. Hopefully, we will
continue to support these programs that are important to our
Eighth District farmers.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much for the
opportunity, for your attention, and for the ability for me to
testify before your committee on these programs. I appreciate
your consideration and look forward to working with you on the
2007 budget. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robin Hayes, a Representative in Congress
From the State of North Carolina
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify
before the Committee today. There are several topics I would like to
highlight: funding for Community Development Block Grants, Veteran's
health care, Impact Aid, and Department of Agriculture programs.
Mr. Chairman I would first like to address the proposed cuts in
funding to the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG's). The
CDBG program provides local municipalities the opportunity to provide
services to the most vulnerable, create jobs and expand businesses,
provide safe and affordable housing, and leverage considerable private
sector investment in communities.
In my District, which has been hit particularly hard by the loss of
textile and manufacturing businesses, the CDBG program has provided
critical assistance to help keep towns on their feet.
CDBG's enable local governments the flexibility to design programs
that are most effective to meet their specific needs. I urge that the
Committee make every effort to keep this important Program funded at or
above Fiscal Year 2006's level.
Mr. Chairman, our country's veterans answered the call when America
needed them, and their service ensures that all Americans can live in
freedom. This is why it is so vitally important that we honor their
service by making certain that they receive the quality health care
they have more than earned. Caring for our older veterans and giving
them the best access to quality health care is our duty as a nation and
as we continue to sustain operations in support of the Global War on
Terrorism, it is imperative we send a strong signal to these active
duty forces that our nation will indeed care for them when they return
home.
As you know, the President's FY 2007 budget proposal for the
Department of Veterans' Affairs totals $80.6 billion, including $42
billion in mandatory funding to support benefits programs for our
nation's veterans and $36 billion for Medical Care. Though this is a
12.2-percent health care funding increase from 2006, as the number of
veterans grows and health care costs exponentially increase, it is
important that we provide the maximum possible of level of funding for
their care. As you and your committee begin assembling the budget
resolution for Fiscal Year 2007, I ask that you do everything in your
power to adequately fund programs for our nation's veterans.
Providing quality, affordable, and accessible health care services
to our nations' veterans is a top priority for me as a Member of
Congress, and must remain a priority for us all. In my District in
North Carolina, I fought for a new Community Based Outpatient Clinic
(CBOC) so that local veterans would have improved VA health care
access. I am very pleased that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has
recently announced that they will be establishing a CBOC in the 8th
District of North Carolina and look forward to working with them, and
my fellow Members of Congress, on providing the necessary funding for
VA health care facilities across the country. During this time when we
are calling on our military to do so much, fully funding VA health care
sends a strong message that we will take care of those who serve.
As you craft the budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2007, there are
many difficult challenges to be overcome. We must focus on essential
priorities such as providing for our men and women in uniform, ensuring
our national security through continuing operations in the Global War
on Terrorism, reducing the deficit, and taking care of our domestic
needs. So that we may focus on these important priorities, I ask that
you consider reducing the funding for foreign operations. When we have
so many needs here at home, sending American tax payer dollars to fund
programs in other countries and international organizations should not
be a top priority. We must ``take care of our own first'' before
sending aid overseas. Before allocating money for foreign programs, I
urge you to increase funding for veterans programs and fully fund our
military requirements.
Mr. Chairman, another issue important to our military families is
Impact Aid. Funded in both Defense and Education, this critical program
acts like Uncle Sam's tax payment on land owned by the Federal
Government and is vital to sustaining local school districts that
derive no property tax revenue military bases. The overall issue of the
importance of the Impact Aid program is illustrated by my own District
in North Carolina, which are typical of many places across the country
with military bases often the largest employers and land owners.
The 8th District of North Carolina is home to Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base, and Cumberland and Hoke counties are enormously proud
of their affiliation with these local military installations. But with
Impact Aid payments essentially frozen and the number of students
returning to our schools from overseas posts with the military
increasing, the gap in payments is widening, both at home and across
the nation. Mr. Chairman, we must do more this year to recognize this
burden on our local school districts and increase funding for Impact
Aid. As Co-Chair of the 165 member House Impact Aid Coalition, I want
to work with you, Mr. Chairman, to provide a modest increase in
Department of Education funding to cover the Federal Government's
obligation to these school districts.
I am also increasingly concerned about how BRAC and global rebasing
is affecting our local schools. With a potential increase of 35,000 to
45,000 students, Congress must step up to meet the needs of these
children and our schools. We cannot leave our school districts lacking
funding and facilities to support these children. With this in mind, I
urge my colleagues to include 50 million dollars in Department of
Defense funding for Impact Aid and to send a clear message to our
military families---we are going to take care of their children whether
they are educated at overseas posts or here stateside.
As we seek to prepare our students for the 21st century workforce,
Community Colleges in my District are concerned about funding for the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. This funding is
vital to my District for retraining and I fear that by eliminating the
Perkins program, we may leave behind students and programs that provide
hands on workforce education in the growing trades of our economy.
The 8th District farmers continue to express to me their strong
opposition to the President's budget regarding agriculture issues. We
have thousands of producers and communities that depend on a strong
agricultural economy and Federal agriculture programs.
It is important to note that spending on agriculture programs is
lower than expected when the farm bill was passed. Through FY 05,
commodity program costs were $19 billion lower than CBO projected when
the farm bill was passed. Appropriations bills have increasingly
reduced mandatory funding for conservation, rural development, research
and renewable energy. For FY 06, the reduction was $1.7 billion. In
addition, the recently enacted budget reconciliation bill is projected
by CBO to reduce agriculture committee spending during the FY 06 to FY
10 reconciliation period by $3.7 billion. This continues to bring a
disproportionate burden of deficit reduction on America's farmers and
rural communities.
As you know, the 2002 Farm Bill is a 5 year bill. The 5-year nature
of the bill brings certainty to producers who make their business plans
based upon these agriculture programs. Changing provisions of the law
brings a massive amount of uncertainty to farm assistance. The House
Agriculture Committee is already in the process of having Farm Bill
field hearings throughout the nation and we most recently had one in
Fayetteville, North Carolina. I can assure you that the consensus from
the farmers who attended the field hearing is to change the farm
programs during reauthorization of the next farm bill, not piecemeal
during the annual budget process.
I would also like to stress my support for funding our conservation
initiatives. This is another issue that farmers continue to bring up
during Farm Bill field hearings. Producers are very supportive of
incentive based conservation initiatives, such as EQIP and CRP. These
important programs have been a major success in rehabilitating wildlife
and improving the environment. I am hopeful that you will continue to
support agriculture programs that are important to 8th District
farmers.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your
Committee about these important programs. I appreciate your
consideration and look forward to working with you on the Fiscal Year
2007 budget.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Hayes. Appreciate
your leadership and you coming out here and speaking to us
today, as well as Mr. Miller also from the great State of North
Carolina. Thank you, both. Thank you, gentlemen.
Now we will recognize Mr. Mark Kennedy. Thank you, sir.
Thank you for being here. We appreciate you being here, and we
look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Kennedy. Well, thank you, Chairman. We appreciate you
taking the time to let us express the concerns we have. And I
have concerns with a number of areas in the budget, but I am
here today to have my voice joined with that of Representative
Terry of Nebraska as we oppose again the misguided proposal to
eliminate the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program
(JAG).
Mr. Chairman, the Byrne JAG program is a critical source of
funding for more than 800 antidrug task forces in practically
every, if not every, State of the Union. Byrne JAG funding is
essential to help State and local police officers identify and
dismantle local, State, and regional drug-trafficking
syndicates. Federal Government law enforcement agents rely on
the information from Byrne JAG task force to identify and
disrupt international drug-trafficking rings. If Byrne JAG
funding is eliminated, as the President has proposed, the
successful interagency law enforcement infrastructure that has
led to the lowest U.S. violent crime rates in 30 years will
disappear.
Additionally, Byrne JAG has been a key weapon in the fight
against illegal drugs like methamphetamine. Mr. Chairman, for a
long time many thought meth was a problem for the Southwestern
and Western States, or that it was a rural problem that
wouldn't get into the suburbs or the cities. That thinking
brought us a trail of destruction across the country from San
Diego to the Shenandoah Valley. Since 2001, police officers
have dismantled over 50,000 clandestine meth labs nationwide.
However, according to Attorney General Gonzales, the number of
meth cases filed nationwide quadrupled over the last decade.
Without Byrne JAG, State and local law enforcement will not be
able to fight this growing problem in the way they need to.
Last year the Senate voted to fund at $900 million.
However, the 2006 Science-State-Justice Appropriations Act
conference report contained just over $400 million, a
devastating cut from the previous year's level of $634 million,
and a far cry from the authorized level of $1.1 billion
approved just last year.
The tangible results of last year's cuts have been seen in
now at least three States that have been forced to respond.
Texas was forced to eliminate its Byrne JAG Task Force. New
Jersey is considering the same due to budget constraints. And
my own State of Minnesota is struggling to fill the void we
left last year with State money so that it can continue these
effective law enforcement task forces. Who will be there to
protect our children from those making and pushing poisons like
meth if the House approves the elimination of the Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant program?
Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow the Byrne JAG grants to be
eliminated. Maintaining our successful fight against the spread
of meth and other drugs requires that we fund the Byrne JAG
program to at least the $900 million figure passed by the
Senate last year. The Byrne JAG program is an important tool in
our fight against drugs and violent crime, and it is absolutely
critical we continue to fund this program this year.
Mr. Chairman, let us show the law enforcement officers who
wake up every morning to protect our families that we stand
with them in the fight against drugs and violent crime. Let us
save the Byrne JAG program. With that plea, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Congressman Kennedy. Thank you
for that very passionate plea. I appreciate your being here,
appreciate your passion on an issue that obviously is very
important to you.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you so much, Chairman.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark R. Kennedy, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Minnesota
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing so that
you can gain the input of fellow Members as you wrestle with the FY07
budget request submitted by the president last Monday.
I want to add my voice with my friend Rep. Terry of Nebraska, as we
again oppose the misguided proposal to eliminate the Edward Byrne-
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program.
Mr. Chairman, the Byrne-JAG program is a critical source of funding
for more than 800 anti-drug task forces in practically every, if not
every, state of the union.
Byrne-JAG funding is essential to help state and local police
officers identify and dismantle local, state and regional drug
trafficking syndicates.
Federal law enforcement agents rely on information from Byrne-JAG
task forces to identify and disrupt international drug trafficking
rings.
If Byrne-JAG funding is eliminated, as the President has proposed,
the successful interagency law enforcement infrastructure that led to
the lowest U.S. violent crime rates in 30 years will disappear.
Additionally, Byrne-JAG has been a key weapon in the fight against
illegal drugs like methamphetamine.
Mr. Chairman, for a long time many thought meth was a problem for
the Southwestern and Western states, or that it was a rural problem
that wouldn't get to the suburbs or the cities.
That thinking brought us a trail of destruction across the country,
from San Diego to the Shenandoah Valley.
Since 2001, police officers have dismantled over 50,000 clandestine
meth labs nationwide.
However, according to Attorney General Gonzales, the number of meth
cases filed nationwide quadrupled over the past decade.
Without Byrne-JAG, state and local law enforcement will not be able
to fight this growing problem.
Last year, the Senate voted to fund Byrne-JAG at $900 million.
However, the FY2006 Science, State, Justice Appropriations Act
Conference Report contained just over $400 million--a devastating cut
from the previous year's level of $634 million, and a far cry from the
authorized level of $1.1 billion approved just last year.
The tangible results of last year's cut have been seen in how three
states were forced to respond: Texas was forced to eliminate its Byrne-
JAG task forces. New Jersey is considering the same due to budget
constraints. My own state of Minnesota is struggling to fill the void
we left last year with state money so it can continue these effective
law enforcement task forces.
Who will be there to protect our children from those making and
pushing poisons like meth if the House approves the elimination of the
Byrne-Justice Assistance grant program?
Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow the Byrne-JAG grants to be
eliminated.
Maintaining our successful fight against the spread of meth and
other drugs requires that we fund the Byrne-JAG program at at least the
$900 million figure passed by the Senate last year.
The Byrne-JAG program is an important tool in our fight against
drugs and violent crime, and it is absolutely critical we continue to
fund this program in FY07.
Mr. Chairman, let's show the law enforcement officers who wake up
every morning to protect our families that we stand with them in the
fight against drugs and violent crime--let's save the Byrne-JAG
program.
With that plea, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Now we go to the great State of Florida,
Congresswoman Brown-Waite. It is always good to see you again.
STATEMENT OF HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
miss being on the Budget Committee, and welcome this
opportunity to be back, and appreciate your giving me this time
to speak to the committee today.
This hearing is a wonderful opportunity for Representatives
across our great country to express their views on the
President's budget proposal for the 2007 fiscal year. Mr.
Chairman, there is no doubt that the State of our Nation's
finance is grim. The budget deficit is undeniable and requires
immediate action. As Members of Congress, we all have an
obligation to ensure that the burden is not passed on to our
grandchildren.
The President's budget takes steps toward achieving fiscal
responsibility by keeping the growth of government programs to
a minimum. Most importantly, the budget takes into account the
dangers America faces every day, increasing funding for
programs vital to our national security, and providing support
to the men and women of our great Armed Forces.
That having been said, we have an obligation to keep our
promises to those who have defended our freedoms. As you may be
aware, my district is home to nearly 107,000 veterans. I have
more than any other Member of this House. I have the
extraordinary charge to advocate for policies and legislation
that best care for veterans' needs. Since 2001, before you and
I were here, Mr. Chairman, and certainly continued since then,
Republicans have increased the VA's budget authority by 47
percent. This year is no different. The 2007 proposal would
increase the budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs by
another $8.8 billion. At $80.6 billion in total budget
authority, this request represents a 12.2-percent increase over
the 2006 budget.
Among other things, the President's plan would increase
funding for VA medical programs by 11 percent and take into
account the growing importance of the mental health of our
veterans, particularly those returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan. Total funding for mental health services would
increase by $339 million, for a total of $3.2 billion. With
thousands of our young men and women returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan, some of whom are experiencing the effects of
posttraumatic stress disorder, it is imperative that Congress
provide the resources necessary to care for these individuals.
Despite the many positive effects of this proposal, it
should be noted that the budget is not perfect. I am troubled
by this year's budget proposal once again that it includes a
$250 annual enrollment fee and an increase in prescription drug
copays for Category 7 and 8 veterans. At the same time we are
asking veterans to pay more, the President's budget proposes
increasing foreign aid to organizations and governments that in
some instances oppose the very foundations of American ideals
of democracy and freedom.
As you remember, the President offered a similar proposal
last year only to meet stiff resistance in Congress. Category 8
veterans as classified by the Department of Veterans Affairs
are individuals who have served our Armed Forces and have
income and/or net worth above a means test threshold
established by the VA and HUD geographic indexes. Category 7
veterans are individuals whose incomes are above the VA means
test threshold, but below the HUD geographic index. Veterans in
these categories have already agreed to certain copayments for
health care.
Proponents of enrollment fees and higher copays actually
estimate that 200,000 veterans would be discouraged from using
the VA system, allowing the VA to focus on the neediest
veterans. I fundamentally disagree that Congress should be
discouraging veterans from using the VA system. We should be
encouraging them. Category 7 and 8 veterans fought just as hard
and just as nobly as their comrades did. This government should
not penalize them for their financial status once they finish
their service.
I believe that veterans, regardless of age, disability, or
income, deserve respect and help from the very same Nation that
they served so proudly. These fees would be a monetary barrier
and unnecessary burden to quality health care for so many
veterans. It is unfair to ask the hard-working men and women
who sacrificed so much defending our country to pay ever more
for their health care expenses. Enrollment fees make the VA
more expensive without even making it any better. TRICARE
recipients pay fees and are guaranteed access to care, but
veterans are once again being asked to pay enrollment fees with
no such promises of access to care.
We would be in denial if we didn't realize that health care
costs are placing an extraordinary burden on the Department of
Veterans Affairs health system. However, we won't solve this
problem by merely shifting the burden to Category 7 and 8
veterans who fought for our country. Congress does have an
obligation to ensure that these individuals have access to
quality health care as well. These brave men and women have
made substantial sacrifices to ensure that we can all enjoy our
freedom. These individuals answer the call in time of need. It
is only fitting that we take care of them in their time of
need.
As this committee addresses the budget resolution for the
2007 fiscal year, it is my sincere hope that you heed my advice
and not include any proposal to increase fees for veterans
health care.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to testify
before the committee today. And I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown-Waite follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify before the Committee today. This hearing is a
wonderful opportunity for Representatives from across the country to
express their views on the President's budget proposal for the 2007
fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the state of our nation's
finances is grim. The budget deficit is undeniable and requires
immediate attention. As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to
ensure that this burden is not passed along to our grandchildren. The
President's budget takes steps toward achieving fiscal responsibility
by keeping the growth of government programs to a minimum. Most
importantly, the budget correctly takes into account the dangers
America faces every day, increasing funding for programs vital to our
national security and providing support to the men and women of our
armed forces.
That having been said, we have an obligation to keep our promises
to those who have defended our freedom. As you may be aware, my
district is home to nearly 107,000 veterans, the most of any Member of
the House of Representatives. I have an extraordinary charge to
advocate for policies and legislation that best care for veterans'
needs.
Since 2001, Republicans have increased the VA's budget authority by
47%. This year is no different. The 2007 proposal would increase the
budget for the Department of Veterans' Affairs by another $8.8 billion.
At $80.6 billion in total budget authority, this request represents a
12.2-percent increase over the 2006 budget. Among other things, the
President's plan would increase funding for VA medical programs by 11
percent and take into account the growing importance of mental health.
Total funding for mental health services would increase by $339 million
to a total of $3.2 billion. With thousands of soldiers returning from
Iraq and Afghanistan, some of whom are experiencing the effects of
post-traumatic stress disorder, it is imperative that Congress provide
the resources needed to care for these individuals.
Despite the many positive aspects of this proposal, it should be
noted that this budget is not perfect. I am troubled that this year's
budget proposal once again includes a $250 annual enrollment fee and an
increase in prescription drug co-pays for category 7 and 8 veterans. At
the same time we are asking our veterans to pay more, the President's
budget proposes increasing foreign aid to organizations and governments
that oppose the very foundations of America's ideals of democracy and
freedom.
As you know, the President offered a similar proposal last year,
only to meet stiff resistance in Congress. Category 8 veterans, as
classified by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, are individuals who
have served in our armed forces and have income and/or net worth above
both a means test threshold established by the VA and the HUD
geographic index. Category 7 veterans are individuals whose incomes are
above the VA means test threshold but below the HUD geographic index.
Veterans in these categories have already agreed to certain co-
payments for health care. Proponents of enrollment fees and higher co-
pays estimate that 200,000 veterans would be discouraged from using the
VA health system, allowing the VA to focus on the neediest veterans.
I fundamentally disagree with the position that Congress should be
discouraging veterans from using the VA system. Category 7 and 8
veterans fought just as hard and just as nobly as their comrades did.
This government should not penalize them for their financial status
once they finish their service. These fees would be a monetary barrier
and unnecessary burden to quality healthcare for veterans.
It is unfair to ask the hard-working men and women who sacrificed
so much defending our country to pay ever more for their health care.
Enrollment fees make the VA care more expensive without making it
better. TRICARE recipients pay fees and are guaranteed access to care,
but veterans are being asked to pay enrollment fees with no such
promise. There is no doubt that rising health care costs are placing an
extraordinary burden on the Department of Veterans Affairs Health
System. However, we will not solve this problem by merely shifting the
burden onto category 7 and 8 veterans who fought for this country.
Congress has an obligation to ensure that these individuals have
access to quality health care as well. These brave men and women have
made substantial sacrifices to ensure that we can all enjoy our
freedom. These individuals answered the call in our time of need; it is
only fitting that we take care of them in theirs.
As the committee drafts the budget resolution for the 2007 fiscal
year, it is my sincere hope that you heed my advice and not include any
proposal to increase fees for veterans' health care. Again, thank you
for allowing me to testify before the committee today.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. If I may, Congresswoman, last year in this
committee you were the strongest vote, the strongest voice on
behalf of the many veterans that obviously that you represent.
And it should be no surprise to anybody that even though you
are no longer on this committee, here you are once again
advocating for those that you obviously have such passion for.
We thank you for your leadership there. Last year you were
instrumental; I am sure that we will see a lot of you on this
issue in this year as well. I imagine that is going to happen.
Correct?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I will
personally lobby the members of this committee, as other
Members. And I believe that Members on both sides of the aisle
do want to do what is right by our veterans, as certainly
evidenced by the increase historically in the veterans budget.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Appreciate that. Appreciate your
leadership.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Salazar, from the State of Colorado.
It is great to have you here.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and voice
my views on the Third Congressional District of rural America.
I ask for unanimous consent to enter my full statement into the
record.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Without objection.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, sir.
I know you have heard from many of my colleagues today
about where we should be heading as a Nation in our domestic
programs. Now, this is only my second year in Congress, but my
first year was a crash course on how this institution works.
What I did learn is that in time we often forget about the
people behind the numbers. We forget about the family farmers
struggling to raise crops during times of drought and record
high fuel prices. We forget about the lone doctor working to
provide care for sometimes an entire county. But this is the
world I live in back in the San Luis Valley of Colorado.
As a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, I believe in fiscal
discipline and responsible budgeting principles that include
PAYGO spending and balancing the budget. This is no fancy math
tricks, just plain, honest numbers. You may have to count on
your pennies, but you spend your money most where it matters
most to you and community.
Over the past week I spent time reviewing the
administration's proposed budget, and I am deeply concerned
about the program cuts that I saw. From cuts to the AG
commodity programs to downsizing the essential air service
programs to cutting funds for rural outreach grants, this
budget, Mr. Chairman, fails rural America, and I urge the
Budget Committee to consider this as you begin to draft a
budget blueprint to bring before this House.
My time here is short, so I will not throw out too many
numbers. Instead, my goal is to communicate one message: Rural
America is the backbone of this great Nation, and we should not
fail rural America.
I have always said that there are two things that can bring
this country down: our dependence on foreign oil, and our
dependence on other countries to produce our food. By cutting
vital programs such as crop and commodity programs, we place
our domestic food supply in jeopardy. By reducing crop
insurance premium subsidies, we again place our domestic food
supply in jeopardy. Without family farmers, it will get harder
to sustain efforts to build renewable energy projects. Without
folks like Ernie Ford out in Central Colorado who grow potatoes
and canola for canola oil for renewable energy such as
biodiesel, we will feel the hit on food prices.
Investing in rural America goes beyond supporting family
farmers and ranchers. Just like big cities, we need
infrastructure to keep trade and commerce flowing. Our
communities need airport services and road expansions to keep
pace. We need access to health care and good doctors. You
cannot achieve these when the very programs meant to encourage
growth are cut.
We in rural America are working hard to redefine our role
in the 21st century. We are looking at growth areas such as
biofuels and capitalizing on unique landscapes for ecotourism,
which brings valuable dollars and jobs to economically
depressed areas. I am excited about the possibilities. I ask
that this Budget Committee not fail rural America and instead
acknowledge help. Programs like this are an investment in our
Nation and in rural America.
Third, I would like to end today by expressing my dismay
that the President's budget funds his proposal to privatize
Social Security. Ever since I introduced the Social Security
Trust Fund Protection Act last year, I have called for both
Democrats and Republicans to come together, and I was glad to
hear the President say that he wanted to create a bipartisan
commission to lead this effort. So the budget this week was a
big surprise to me, $712 billion to privatize Social Security
and billions more in benefit cuts. I had really hoped that we
were ready to come together in good faith to find a solution.
In rural America, Social Security keeps tens of thousands
of seniors from falling into dire poverty. I hope that this
committee will steer clear of efforts to privatize and
dismantle Social Security. And as I sit before you today, I
know that each of us has our country's best interests at heart.
I would like to close by asking each one of you to make a
personal commitment to support and invest in a region that
often goes unrecognized for its cultural and economic
contributions to our Nation.
Once again, sir, I thank you for allowing me to testify
today, and I look forward to working with each one of you for
fiscal year 2007, and I would hope that we have a much happier
answer and a much happier outcome than what the proposed budget
is today. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Salazar.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John T. Salazar, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Colorado
Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on the upcoming Budget
Resolution for Fiscal Year 2007.
I know you have heard from many of our colleagues today about where
we should be heading as a nation with our domestic programs. I have
said time and again that our budget is a moral document, it is about
our priorities and values as a nation.
Now, this is only my second year in Congress and my first year was
a crash course on how this institution works. What I learned in that
time is we often forget about the people behind the numbers. We forget
about the family farmer struggling to raise crops during times of
drought and record-high gas prices. We forget about the lone doctor
working to provide care for sometimes an entire county. But this is the
world I live in back in the San Luis Valley of Colorado.
As a Blue Dog, I believe in fiscal discipline and responsible
budgeting principles that include pay-as-you-go spending and balancing
the budget. No fancy math tricks--just plain, honest numbers. I learned
this lesson while running the family farm. I know what it means to work
within a budget. You may have to count your pennies, but you spend your
money where it matters the most to you and your community.
Over the past week, I have spent time reviewing the
Administration's proposed budget and I am deeply concerned about the
program cuts that I saw. I cannot overemphasize how detrimental a
budget like this would be to rural America. From cuts to the
Agricultural Commodity programs to downsizing the Essential Air Service
program to cutting funds for rural outreach grants, this budget fails
rural America. And I urge the Budget Committee to consider this as you
begin to draft a budget blueprint to bring before this House.
My time here is short so I will not throw numbers at you. In my
time here today, my goal is to communicate one message--rural America
is the backbone of this great nation and we should not fail rural
America. We cannot pass the burden of debt onto the backs of our
farmers who work hard to put food on our family tables.
I have always said that there are only two things that can bring
this country down--our dependence on foreign oil and our dependence on
other countries to produce our food. By cutting vital programs such as
crop and commodity programs, we place our domestic food supply in
jeopardy. By reducing crop insurance premium subsidies, we again place
our domestic food supply in jeopardy.
Without family farmers, it will get harder to sustain efforts to
build renewable energy projects. Without folks like Ernie Ford who
grows potatoes and canola out in Center, Colorado, we will feel the hit
in prices at the grocery store and our own household budgets.
Investing in rural America goes beyond supporting family farmers
and ranchers. Just like the big cities, we need infrastructure to keep
trade and commerce flowing. Our communities need airport service and
road expansions to keep pace with the growing number of NAFTA trucks
that barrel up the trade corridors. We need access to healthcare and
good doctors, but you cannot achieve that when the very programs meant
to encourage growth are cut.
Rural America is working hard to redefine our role in 21st Century
America. We are looking at growth areas such as bio-fuels and
capitalizing on unique landscapes for ecotourism, which brings valuable
dollars and jobs to economically depressed areas. I am excited about
the possibilities. I ask that this Budget Committee not fail rural
America, and instead begin to see how programs like these are an
investment in our nation and in an area that does so much for our
country.
Finally, I would like to end today by expressing my dismay that the
President's budget funds his proposal to privatize Social Security.
Ever since I introduced the Social Security Trust Fund Protection Act
last year, I have called for Democrats and Republicans to come together
and I was glad to hear the President say he wanted to create a
bipartisan commission to lead the effort.
So the budget this week was a big surprise--$712 billion to
privatize Social Security and billions more in benefit cuts. I had
really hoped we were ready to come together in good faith to find a
solution, but a sneak in provision is by no means an honest start.
In rural America, Social Security keeps tens of thousands of people
from falling into extreme poverty. Around the time we began this debate
last year, I was approached by Amelia Valdez from Pueblo, CO, a woman
about my own mother's age. She gave me a photograph of Franklin D.
Roosevelt signing the Social Security Act into law and said with tears
in her eyes: ``Hang it in your office as a reminder--please, do not let
them dismantle my only source of income.''
I hope this Committee will think of women like Amelia Valdez and
steer clear of efforts to privatize and dismantle Social Security.
As I sit before you today, I know each of us has our country's best
interests at heart. There are many worthwhile and competing interests
to consider as we move forward with the FY07 Budget Resolution. I would
like to close by asking each of you to make a personal commitment to
support and invest in a region that often goes unrecognized for its
cultural and economic contributions to our nation.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Spratt: Once again, thank you for
allowing me to testify today. I look forward to working with each of
you this year to develop a budget that truly reflects America. I would
be more than happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Appreciate you coming down here and
testifying on issues that are important to you. It is important
that the Budget Committee have an opportunity to hear you, so
we thank you for your time.
Mr. Salazar. We thank you for allowing me, sir.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, sir.
We are waiting for one Member of Congress that we think is
on his way here, so what we will do is take a short break at
the call of the Chair until the time that Member shows up.
[Recess.]
Mr. Diaz-Balart. We are called back to order. Mr.
Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania is here to testify before the
Budget Committee now.
And it is a pleasure to have you here, sir. The floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to express my hopes and my reservations with
respect to the President's Federal budget request for fiscal
year 2007.
After taking a week to carefully review the President's
budget request, I discovered some encouraging proposals to
assist the Nation on the road toward ensuring our independence
on foreign oil, expanding math and science education, and
supplying our troops with the equipment they need to fight and
to win the war on terror. While there are many encouraging
proposals incorporated within the President's budget, there are
some spending decisions that do concern me, especially one that
directly affects my constituents. That program is the USDA
National Resource Conservation Service Flood Mitigation
Program. And I want to focus on the President's decision to
zero out his funding today.
I agree that the government must be fiscally responsible
with taxpayers' money. Federal spending over the course of the
past 5 years has risen faster than at any time during the past
four decades. In addition, the Nation faces a costly war in
Iraq, Hurricane Katrina clean-up costs, and rising entitlement
spending. The largest entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security, are projected to cost $1.132 trillion this
year and account for about 42 percent of the entire Federal
budget, as Congressional Budget Office figures show. By
comparison, defense is 15.8 percent of the 2007 budget. As a
result, budget deficits remain high and are expected to soar
when the baby boom generation begins to retire over the next
few years.
We need to slow the growth of Federal spending in order to
regain control over the spiraling costs of our mandatory
programs. The recent passage of the Deficit Reduction Act will
place the government on the path to fiscal responsibility and
slowed growth. The economy is primed for this, as yesterday's
announcement of the government posting its first surplus in 3
years demonstrates. Tax receipts surpassed spending by $10.98
billion in December, the result of congressional action to cut
taxes and spur investment in our economy. Our policies are
working, and Congress must now focus on cutting spending.
However, such reforms should not be made on the backs of
America's most needy citizens. The President's call to curb
Medicare spending, to reduce funding for national critical
health research assets such as the National Heart, Lung and
Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute, a $100
million reduction in the Department of Homeland Security's
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, and the inclusion of
an increase in the copay and enrollment fee for veterans
seeking care from the VA are all issues that concern me greatly
and must be addressed through congressional action.
As a Member of Congress representing eastern Pennsylvania
and the greater Philadelphia region, I am concerned that Amtrak
is severely underfunded in the President's request. Thousands
of commuters rely on Amtrak's Northeast corridor rail service
each day to commute to their jobs up and down the east coast
from Boston to Washington, D.C. Although Amtrak has been the
target of criticism for its management system and business
structure, its operation is integral to the health of our
economy. Additionally, as more Americans take the train each
day, they leave their cars behind, which means there are fewer
cars on the road contributing to pollution as well as gasoline
demand.
I support the full funding of Amtrak rail service. The
President's proposed $900 million for Amtrak falls woefully
short of the estimated $1.5 billion necessary to prevent cuts
in service and will not allow for future investment in
America's rail system.
However, one specific program that has a direct impact on
my constituents in the Eighth District concerns me the most,
the elimination of funding for the NRCS and flood mitigation
programs. I have written to Chairman Nussle on this subject;
however, I wanted to come here to speak to you personally and
have my concerns placed in the record.
We must continue to protect Americans from the threat posed
by natural disasters--Katrina and Rita demonstrate this need
clearly. Flooding continues to destroy homes, businesses, and
communities throughout America. I am concerned that the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget eliminates all funding for
the NRCS Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention programs.
The budget proposes zero for watershed planning, zero for
watershed operations, and $15.3 million for rehabilitation of
aging watershed dams, in spite of the fact that these watershed
programs have improved the safety of lands previously
considered to be in a constant threat of flood damage.
Even before Katrina, flood damage in the United States was
estimated to cost $2 billion each year. Hurricane Katrina has
taught us that an adequate infrastructure is vital to protect
and maintain our communities' homes, businesses, and roads from
flooding. Zeroing out funding for watershed planning and
watershed operations will have a severe effect on flood
mitigation projects like elevating and flood-proofing
properties and implementing resource management systems across
the United States.
In my district alone, severe flooding has caused millions
of dollars in damages to homes along the Nishamany Creek. A
combination of State and Federal funding has allowed many of
these houses to be raised or elevated to prevent future damage.
Those projects and nearly 2,000 other projects like it across
the Nation would be restricted, if not terminated, if the
President's request is to go forward. Therefore, I strongly
support continued funding for the USDA and RCS watershed
programs. This funding is essential to the preservation of
storm-ravaged areas of our Nation, and I encourage my
colleagues' support of this necessary program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making the time for me to
testify today.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, sir. And I appreciate you
taking your time coming out here. We know how important these
issues are to you, so we really appreciate that.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael G. Fitzpatrick, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Pennsylvania
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to express my hopes and
reservations on the President's Federal budget request for fiscal year
2007. After taking a week to carefully review the President's budget
request, I have discovered some encouraging proposals that will assist
the nation on the road toward assuring our independence from foreign
oil, expanding math and science education and supplying our troops with
the equipment they need to fight the War on Terror. While there are
many encouraging proposals incorporated within the President's Budget
there are some spending decisions that concern me; especially one that
directly affects my constituents. That program is the USDA-NRCS Flood
Mitigation Program and I want to focus on the President's decision to
zero out its funding today.
I agree that the government must be fiscally responsible with
taxpayer's money. Federal spending, over the course of the past 5
years, has risen faster than at any time in the past four decades. In
addition, the nation faces a costly war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina
clean-up costs, and rising entitlement spending. The largest
entitlement programs; Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, are
projected to cost $1.132 trillion this year and account for about 42
percent of the entire Federal budget, as Congressional Budget Office
figures show. By comparison, Defense is 15.8 percent of the 2007
budget. As a result, budget deficits remain high and are expected to
soar when the baby boom generation begins retiring in the next few
years. We need to slow the growth of Federal spending in order to
regain control over the spiraling costs of our mandatory programs.
The recent passage of the Deficit Reduction Act will place the
government on the path of fiscal responsibility and slowed growth. The
economy is primed for this, as yesterday's announcement of the
government posting its first surplus in 3 years demonstrates. Tax
receipts surpassed spending by $10.98 billion in December--the result
of congressional action to cut taxes and spur investment in our
economy. Our policies are working, and Congress must now focus on
cutting spending. However, such reform should not be made on the backs
of America's most needy citizens.
The President's call to curb Medicare spending; to reduce funding
for critical national health research assets such as the National
Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute; a
$100 million reduction in the Department of Homeland Security's
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program; and the inclusion of an
increase in the copay and enrollment fee for veterans seeking care from
the VA are all issues that concern me greatly and must be addressed
through congressional action.
As a Member of Congress representing Eastern Pennsylvania and the
greater Philadelphia region, I am concerned that Amtrak is severely
under-funded in the President's request. Thousands of commuters rely on
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor rail service each day to commute to their
jobs, up and down the East Coast from Boston to Washington, DC.
Although Amtrak has been the target of criticism for its management
system and business structure, its operation is integral to the health
of our economy. Additionally, as more Americans take the train each
day, they leave their cars behind which means there are fewer cars on
the road contributing to pollution as well as gasoline demand. I
support the full funding of Amtrak rail service. The President's
proposed $900 million for Amtrak falls woefully short of the estimated
$1.5 billion necessary to prevent cuts in service and will not allow
for future investment in America's rail system.
However, one specific program that has a direct impact on my
constituents in the 8th District of Pennsylvania concerns me the most--
the elimination of funding for USDA-NRCS flood mitigation programs. I
have written to Chairman Nussle on this subject, however, I wanted to
come here and speak to you personally and have my concerns placed into
the record.
We must continue to protect Americans from the threat posed by
natural disasters. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrate this need
clearly. Flooding continues to destroy homes, businesses and
communities throughout America. I am concerned that the President's
FY07 Budget eliminates all funding for USDA-NRCS watershed protection
and flood prevention programs. The budget proposes $0 for Watershed
Planning, $0 for Watershed Operations and $15.3 million for
Rehabilitation of aging watershed dams in spite of the fact that these
watershed programs have improved the safety of lands previously
considered to be in a constant threat of flood damage. Even before
Hurricane Katrina, flood damage in the United States was estimated to
cost $2 billion annually.
Hurricane Katrina has taught us that adequate infrastructure is
vital to protect and maintain our communities' homes, businesses and
roads from flooding. Zeroing out funding for watershed planning and
watershed operations would have a severe effect on flood mitigation
projects like elevating and flood proofing properties and implementing
resource management systems across the United States. In my district
alone, severe flooding has caused millions of dollars in damage to
houses along the Neshaminy Creek. A combination of state and Federal
funding has allowed many of these houses to be razed or elevated to
prevent future damage. Those projects; and nearly 2,000 other projects
like it across the nation would be restricted, if not terminated, if
the President's request is to go forward.
Therefore, I strongly support continued funding of the USDA-NRCS
Watershed Programs. This funding is essential to the preservation of
storm ravaged areas of our nation and I encourage my colleague's
support of this necessary program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
time to speak to you today. With that, I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. We are waiting for one more Member, and we
will take a short pause until he shows up, and then we will
reconvene the meeting.
[Recess.]
Mr. Diaz-Balart. We will reconvene the Budget Committee
once again. And we are privileged to have Mr. Bass.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Bass. Thank you very much. And they have made things a
lot fancier here since I was on this committee. I was honored
to serve here for 8 years, and I am here today to submit
written testimony, and I will make my testimony very, very
brief. I have three issues I would like to bring up.
First, I am hopeful that the Budget Committee can pay the
kind of attention that is necessary to adequately fund
individuals with disabilities education, otherwise known as
special education. When I was on the committee, we were able to
get in essence approximately $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year
increase in these programs, in this program in particular. It
is certainly the most important, in my opinion, education
funding initiative, because it does represent an unfilled
obligation that the Federal Government needs to make to
adequately fund its fair share of that program.
Secondly, I would like to address the issue of the
President's Advanced Energy Initiative. I hope the Budget
Committee can focus on a great opportunity that exists that the
President began with the State of the Union Address to assure
that we develop alternative energy resources for this country.
We are indeed addicted to oil, and we need to have a Congress
that recognizes that and moves in that direction.
And, thirdly, and not inconsistent with my prior discussion
about alternative energy, is the need not to use drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as a revenue
enhancer for reconciliation. We have been through this debate
already this year. I am hopeful that we can leave NWAR out of
the budget documents so that we at least begin the process of
not having that long debate which was so difficult in this last
fiscal year.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks and
thank you very much.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, thank you very much. And without
objection, your full remarks will be placed in the record.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bass follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles F. Bass, a Representative in
Congress From the State of New Hampshire
I would look like to thank Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member
Spratt for providing members the opportunity to testify before the
Committee today. As a former member of this committee, I am well aware
of the challenges that you face when trying to craft a budget that
meets our needs at home and abroad in a responsible manner. In this
fiscal climate we must prioritize and ensure that the programs that
have the biggest impact on our local communities and nation are
adequately funded. It is for this reason that I would like to focus on
the importance of increased special education funding and a commitment
to a comprehensive renewable energy policy.
IDEA FUNDING
Since 1975 when Congress first passed the Individual with
Disabilities Education Act, we outlined the steps communities must take
to ensure that all students, regardless of any disability, receive a
free and appropriate education. As a result of this Federal mandate, we
also promised to provide 40 percent of the national average per pupil
expenditure (APPE) for special-needs students. It has been over 30
years and we have yet to fulfill this promise.
I believe that it is safe to say that every Member of Congress has
heard from at least one community in their district regarding the
strain that rising special education costs has placed on their local
budgets. In fact, I am positive that 105 of our colleagues have heard
because they joined me in signing this letter that I will present to
you asking that we fund special education at the level we agreed to in
the 2004 IDEA reauthorization law. It was in this law that 397 members
recognized the significance of fully funding IDEA by supporting a glide
path that will allow us to reach full funding by 2011. As Majority
Leader Boehner stated on November 19, 2004--``Our bill also puts the
Federal Government on a 6-year glide path to reaching our original goal
of funding up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students
with special needs. And as we get closer to that goal, we are also
going to give local communities more control over how they spend their
own local dollars.''
Since I arrived in Congress, IDEA spending has increased from $2.3
billion in FY 1995 to $10.7 billion in FY 2006. While this overall
increase in funding is certainly impressive and one that we should be
proud of, the reality is the Federal share in special education costs
is actually dropping. In FY 2004, we reached an all time high of
18.6%--almost half of what we promised but an improvement--the
President's budget request would bring the Federal share to 17%. We
cannot afford to go backwards.
Giving our communities more control over how they spend their own
local dollars should be our goal when debating education funding.
Providing IDEA with the Federal funds that we promised does exactly
that. Every extra dollar that the Federal Government provides to
special education is an extra dollar that is freed up on the local
level. The local school boards do not have an option when it comes to
funding what is necessary for its learning disabled population but if
the Federal Government provides the share it promised, local funds
could be used for other equally important educational measures of their
own choosing. Increasing special education funding is my number one
education priority and I will not be asking for an increase in any
other line item under the Department of Education. Mr. Chairman, I
would request that you would assist me by establishing a clear path for
appropriators to follow in this budget with regards to IDEA funding.
I recognize that we are facing fiscal restraints and agree that we
need to reign in spending to control rising deficits but I believe that
school boards should not have to cut education budgets, taxpayers
shouldn't have to pay higher property taxes, and families with special
needs students should never feel isolated or be criticized because the
Federal Government is not paying its fair share of the cost of special
education.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
In his State of the Union just 2 weeks ago, the President declared
``America is addicted to oil.'' He continued, ``By applying the talent
and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our
environment, (and) move beyond a petroleum-based economy. We'll also
fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol,
not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass.
Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive
within 6 years.''
Mr. Chairman, the President is right. If we accomplish the goals of
the Advanced Energy Initiative, we will not only free ourselves from
the entanglement of foreign energy, we will also clean the air, water
and land we all enjoy, and we will develop new technologies and
industries that provide jobs and a higher quality of life for all
Americans. This must be among our highest national priorities.
I ask you to not only meet the President's goals, but to exceed
them. The U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Fuels Initiative funds
research, development, and technology validation on advanced
technologies that will enable future biorefineries to sustainably
convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemicals, heat and power. The
President has requested $120 million, up from $91 million in FY06 for
this task. I challenge this committee to support an even higher level
and to anticipate higher levels in the future until we are able to
power the automobiles we drive with the crops, forestry, and other
biomass we produce.
I also urge the Committee to recommend at least $1.42 billion for
basic energy science, which supports a substantial basic research
budget for materials sciences, chemical sciences, energy biosciences,
engineering, and geosciences.
As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I intend to
work toward greater support and parity for these clean and renewable
energy sources. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was the best effort yet
to pass Congress, but I know we can still do better.
ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Finally, I want to comment on the issue of including any
instructions for ANWR in the budget. We are all aware of last year's
effort and outcome and I don't see any reason why this year would be
different.
Using the budget process to open ANWR is a gimmick and must be
resisted. An instruction to create a stand-alone reconciliation bill on
ANWR would place the separate legislation containing the rest of the
reforms and savings, regardless of how valuable, in jeopardy. As a
conference and Congress, we must ask ourselves where our priorities
lie.
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC,
February 14, 2006.
Hon. Jim Nussle, Chairman,
Hon. John Spratt, Ranking Member,
House Budget Committee, Cannon Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt: In 1975, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted into law
to ensure that students with disabilities received the quality
education that they both need and deserve. With this legislation came a
promise to federally fund 40 percent of special education costs, a
promise that still has yet to be honored. For nearly 30 years, this
lack of adequate federal funding has unfairly burdened local school
districts and taxpayers struggling to meet the educational needs of all
students, including a growing number of students with disabilities.
In 2004, the House of Representatives approved and the President
enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act,
establishing a concrete timetable of incremental funding increases in
order to obtain the full 40 percent of promised Federal funding for
special education by Fiscal Year 2011. This commitment was agreed to by
an overwhelming majority of both the House and the Senate, and yet we
were still unable to meet the goal we set for the first year of that
timetable.
As you prepare your Fiscal Year 2007 House Budget Resolution,
please honor our commitment and include the $16.94 billion authorized
in this law for the Part B State Grants, thereby putting the Federal
Government back on track to fully funding our share of IDEA costs.
While we recognize the challenges and tough decisions that you face in
the current fiscal climate, we believe that increasing IDEA funding
enables our local communities to devote the scarce resources that are
currently being spent to meet the unfunded Federal requirements of the
IDEA law to other areas of significant need. Even during this time of
restrained spending, we must help ease the burden that this current
unfunded mandate places on state and local budgets.
We look forward to working with you on this critical matter, and
are hopeful that our efforts will afford our schools greater financial
freedom and the local control necessary to best serve their students
and communities.
Sincerely,
Charles F. Bass, Rob Simmons, Mike Ferguson, Ed Case,
William Lacy Brian Higgins, Mike Doyle, Bob Etheridge,
Clay,
Rush Holt, Michael McNulty, Tammy Baldwin, Doris O. Matsui,
Rick Boucher, Elliot L. Engel, Jay lnslee, Patrick F.
Kennedy,
Jim Marshall, Major R. Owens, Sanford Bishop, Darlene Hooley,
Sherrod Brown, John M. McHugh, Sandy Levin, Chris Smith,
Earl Pomeroy, Jim Saxton, James McGovern, Tom Udall,
Zoe Lofgren, Todd R. Platts, Lynn Woolsey, Lane Evans,
Dennis Moore, Carolyn McCarthy, Lincoln Davis, Stephanie Tubbs
Jones,
Sam Farr, Albert Wynn, Raul M. Carolyn B.
Grijalva, Maloney,
Mark Udall, Eleanor H. Silvestre Reyes, Jerrold Nadler,
Norton,
Bob Filner, Sue Kelly, Juanita Bart Gordon,
Millender-
McDonald,
Betty McCollum, Jim Matheson, Loretta Sanchez, Judy Biggert,
Ben Chandler, Danny K. Davis, Diana DeGette, C.A. Dutch
Ruppersberger,
Emmanuel Cleaver, Grace F. Michael Honda, Barbara Lee,
Napolitano,
Chris Shays, Greg Walden, Jim Ramstad, Rick Larsen,
Joe Schwarz, Tom Lantos, Frank Pallone, Tim Ryan,
Madeleine Shelley Berkley, Michael Michaud, Ted Strickland,
Bordallo,
Ed Whitfield, Jim Davis, Elijah E. Jim Leach,
Cummings,
Ruben Hinojosa, Frank A. John F. Tierney, Collin C.
LoBiondo, Peterson,
Adam Smith, Debbie Wasserman David Price, Nick Rahall,
Schultz,
Xavier Becerra, Linda Sanchez, Anthony Weiner, Timothy Johnson,
Robert Scott, Steve Israel, Peter King, Tom Osborne,
Dennis J. John Conyers, Gwen Moore, Ben Cardin,
Kucinich,
Donald M. Payne, Rosa L. DeLauro, Jim McDermott, Vic Snyder,
Shelley Moore John Dingell, Leonard Boswell, Nancy Johnson,
Capito,
William Delahunt, Maurice Hinchey, John T. Salazar,
Members of Congress.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Also, I would just remind that all Members
have until Friday to submit their statements for the record,
without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Price follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Price, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Georgia
Our economy is thriving as more and more Americans are finding
jobs. Over the last two-and-a-half years, we have added over 2.5
million jobs and the country's unemployment rate is 4.7 percent--the
lowest level since July 2001. Our revenue growth is strong and is
expected to be so for years to come. We have had many successes--over
the past 5 years we increased funding for veterans, education, and many
other programs.
Yet, in light of all these successes our spending continues to
exceed our revenues and the rate of inflation. As a result, even though
we have made major strides to bring the economy back on track, deficits
persist. Mandatory spending for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security continue to grow at rates that endanger their
viability.
It is becoming increasingly clear that we do not have a revenue
problem, we have a spending problem. We must slow the rate of spending
growth if we are to get our economic house in order. As we examine ways
to exercise fiscal responsibility I ask you to be open to ideas that
aim to rein in spending.
The recently passed Deficit Reduction Act is a step in the right
direction. It allowed Congress to re-examine our spending priorities.
It also has let our committees here in the House of Representatives to
further eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in programs that has been
long overdue.
If we are to reduce our deficits we must have sound fiscal
discipline. I ask the committee to slow the rate of growth for
automatic programs in a fair and responsible manner.
One of the items of legislation that I have introduced is an
earmark resolution to bring greater transparency to the appropriations
process. Each earmark would have the name of the Member of Congress
next to their appropriations request. Adding sunlight to this process
will ensure that the hard-earned money of the American taxpayers is
spent in the most appropriate manner.
Sound fiscal discipline is the key to accelerating economic growth
and reducing deficits. We must continue deficit reduction measures to
reduce spending and allow economic growth to flourish.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Evans follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lane Evans, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Illinois
Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member Spratt, thank you for hearing my
views regarding the proposed FY 2007 budget for the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). As Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, I am currently working with my colleagues in
developing our views and estimates, which we will submit to your
Committee next week. I, and my fellow Democratic members, will agree
with the Majority in areas where we can, but we will be charting an
independent course in making our recommendations as to the resource
levels required by the programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
I am pleased that the Administration asked for an increase in
appropriated dollars this year for veterans' medical care. This stands
in sharp contrast to last year when the Administration requested an
increase in appropriated dollars of less than 1 percent. At first
glance the requested increase looks like a step in the right direction,
however, compared to veterans' needs and demand for services, it
clearly does not deliver the necessary resources to provide veterans
with the health care and benefits they have earned. Although the
proposed increase was a welcome surprise, I do not believe we should
applaud too loudly when the job is not done.
Last Congress I testified before this Committee, stating:
I have been concerned that the Administration's budget submission
falls far short of what is necessary to address serious problems within
the system. I am also concerned about the practice the Administration
continues to employ of proposing unpalatable legislative initiatives in
the budget as if Congress had already authorized them. This puts
Congress at a distinct disadvantage from the start. Instead of leaving
Congress with the ability to fund its own priorities, we are forced to
compensate the VA for legislation we have never authorized.
Once again this year, the Administration has included legislative
proposals that would levy a health care enrollment fee and sharply
increase pharmaceutical co-payments. Once again, we will need to
provide the funding to cover these legislative proposals, proposals
rejected by Congress time and time again. This will provide an
additional $800 million in appropriated dollars for VA health care.
The Administration uses its legislative proposals to diminish its
appropriation request, then turns around and uses a portion of the
proposed cost savings again to increase its collections estimate.
Therefore, we will need to provide an additional $544 million. In
addition, the Administration's estimated collections amount of $2.3
billion may not be realized, and may not represent the actual net
amount being realized by the VA. Additional dollars will be needed to
fill this gap.
The Administration includes a total of $1.1 billion in ``management
efficiencies'' in this year's budget. To quote its budget submission,
``VA is estimating cumulative efficiencies of $1.1 billion in 2007
which results in additional efficiencies of $197 million over the 2006
level of $884 million.'' On February 1, 2006, the Government
Accountability Office issued a report, ``Veterans Affairs: Limited
Support for Reported Health Care Management Efficiency Savings'' (GAO-
06-359R), that concluded the ``VA lacked a methodology for making the
health care management efficiency savings assumptions reflected in the
President's budget requests for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 and,
therefore, was unable to provide [GAO] with any support for those
estimates.'' So there is no actual proof this $884 million exists, but
it is in the budget this year, and is used to offset increased
appropriations. Additional resources will be needed to account for
these phantom ``savings.''
The Administration, again this year, estimates a decline in the
number of unique patients, from the current estimate of 5.4 million to
5.3 million. Last July, the Administration conceded that it had
underestimated the number of patients and requested an additional $677
million in supplemental funding. I hope we are not going to have to
seek an additional $700 million because of this lower estimate. The
Administration relies on a change in ``unobligated balances,'' totaling
$442 million to offset its appropriation request. This was a strategy
employed in last year's budget, a strategy that proved to be
shortsighted and unrealistic. Additional resources will need to be
provided to ensure that the VA is not faced with budgetary shortfalls
triggered by bad estimates and unrealistic assumptions again in FY
2007.
The Administration proposes continuing its ban on enrollment by new
Priority 8 veterans, a ban instituted in January 2003. I know I speak
for many of my colleagues when I voice my strong opposition to this
ban. We will be recommending additional resources to bring these
forgotten veterans, many of them lower-income and combat-decorated,
back into the system.
I am also concerned that not enough has been provided to meet the
needs of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the VA
estimates that it will see fewer OIF/OEF veterans in FY 2007. We need
to do more. We also need to do more in the areas of mental health and
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and prosthetics. We need to
restore the Administration's proposed cut in VA medical and prosthetic
research, and provide additional resources to cover inflation.
Finally, I will be looking closely at the ability of the VA to
handle benefits claims quickly and accurately. I will also be looking
to make improvements in the Montgomery GI Bill, and in providing job
training and employment opportunities to veterans.
Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Spratt, providing for veterans is a
continuing cost of war, and a continuing cost of our national defense.
We simply have no excuse for not meeting their needs. It is sometimes
easy to forget that budgets and numbers ultimately come down to real
people. We must not forget them. I hope that you will carefully
consider the views and estimates that I and my Democratic colleagues
will be submitting to this committee next week. Working together, we
can make sure that our veterans are not forgotten, and that we meet our
obligations to them as a nation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Nevada
It should come to no surprise to anyone here today that I am in
strong opposition to Yucca Mountain, because it is an unsafe and
unsuitable solution to our nuclear waste problem. I also represent Nye
County, where unfortunately the Yucca Mountain project is located.
The Yucca Mountain project was based on 1980's science and has no
place in our country today. We need to focus on 21st Century solutions,
like reprocessing and transmutation, which will help to reduce our
nuclear waste. Going forward with Yucca Mountain is like still using
cassette tapes or even 8-tracks, in the era of mp3 players and ipods.
As Members of Congress, we have the constitutional obligation to
objectively oversee the Federal Government. This includes objective
analysis regarding the feasibility of the Yucca Mountain Project as a
deep geologic repository.
Unfortunately, it is extremely disturbing to see that since the
birth of this project, the Department of Energy (DOE) has consistently
failed to use science as their guide and has instead been blinded by
it's obsession to do anything to rubber stamp this project so it can be
finished. Allegations have been made that workers at the project have
falsified their data to make the project work, and these allegations
are now being investigated by my colleague Jon Porter on the Government
Reform Committee. Such utter disregard for scientific integrity should
be completely unacceptable to Members of Congress. And it is completely
unacceptable to the people in Nevada and throughout this country who
will have to live with the reality of the deadliest substance known to
man being shipped past our schools, hospitals, and communities to a
hole in the Nevada desert where it will endanger our water supply,
environment, and public health.
Most recently, it was reported that only after 9 years, the Yucca
mountain project is in need of repairs. To quote DOE spokesman Allen
Benson from the Las Vegas Sun ``Everything in there is old * * * this
is a safety issue.'' This is a project that is expected to safely hold
highly dangerous material for hundreds of thousands of years, and after
only 9 years in its existence and already is requiring additional
upgrades and repairs. Again, this is unacceptable to the people of
Nevada and should be unacceptable to every tax-payer in this country.
If the DOE scandal over falsification of science and the need for
repairs were not enough, even the National Research Council of the
National Academies has found that there are serious challenges that
still need to be addressed before moving forward and that these
challenges should not be underestimated. Their list included the need
to more closely analyze the security risks for any plan to move nuclear
waste on a large scale.
As Members of Congress, we must fulfill our constitutional
obligations and hold DOE accountable to these challenges and failures.
While the Yucca Mountain Project might reside in Nevada, the dangers of
transporting this waste will impact every community and every
constituent across this country. It is my hope that when you examine
the feasibility of this project, you reject the proposed $544 million
for the failed Yucca Mountain Project in the President's FY 2007
Budget. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on a project that
is unsafe and unnecessary. It is the 21st century, we have better and
safer solutions to reduce the amount of nuclear waste, and it time to
invest in them.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, with that, I believe this committee
now will adjourn.
[Whereupon, at 6:03 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]