<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:33750.wais]
MEMBERS' DAY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 14, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/budget/index.html
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-750 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina, Chairman
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin,
CHET EDWARDS, Texas Ranking Minority Member
LOIS CAPPS, California J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JO BONNER, Alabama
THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey
ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
XAVIER BECERRA, California JEB HENSARLING, Texas
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
MARION BERRY, Arkansas PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ALLEN BOYD, Florida CONNIE MACK, Florida
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio JOHN CAMPBELL, California
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia JON C. PORTER, Nevada
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
Professional Staff
Thomas S. Kahn, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
James T. Bates, Minority Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC, February 14, 2007................ 1
Statement of:
Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Minnesota..................................... 1
Hon. Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 5
Hon. Dennis Cardoza, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 11
Hon. Norman Dicks, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 15
Hon. Julia Carson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana........................................... 22
Hon. Vernon Ehlers, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 25
Hon. Rush Holt, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 28
Hon. Nancy Boyda, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Kansas.................................................. 34
Hon. Vern Buchanan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 38
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Washington.............................................. 41
Hon. Frank Wolf, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia................................................ 46
Hon. Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate in Congress from the
U.S. Virgin Islands........................................ 52
Hon. Brian Higgins, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 59
Hon. Robin Hayes, a Representative in Congress from the State
of North Carolina.......................................... 61
Hon. Michael Turner, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 68
Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 72
Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 76
Hon. Bob Filner, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 78
Hon. Jim Oberstar, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 84
Hon. Mike Honda, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 89
Hon. Timothy Walz, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 95
Hon. Brad Ellsworth, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana........................................... 98
Hon. John Boozman, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 103
Hon. Diane Watson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 107
Hon. Rob Bishop, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 110
Prepared statement of, additional materials submitted:
Mr. Peterson................................................. 4
Mr. Goodlatte................................................ 7
Mr. Cardoza.................................................. 13
Mr. Dicks.................................................... 18
Ms. Carson................................................... 23
Mr. Ehlers................................................... 26
Mr. Holt..................................................... 30
Mrs. Boyda................................................... 36
Mr. Larsen................................................... 43
Mr. Wolf..................................................... 48
Dr. Christensen.............................................. 55
Mr. Higgins.................................................. 60
Mr. Hayes.................................................... 64
Mr. Altmire.................................................. 74
Mr. Filner................................................... 80
Mr. Oberstar................................................. 87
Mr. Honda.................................................... 92
Hon. Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina.................................... 94
Mr. Walz..................................................... 96
Mr. Ellsworth................................................ 101
Mr. Boozman.................................................. 105
Ms. Watson:
Prepared statement....................................... 108
Los Angeles Times article................................ 108
Mr. Bishop of Utah........................................... 112
Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of Guam.......................................... 115
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 117
Hon. Vito Fossella, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 119
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas......................................... 120
Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio.......................................... 121
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 122
Hon. Randy Neugebauer, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 124
Hon. Peter J. Roskam, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois.......................................... 124
Hon. John P. Sarbanes, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.......................................... 127
Hon. Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 128
Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan................................................ 131
MEMBERS' DAY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Spratt, Ryan, Kaptur, Porter,
Becerra, Smith, Doggett, Alexander, Blumenauer, Berry, Sutton,
Etheridge, Hooley, Baird, Moore, and Bishop.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte, we started
to hit the ground running but I think we had better get
underway in light of the fact that the Republicans have a
conference at 2:15 is it? So, without any further to do,
Chairman Peterson, the floor is yours and we extend the same
privileges to Mr. Goodlatte. We look forward to statements from
both of you. We have allotted ten minutes for each person, for
each set of witnesses. So, if you could keep it down to a
little less than ten minutes so there will be time for
questions we would appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. All right. Thank you very much,
Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan and other members.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the federal
budget and its provisions that fall under the Agriculture
Committee's jurisdiction. I am pleased to be here today with my
good friend, Ranking Member Goodlatte. We work well together on
a bipartisan way on the Ag Committee, and we are committed to
continuing that tradition as the we write the new Farm Bill.
As you know, the 2002 Farm Bill is set to expire September
30, and last year Mr. Goodlatte led the Committee across the
country for a series of field hearings to find out what farmers
and ranchers thought about how the current Farm Bill is working
and what changes they would like to see made in the next Farm
Bill. What we heard in most of those field hearings is that in
general, the 2002 Farm Bill is working well for producers and
that the basic structure should be maintained.
The feedback on the 2002 Farm Bill was especially positive
when you compare it to the reaction from farm country to the
1996 Farm Bill, which in my opinion was a bad deal for
producers and taxpayers alike. The '96 Farm Bill dismantled the
safety net in favor of a free market approach to farming. It
was written during a time of high commodity prices under the
assumption that those prices would remain high well into the
future, actually a similar situation to what we have today. And
the prices did not stay high and Congress had to intervene,
spending more than $23 billion in additional payments to farms
over the life of the '96 Bill.
Now the administration is proposing a Farm Bill that we
just had a little over three-house hearing on the Committee
just now where they are once again proposing to weaken the
safety net for farmers on the assumption that these prices will
stay high. In my opinion we have made that assumption before
and did not get real great results, and it cost the taxpayers
money. And I want to really avoid that experience again.
In contrast, the 2002 Bill, which restored the safety net
for farmers, has proven to be one of the most fiscally
responsible government programs that we have had. By making
payments to farms when prices are low and returning savings
when prices are high, the 2002 Farm Bill represented a major
policy improvement.
In one way, we have become victims of our own success with
the 2002 Bill. When former Ag Chairman Combest wrote the Bill,
along with his colleagues and Mr. Goodlatte and I, his baseline
for the Safety Net Program was $140 billion over ten years. The
most recent baseline has shrunk to about $80 billion. And while
the baseline has increased for some other Farm Bill programs,
these increases have come in areas such as food stamps which
now account for 67 percent of our budget. And they need to be
maintained. But the bottom line is that additional resources
are going to be needed to produce a policy that facilitates a
strong farm sector and helps our nation move towards energy
independence in a fiscally responsible way.
Mr. Chairman, one of the ideas in the administration's Farm
Bill Proposal that I support is their conclusion that
additional budgetary resources are needed for the Farm Bill.
For example, USDA's proposal recommends increased funding for
the Renewable Fuels Program. One of the biggest developments
that agriculture in rural America has seen in a generation, and
maybe in a lifetime, has been the growing demand and expanding
market for agriculturally based energy sources, including
ethanol and biodiesel. The excitement about this exists far
beyond just our rural communities. As our colleagues from
across the country in urban and suburban districts I think are
as excited about the potential for ethanol and these other
renewable fuels as we are to reduce our nation's dependence on
foreign energy sources.
We need a strong energy title in the Farm Bill. However, we
currently have no baseline money to accomplish that. I believe
that this is a necessary investment that we must make,
especially to jump start the transition from corn-based ethanol
to cellulosic ethanol, which will provide a long term,
environmentally friendly, and sustainable renewable fuels
industry in the United States.
Another interesting part of the administration proposal is
the additional funding to support the fruit and vegetable
industry. Many of our colleagues in the House as well as the
Senate are in agreement that some sort of action in this area
should be a priority for the 2007 Bill.
USDA is also calling for an extension of the MILC Program,
the Milk Income Loss Contract Program. It is a long story, but
this is a program that has become very popular amongst dairy
farmers across the country but it currently does not have a
baseline.
The administration has also recommended expanding
agriculture conservation programs. The 2002 Farm Bill had the
largest increase in such programs in the Department's history.
Even so, again, many of our colleagues are persuaded as is the
Secretary that further expansions are appropriate.
Another proposal from USDA recommends increases in the Food
Stamp Program that would counter the rise in obesity, remove
the cap on the program's child care deduction, and exclude
college savings accounts from resource limit calculations.
In addition to these priorities, some minor but perhaps
desirable rebalancing in basic commodity programs will be
proposed. And those will also require an increase in funds
available to the Committee.
Knowing that you have a difficult task, I nevertheless feel
strongly that increasing the resources made available for
writing the Farm Bill will serve our nation well and will yield
substantial and tangible gains in return. The Budget Committee
is an important partner of ours in the development of this new
Farm Bill and I appreciate your consideration of the case that
we are making here today, and looking forward to continuing to
work with you as we develop this Budget Resolution. And in the
handout I have included some historical information here to
kind of give the Committee the lay of the land, if you will, on
where we are at. We have summary sheet and the one goes into
more detail, but we have a $60 billion, as I said, reduction in
the baseline in the commodity area. All the other parts are up
substantially: conservation 32 percent, Food Stamps and Child
Nutrition 46 percent. So overall, when you include everything,
we have an increase in the baseline but in the commodity area
we have a substantial increase. That is the way it is supposed
to work. And as I have said earlier, quite a few of the folks
in the this area as we have traveled around the country are
saying if we just extended the current Commodity Title that
would be something they could live with. But there are some
issues there that have been bubbling around, especially with
wheat and barley in the way they were treated in 2002. I made a
personal attempt to get additional resources for barley that
was unsuccessful, and so we have some other information that we
will make available to you, some analysis of what kind of
safety net is available in these different commodities based on
a percentage of their price and so forth that I think argues
for some modifications amongst these commodities that probably
will take some resources to fix.
So we are here to plead with you to see if you can help us
figure out a way to get some additional resources and then
hopefully be able to support you as you move ahead with your
budget resolution.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Minnesota
Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan and Members of the Budget
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify about the Federal
Budget and its provisions that fall under the Agriculture Committee's
jurisdiction. I am pleased to be joined today by Agriculture Committee
Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte. The Agriculture Committee has a long
history of bipartisan cooperation, and we are committed to continuing
that tradition as we write a new Farm Bill this year.
As you know, the 2002 Farm Bill is set to expire on September 30.
Last year, Mr. Goodlatte led the Committee across the country for a
series of field hearings to find out what farmers and ranchers thought
about how the current Farm Bill is working and what changes they would
like to see made.
What we heard at those field hearings is that in general, the 2002
Farm Bill is working well for producers and that the basic structure
should be maintained.
The feedback on the 2002 Farm Bill was especially positive when you
compare it to the reaction from farm country to the 1996 Farm Bill,
which was a bad deal for producers and taxpayers alike. The 1996 Farm
Bill dismantled the safety net in favor of a free market approach to
farming. It was written during a time of high commodity prices under
the assumption that prices would remain high well into the future.
Well, prices didn't stay high, and Congress had to intervene, spending
more than $23 billion in additional ``low price'' payments to farmers
over the life of the 1996 bill.
Now, the Bush Administration is proposing that we weaken the safety
net for farmers on the assumption that commodity prices will remain at
historically high levels. We made that assumption once before with
catastrophic results, and taxpayers paid the price.
In contrast, the 2002 Farm Bill, which restored the safety net for
farmers, has proven to be one of the most fiscally responsible
government programs. By making payments to farmers when prices are low
and returning savings when prices are high, the 2002 Farm Bill
represented a major policy improvement.
In one way, we have become victims of our own success with the 2002
Farm Bill. When former Ag Committee Chairman Larry Combest wrote the
2002 Farm Bill, his baseline for the safety net programs was 140
billion dollars over ten years. The most recent baseline has shrunk to
about 80 billion dollars. While the baseline has increased for some
Farm Bill programs, these increases have come in areas such as food
stamps, which account for 67 percent of our budget, that need to be
maintained, not cut to fund other programs. The bottom line is that
additional resources are needed to produce a policy that facilitates a
strong farm sector and helps our nation move toward energy independence
in a fiscally responsible way.
Mr. Chairman, one of the ideas in the Administration's Farm Bill
proposal that I support is their conclusion that additional budgetary
resources are needed for the Farm Bill. For example, USDA's proposal
recommends increased funding for renewable fuel programs.
One of the biggest developments that agriculture and rural America
has seen in a generation has been the growing demand and expanding
market for agriculturally-based energy sources, including ethanol and
biodiesel. The excitement about this exists far beyond just our rural
communities, as our colleagues from across the country in urban and
suburban districts are also excited about the potential for ethanol and
other renewable fuels to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign
energy sources.
We need a strong energy title in the Farm Bill; however, we
currently have no baseline money to accomplish that. I believe that
this is a necessary investment that we must make, especially to
jumpstart the transition from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol,
which will provide a long-term, environmentally friendly and
sustainable ethanol industry in the United States.
Another interesting part of the Administration proposal is
additional funding to support the fruit and vegetable industry. Many of
our colleagues in the House as well as the Senate are in agreement that
some sort of action in this area should be a priority for the 2007 Farm
Bill. USDA also is calling for the extension of the Milk Income Loss
Contract program. It's a long story, but this is a program that has
become very popular among many dairy farmers, but it currently does not
have a baseline.
The Administration also recommended expanding agricultural
conservation programs. The 2002 Farm Bill had the largest increase in
such programs in the Department's history. Even so, again many of our
colleagues are persuaded--as is the Secretary--that further expansions
are appropriate. Another proposal from USDA recommends increases to the
Food Stamp program that would counter the rise in obesity, remove the
cap on the program's child care deduction, and exclude college savings
accounts from resource limit calculations.
In addition to these priorities, some minor, but perhaps desirable,
rebalancing in basic commodity programs will be proposed, and those
will also require an increase in funds available to the Committee.
Knowing that you have a difficult task, I nevertheless feel
strongly that increasing the resources made available for writing the
Farm Bill will serve our nation well and will yield substantial and
tangible gains in return. The Budget Committee is an important partner
of ours in the development of a responsible Farm Bill. I appreciate
your consideration of the case I make today and look forward to working
with you as you develop the budget resolution.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Goodlatte, would you like to add to
that?
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Yes, thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Moore. We appreciate the opportunity to make our case for
American farmers and ranchers and all of rural America.
Chairman Peterson and I are continuing the process of
information gathering and evaluating the information we have
received as we move forward and prepare to reauthorize the Farm
Bill later this year.
We began this process more than a year ago with the
Committee's first Farm Bill hearing in Fayetteville, North
Carolina and convened ten more field hearings, as well as
several subcommittee hearings, throughout the United States
since then. In addition, we held several full Committee
hearings in Washington, D.C. and in total heard formal
testimony from 174 farmers and ranchers and through our website
and other means for input thousands more. Even now, as we move
into the home stretch, there is still much work to be done. We
set out on every hearing intent on finding out what farmers and
ranchers wanted to see in the next Farm Bill. In turn the
witnesses, as well as members of the local communities in the
audience, wanted to know the situation in Washington that would
influence the next Farm Bill. While there are a myriad of
factors that will influence what the outcome of the Farm Bill
will be, both Mr. Peterson and I unabashedly agree that it all
comes down to how much money is available in the budget. Today
we take the first step to find out how much money will be
available for rural America.
While in the field listening to producers, the popularity
of the current Farm Bill was readily apparent. Though we were
proud to hear that farmers were happy with our 2002 product, I
felt the need to caution them that in terms of the budget
environment much has changed since then. Today the budget
environment we find ourselves in is very different than that of
2002. In 2002, we had a $198 billion baseline for commodities,
conservation, research and rural development, excluding
nutrition. I told farmers that the handwriting has been on the
wall for some time and the budgetary constraints we feel now
will likely continue into the future. Most notably, CBO's
March, 2006 estimate to continue the current Farm Bill baseline
was $104 billion which was significantly lower than the
baseline in 2002. However, in the most recent CBO estimate the
projected baseline took another $30 billion hit resulting in an
estimated $74 billion over ten years. Again, that is excluding
nutrition programs.
Throughout our hearings, we heard that some commodity
groups wanted a higher loan rate. Others wanted a more
consistent Counter Cyclical Program, and still others wanted an
increased direct payment or a payments of any kind. The ideas
and suggestions about how we could perfect current farm
programs were as numerous as they were diverse, differing by
commodity and region of the country. How each farmer defined an
adequate safety net depended upon what he was growing and where
he was growing it.
There was one common issue that we heard from all varieties
of commodity producers in every region of the country: the
increasing cost of environmental compliance. Farmers and
ranchers across the nation, from row crop producers to fruits
and vegetable growers and livestock owners, all complained
about the costs they are incurring in order to stay in
compliance with burgeoning environmental regulations. The
growing list of requirements thrust upon farmers and ranchers
are largely debilitating. We heard from quite a few that were
so confounded with the increased regulation and sheer breadth
and depth of the seemingly endless compliance requirements that
they were seriously contemplating a career change. For most,
the situation is beyond a matter of profitably, for which an
increased direct payment or a higher loan rate can compensate.
It has, unfortunately, become a matter of survivability. We
We must put the taxpayers' money where our mouth is. We
must help those that, by the sheer nature of their livelihoods,
are ensnared by burdensome environmental regulations and
requirements. We must offer increased financial assistance to
help those who are willing to do the right thing, or at least
what the law requires, but cannot afford the cost of
compliance. I am not asking the House Budget Committee to roll
back environmental laws, rules or regulations. I am asking for
the resources needed to help our farmers and ranchers who are
first and best stewards of the land to comply with the complex
and costly web of federal regulation that govern land use. Our
farmers and ranchers will be the first to tell you that their
production yields are directly influenced by the quality of the
land, air and water around them, but that responsible use of
those elements is absolutely necessary to agriculture
production in this country. There can be no reservations about
the need to assist those in rural America to comply with the
numerous laws and regulations that we all too often thrust upon
those that are least able to afford compliance.
Mr. Chairman, if I might add to that point. More than half
of all of the farmers in America do not participate in the
commodity programs that are so important to many in many
regions of the country. They may be fruits and vegetables
producers, they may be livestock producers, they may be
producers of other row crops that do not participate in the
major commodity programs. But they all have to comply with
environmental regulations. And when they do comply, it not only
benefits their farm but it also benefits those who live
downstream, downwind, in the same community, along with
Chesapeake Bay in my region of the country, and so many other
environmentally sensitive areas in other parts of the country.
And if we are to take the current baseline for agriculture
and recognize that the commodity programs have worked very well
and prices have gone high which has resulted in a great bonus,
I would argue, to the taxpayers and to the Budget Committee.
But if we operate simply on that baseline and do not recognize
that since 2002 many circumstances have changed, many needs
have changed, and if we are going to write a new Farm Bill we
are going to have to have resources to do it. That does not
just recognize that if we are going to address the commodity
programs, that we are going to have to address rural America in
general and the problems that it has. And if we operate off the
current baseline we will not be able to any where near meet
those needs.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Virginia
Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan, thank you for affording us
this opportunity to make our case for American farmers and ranchers,
and all of rural America. Chairman Peterson and I are continuing the
process of information gathering and evaluating the information we've
received as we move forward and prepare to reauthorize the farm bill
later this year. We began this process more than a year ago with the
Committee's first farm bill field hearing in Fayetteville, North
Carolina and convened 10 more field hearings, as well as several
Subcommittee hearings, throughout the United States since then. In
addition, we held several full Committee hearings in Washington, DC,
and, in total, heard from 174 farmers and ranchers. Even now as we move
into the home stretch, there is still much work to be done.
We set out on every hearing intent to find out what farmers and
ranchers wanted to see in the next farm bill. In turn, the witnesses,
as well as members of the local communities in the audience, wanted to
know the situation in Washington that would influence the next farm
bill. While there are a myriad of factors that will influence what the
outcome of the farm bill will be, both Mr. Peterson and I unabashedly
agreed that it all comes down to how much money is available in the
budget. Today, we take the first step to find out how much money will
be available for rural America.
While in the field listening to producers the popularity of the
current farm bill was readily apparent. Though we were proud to hear
that farmers were happy with our 2002 product, I felt the need to
caution them that in terms of the budget environment much has changed
since then.
Today, the budget environment we find ourselves in is very
different than that of 2002. In 2002, we had a $198 billion baseline
for commodities, conservation, research, and rural development
(excluding nutrition). I told farmers that the handwriting has been on
the wall for some time and the budgetary constraints we feel now will
likely continue into the future. Most notably, CBO's March 2006
estimate to continue the current farm bill baseline was $104 billion
which was significantly lower than the baseline in 2002; however, in
the most recent CBO estimate, the projected baseline took another $30
billion hit, resulting in an estimated $74 billion over 10 years.
Throughout our hearings, we heard that some commodity groups wanted
a higher loan rate, others wanted a more consistent counter cyclical
program and still others wanted an increased direct payment or a
payment of any kind. The ideas and suggestions about how we could
perfect current farm programs were as numerous as they were diverse,
differing by commodity and region of the country. How each farmer
defined an ``adequate safety net'' depended on what he was growing and
where he was growing it.
There was one common issue that we heard about from all varieties
of commodity producers in every region of the country: the increasing
cost of environmental compliance. Farmers and ranchers across this
nation, from row cop producers to fruits and vegetable growers and
livestock owners all complained about the costs they are incurring in
order to stay in compliance with burgeoning environmental regulations.
The growing list of requirements thrust upon farmers and ranchers are
largely debilitating. We heard from quite a few that were so confounded
with the increased regulation and the sheer breadth and depth of the
seemingly endless compliance requirements that they were seriously
contemplating a career change. For most, the situation is beyond a
matter of profitability for which an increased direct payment or a
higher loan rate can compensate; it has, unfortunately, become a matter
of survivability.
We must put the taxpayer's money were our mouth is. We must help
those that, by the sheer nature of their livelihoods, are ensnared by
burdensome environmental requirements and regulation. We must offer
increased financial assistance to help those who are willing to do the
right thing or at least what the law requires but can't afford the cost
of compliance.
I am not asking the House Budget Committee to roll back
environmental laws, rules or regulations. I am asking for the resources
needed to help our farmers and ranchers, who are our first and best
stewards of the land, to comply with the complex and costly web of
federal regulation that govern land use. Our farmers and ranchers will
be the first to tell you that their production yields are directly
influenced by the quality of the land, air and water around them, but
that responsible use of those elements is absolutely necessary to
agriculture production in this country.
There can be no reservations about the need to assist those in
rural America comply with the numerous laws and regulations that we all
too often thrust upon those that are least able to afford compliance.
I support Chairman Peterson's call for additional baseline funding.
I think it is only fair to help pay for the cost of environmental
compliance that we've created.
Chairman Spratt. We are up against the time limit, but you
represent a whole Committee and one of the important items in
our budget and we want to get your testimony fully in the
record and fully before the Committee.
Let me just ask you one basic question. First of all, as
you can well appreciate, we have got a tough job because we
would like to move the budget to balance in the year 2012, the
same target year that the President set with his budget. We
frankly do not think that the President's budget will get us
there so we have got to craft a different path. And as you look
at the Farm Bill, it is multifaceted. Among the different
features of the Bill, which to you are the most important?
Conservation? Price supports? Income supports? A new Bioenergy
Bill? A new specialty crops support program of some kind? Or a
new permanent disaster assistance program? I know I am reeling
those off quickly, but could you give us just your reaction of
which to you matter the most or which you think matter the most
to farmers?
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Well, I think Bob said it in his
statement that it would depend on where you come from. In my
part of the world, they will probably tell you it is the
support for commodity programs because that is what they do. If
you come from the Central Valley of California, they are
probably going to tell you it is going to be the fruit and
vegetable situation. If they come from, you know, the
Chesapeake Bay area it could be conservation and environmental
things. So I am not sure we have reached that consensus yet.
Part of why I was not more specific in my testimony is that
we have the commodity groups and general farm groups coming to
a conclusion now amongst themselves about what they thing
things should look like. We have got the conservation people
doing that. We have got a lot of effort going into looking at
the cellulosic ethanol and what we should be doing in those
areas. If I had to prioritize them, I think one of the most
important things for the future of the country is getting the
cellulosic ethanol and these new renewable fuel opportunities
stood up and going. And I think that is something everybody in
the country wants, not just rural America but people in the
city and, you know, so that is a very high priority for us.
But it is not going to be realistic for us to, when you
have Commodity Title down 43 percent, that we are going to take
more money out of the Commodity Title and put it over into
that. That is not going to work. We are going to undermine the
safety net that we put in place. We saved $17 billion over the
life of the Farm Bill so far because we have a safety net that
works. And because it has worked we have a lot less baseline.
So I would argue that we are literally the only part of the
United States government that has contributed to the budget
deficit situation. I do not know if you can find any other part
of the government where we have cut spending as much as we have
in agriculture because the program worked. And so we do not
want to undermine that.
Permanent disaster, I think what I am trying to do there is
get away from these ad hoc disasters, which we have had to do
every couple of years. Because even though we improved the
safety net we still have not been able to get at the situation
when we have something happen like a hurricane or a drought or
whatever. We do not know exactly what it would cost us. We are
not exactly sure how to structure this. But I think this would
be a good thing for the government, for the taxpayers, for the
budget, if we could figure out how to do this. I really believe
that if we had a permanent disaster program, it would cost us
half as much, or maybe less, of what we are spending on these
ad hoc disasters. Because whenever we do one of those stuff
gets added in there that should not be added in. People get
paid that should not get paid, because of the legislative
process and the other body and so forth. So, if we could have a
formula, have a pot of money like they do in FEMA, I think it
would cost us a lot less money. But where do we get the
resources to do that? I mean, you know, there again you are
robbing Peter to pay Paul.
So we need to maintain the safety net that we have in the
commodity program. We need a little more money for conservation
because it was taken away from us by the appropriators. We need
to do this renewable fuel situation. And, you know, you will
have other people tell you that, they are from the city, that
we need more money in food stamps even though food stamps have
gone up 58 percent and commodities have gone down 43 percent.
They will argue that we need to put more money into food
stamps. So I think it depends on where you are from.
That is probably not a very good answer.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. I think it is a good answer, and I would
endorse it. But let me add to that that whether you are from
South Caroline, or Virginia, or Minnesota, or Oregon, or the
suburbs of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas, every
where you look the question about whether a farmer will stay on
the farm and a value that I think almost all Americans have in
terms of wanting to see open space preserved, and not want to
see continued taking of private lands, is the ability of that
farmer to be able to continue to feed his family and derive
some profit from their farm. And the two things that pressure
them on that are increasing land prices, it is easier to sell
that land and do something else. And that land is most likely
not going to go to another farmer. It is going to go to some
other use. Or it is going to be to have to spend a substantial
amount of dollars in complying with every increasing burdensome
environment regulations.
So programs that make sure that we maintain the safety net
that is very important to many farmers. Most of my farmers that
are in livestock in Virginia do not have much of a government
program safety net. But I strongly support maintaining that. I
think it needs to be revised, but maintaining that for
Midwestern and deep south farmers, and farmers in other parts
of the country that do have important dependence upon the
commodity programs.
But programs that deal with conservation and deal with
helping farmers pay to comply with environmental regulations
that do not just benefit them but benefit all of society are
what I think should be the focus.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Moore, Mr. Blumenauer, we are trying
to hold our witnesses to ten minutes. These witnesses are
already twice ten minutes, but the biggest issue, one of the
biggest issues before us, is how much we provide for the
renewal of the Farm Program. So I think it warrants the
additional time.
If you would like to ask a question, if I could ask you to
ask one question and keep it fairly limited and focused I would
appreciate it so we can move on to a host of other witnesses.
But I think you should have the opportunity, Mr. Moore, first.
Okay, Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Chairman, in respect to the people who
are waiting and to our Chair and Ranking Member, what I would
do would be at some point I will just try and follow up, if I
could, specifically. It touched a raw nerve when you are
talking about being able to help farmers comply with
environmental regulations and the land preservation piece.
Congressman Farr and I spent the weekend in Portland hearing
from a wide variety of people who were concerned about that,
and I would like to just submit some things and seek your sense
of what we can do on this Committee to be able to do that. But
I will do that separately because it is more detailed. I am
sure they have information or can direct me to folks and I do
want to respect other members. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. I got a report from Mr. Farr
about your meeting. In fact, we had quite a discussion and
there are a number of things we have been looking at and will
be looking at to address these issues. And so it is definitely
on our radar screen.
Mr. Blumenauer. Super, thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. And if I might just add, between $194
billion baseline in the last Farm Bill and $74 billion that we
start with, excluding nutrition programs, in this one, is $120
billion that is coming back effectively to the Budget
Committee. There are not many other sectors of our economy
where you have got that kind of a figure. We are not asking for
all of that to be redirected to these other things. But we are
asking for a significant portion of that to be made available
for new ways to address farm programs.
Mr. Blumenauer. I do think, Mr. Chairman, that there is a
compelling case that it does touch everybody in America. And
that the time is coming, I mean no one wants to water down the
environmental regulations, or few people want to water them
down. It is not going to happen. I do think we have an
obligation to try and help our people who are on the farms and
ranches that benefit us all. And I am looking forward to
exploring that with you. Thank you very much.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Berry, we are trying to hold the
witnesses to ten minutes. We are well over because this is such
an important this year with the Farm Bill coming due. You are a
rice farmer and a cotton farmer, if you have a question to put
we would be glad to entertain it.
Mr. Berry. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. And I have served
on the Ag Committee with my colleagues Mr. Peterson and Mr.
Goodlatte and I welcome you certainly to the Budget Committee,
and we appreciate you being here. I think we share, you just
described, the Ranking Member just described the fact that we
did not spend all the money in the last Farm Bill. And I do not
think that the American people realize the tremendous benefit
that they reap from having a good Safety Net Program for our
producers, and a good Conservation Program for the land owners
and to help encourage people to get the job done as far as
land. I have been involved with it all my life. And it is
always interesting the way occasionally it is presented as if
someone is enriching themselves from farm programs. And I
always encourage people that if they think it is the road to
wealth, I know where they can get in on it. I know plenty of
people that will sell them one.
As I said, I have spent my entire life on the farm and
involved with agriculture and around farmers. And they are just
good, hardworking people. There is no way that the production
and processing system in this country will hold up and continue
to be as productive as it is and has been and continue to
provide America with the cheapest and the safest food supply
and fiber supply in the world without a Safety Net Farm Bill
behind them. And there is no way we are going to have water as
clean as we have, and air as clean as we do without the
conservation programs. And without getting into a whole lot of
details, I just think it is absolutely critical that we put
enough money in this budget to write a good Farm Bill.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you very much for your testimony. We
appreciate your coming here, and we appreciate your excellent
statements as well.
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Spratt. We look forward to working with you on a
bill we can all support. The next witness is Mr. Dennis Cardoza
and he will be followed by Norman Dicks. Mr. Cardoza, if you
could keep your statements to a little less than ten minutes so
that we can accommodate a few questions we would appreciate it,
but the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cardoza. I will do better than that. I want to respect
Mr. Dicks, Mr. Chairman and all the members here. But the issue
I do want to talk about today is very important. And I have
submitted written testimony to the Committee but I will try and
summarize a little bit why I have taken your time up today.
A few years ago, Mr. Chairman, actually seven years ago, I
was fortunate enough, my wife and I were fortunate enough to
adopt two children out of foster care. Since then I have been
an advocate for these children. There are over 211,000 children
currently in foster care across the country that are being
helped by the $6.8 billion in funds that the federal government
gives the states to allocate. That money is needed, but I will
tell you that there are some other, and I would ask this
Committee to give the full allocation to those children. There
are actually 427,000 children in foster care, 211,000 are
supported by the funds given, that are seeking families,
211,000 children are getting funding from the federal
government.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, I authored an amendment to the
Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations Bill that
provided $5 million for drug endangered children. There was
actually an authorization for $20 million included in the
Patriot Act. To date it has not been funded because last year's
$5 million amendment lapsed in the earmark process that we just
saw go through the House.
So I am asking that we fully fund this program, Mr.
Chairman and members. These drug endangered children grants
provide grants to children to improve coordination between
state and local agencies that provide assistance to children
found in homes made dangerous by drugs, and to aid the
transition of these children to safe residential environments.
This amendment was adopted by a voice vote last year, and as I
said it did not pass. Mr. Chairman, both of my children came
from the same drug endangered home. It is a despicable
situation where so many kids are left in abusive situations
because of their parents' addiction to serious drugs, including
and in particular methamphetamine. It is absolutely vital that
we do everything we can to get those children out of those
homes and placed in more secure environments.
My children were saved out the foster care system and
placed in my wife and my home because of court appointed
special advocates, which is the second program that I would
like to advocate for you today. I urge you to fully fund that
program. I will tell you that it was a CASA volunteer who was
my son's kindergarten teacher who realized that they were being
abused a second time in foster care, and were able to get them
to the social service agency that got them to my wife and I.
And I am forever in their debt and for every year that I come
here I will testify on their behalf. We need more CASA
volunteers, not less. The program has been cut in the last few
years, we need to change that around. It is a small program,
considering that we spend $6.8 billion on foster care we only
spend $12 million on CASA. And I will tell you that dollar for
dollar we could do much better putting more dollars in this one
than in anything else we can do.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Cardoza, does this fall under the
Child Care and Development Block Grant?
Mr. Cardoza. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman. I will try and
find that out for you and provide you with that information
afterwards.
Chairman Spratt. Okay. Okay.
Mr. Cardoza. But the CASA funding, you know I have done
bake sales and fundraisers for CASA because I think it is that
important. And it truly is something that we must do.
Finally Mr. Chairman, I am going to advocate to all of you
to fully fund the SCHIP Program, and not just to the age of
nineteen, or below the age of eighteen. But I am going to
advocate that we extend it, it is currently a voluntary
program, to twenty-one. And it is imperative that we fully fund
that program at least in one particular area, and that is for
mental health services.
I was shocked recently when I read in the paper that 40
percent of foster kids, according to this one article, are
homeless after eighteen months when they age out of the foster
care system. The reality is that large numbers, and it is in my
written testimony, are on psychotropic drugs because of the
abuse and the neglect that they sustained as children. I never,
to be very frank and honest, before I had my own children that
came out of this situation I did not realize how bad the
nurturing process can affect, or the lack of nurturing, at an
early age can affect children. But it drastically does. We see
that--well, I can read you some of the statistics I included in
my testimony. The incidence of drug dependence among foster
kids is seven times greater than the general public. More than
half of foster care alumni ages nineteen to thirty-three had
mental health problems, so 50 percent. And 20 percent of foster
kids have three or more mental problems.
Well, Mr. Chairman what happens to foster kids is they are
already coming out of unstable environments. And then they age
out at eighteen, they get thrown pretty much on the streets
with very few social services that follow them. And they are
expected to get jobs and start supporting themselves. But the
problem is that just at the time when they are supposed to
really step it up and take responsibility for their lives, the
psychotropic drugs that are helping them become stable and cut
off for lack of health services. So what we need to do, Mr.
Chairman, is continue this program to give them a fair chance
at a good start in life. Certainly a lot of these kids are
going to fail anyway because of the disadvantages they have.
But we should not be withholding their medication at the most
critical time that they possibly can have when they have no one
else in their lives to help shepherd them after they age out.
I will tell you I have spoken to a lot of these kids, Mr.
Chairman. It is a very serious problem. And it is a shame to
spend billions of dollars trying to save these kids only to
lose them for lack of a few drugs right at the end of their
care. I believe, Mr. Chairman, I know you cannot score this in
the congressional budget scoring process correctly, but this is
a lot like Head Start where we know if we take care of them at
the beginning they are healthier and it costs government less
money. I believe that if we take care of these kids as they age
out of the process that we will in fact save the government
money by these kids not becoming homeless, not committing
crimes on the street, not being put in our penal facilities and
costing taxpayers much more money in the long run. And with
that, Mr. Chairman, I just ask for your help in supporting this
issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardoza follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis A. Cardoza, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Thank you for allowing me to submit this statement for the record
on an issue very close to my heart: our nation's foster children. The
kids in our foster care system are among the most vulnerable in our
society, and I urge the Committee to make protecting foster care
children a top priority as it goes about drafting its budget
resolution.
I have a very personal interest in this issue. Seven years ago, I
adopted two foster children. Since then, I have advocated on behalf of
adoption and foster children in the California Assembly and in
Congress. Every child, no matter what station they may be born to,
deserves a chance to be raised in a stable and loving home.
As you consider this year's budget resolution, I urge you at the
very minimum to maintain the $6.8 billion in the Administration budget
for state grants for foster care and adoption assistance. Every month,
these funds support 211,000 children in foster care across the country
and help 427,000 children as they seek permanent families.
I also believe that we must maintain full funding for the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). I was deeply troubled by
the shortfall in long term funding for the program in President Bush's
budget. As you know, we would need an additional $10 billion over the
next five years just maintain the number of children enrolled. A
failure to continue to support this vital program would have a
devastating impact on children, especially foster children.
The Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program is one that
literally saved my life and I urge the Committee to strongly support
it. Under the CASA program, funding is provided to the National Court
Appointed Special Advocates Association to initiate and expand local
programs that provide volunteer advocates to children who are victims
in child abuse or neglect cases. Slightly over 200,000 children went
through the system last year and I strongly urge the Committee to
support the authorized funding level of $12 million.
Last year I authored an amendment to the Science, State, Justice,
and Commerce Appropriations bill to provide $5 million for the Drug
Endangered Children grant program. The Drug Endangered Children grant
program provides grants to improve coordination between the state and
local agencies that provide assistance to children found in homes made
dangerous by drugs and to aid the transition of these children to safe
residential environments. The amendment was adopted by voice vote
during consideration of the bill but, unfortunately, it got lost in the
conflict of competing priorities during consideration of this year's
continuing resolution. I urge the Committee to give this vital program
top consideration.
Moreover, I plan to introduce legislation which would expand
Medicaid to cover children up to the age of 21. With meager resources
and despite chronic funding shortfalls, the SCHIP program has made
remarkable strides in helping children living in poverty get access to
health care.
Though the program has made significant progress, it should only be
viewed as a first step and much more needs to be done. The bill I plan
to introduce would correct a huge problem under current law--the fact
that only children under 19 are covered. We know that poverty still
afflicts children in their late teens and early twenties and, by
acknowledging and addressing this reality, we can make real progress
towards reducing childhood poverty.
This will dramatically help the 23,000 children who have age out of
foster care every year and who are no longer eligible for health care.
The statistics are sobering: 1) incidents of drug dependence are 7
times greater with foster care alumni than the general public; 2) more
than half of foster care alumni ages 19 to 33 had a mental health care
problem, and 20% had three or more mental health problems; 3) more than
80% of children in foster care have developmental, emotional or
behavioral problems; and 4) according to Health and Human Services, 75-
80% of those children who need mental health services do not receive
them.
By expanding access to health care for those children who need it,
we can begin to put a dent in some of those horrendous statistics. My
bill will help close the gap and make a difference in the lives of
these at-risk youth.
Looking beyond this budget resolution, I strongly believe that
Congress should act to eliminate obstacles to adoption and improve life
for kids in foster care. In the past, I have sought to make foster care
a priority for Congress. In April of 2005, I introduced the ``Military
Adoption Act'', which makes it easier for military service members to
adopt children by allowing them to take paid leave. The bill was signed
into law by President Bush in December 2005.
I know the Committee has an unenviable task of choosing among many
worthwhile priorities as it drafts its budget resolution. There is
simply too much to do and not enough money to go around.
However, the welfare of our nation's youth must be a top priority.
Simply put, no child should have to grow up abandoned and in poverty.
Please do everything you can to ensure that the needs of children are
well protected during the budget process.
Chairman Spratt. That is very compelling testimony. I live
across the street and have all my life from a church owned
facility which treats children with deep seated emotional
problems, many of them coming, most of them coming, from
abusive and broken home situations. So you certainly have my
sympathetic support. If you could supply for us a little better
identification of the program and under what rubric of the
budget it falls that would be useful, I think.
Mr. Cardoza. I will indeed. I intend to introduce
legislation to authorize and fully mandate the extension on the
mental health services. I intend to with Mr. Kennedy and others
to try and move this legislation as the Mental Health Parity
legislation goes through. But I wanted to warn the Committee
that I was doing this so that you could be thinking about it,
and I will be working on it as well.
Chairman Spratt. Renewing and extending the SCHIP Program
will be one of our principal focal points and main emphases in
the budget this year. Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore of Kansas. Thank you Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Chairman.
As a district attorney, elected district attorney, in the
suburb of Kansas City for twelve years I prosecuted several
homicide cases involving small children, and frankly that is
exactly why I ended up leaving the position of district
attorney after twelve years. And I was one of the founders of
the CASA Program in our county. And I will tell you, I have
seen it and what you just said is exactly right. It is a very,
very valuable resource, court appointed special advocates.
Having an adult in the community who will go in and advocate
for a child who needs that help is very, very helpful, I think,
in many, many situations.
As Mr. Chairman just said, full funding for SCHIP is
absolutely mandatory as far as I am concerned, as well. Thank
you for testifying today.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. Blumenauer. Compelling testimony, agreed. It makes a
lot of sense. You referenced a number of young people who age
out, as you say, from foster care who end up on the streets?
Mr. Cardoza. Well, I have had conflicting statistics on
this. But I have heard a statistic that says 40 percent. I have
heard other statistics that are less than that. But there is a
tremendous number, Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
Mr. Cardoza. Tremendous. And I will look into it and get
you personally further information on that.
Chairman Spratt. Other questions? Mr. Cardoza, thank you
very much, indeed.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Spratt. We appreciate it. Mr. Norman Dicks?
STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN DICKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your taking the time.
I hope they will pass out our testimony. We have a wonderful
chart on the first page we want you to take a look at. And I
appreciate the opportunity to testify. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to share my
views on the fiscal year 2008 budget and, really, what has
happened between 2001 and 2008. I think most of us who serve on
the Budget and Appropriations Committees are aware of the
constraints which have been placed on discretionary spending
during the last half dozen years and tax policies and war costs
have drained the Treasury of funds for basic service and
critical investments. There are serious shortfalls in
education, health services, research, and other areas which
others will testify about today. I believe these are all
critical challenges which we need to address, and I hope that
we will be recognizing in the budget which you will present to
the House next month. Mr. Chairman, there are other needs which
also need to be addressed in the 2008 budget. My request today
is that shortfalls in environmental and conservation programs,
which have reached critical proportions, will also be
adequately funded in your budget.
The numbers regarding funding for environmental and natural
resource programs under Budget Function 300 tell a discouraging
story. As the Budget Committee's own analysis, released last
week, shows, the 2008 request for Function 300 programs of
$28.7 billion is $2.8 billion, or 8.3 percent less, than the
amount required to maintain current services. Funding for the
Environmental Protection Agency is reduced by $508 million. The
budget for the Forest Service, not counting firefighting costs
which are really uncontrollable, is down $343 million.
Excluding the welcome increase for our national parks, funding
for the Interior Department is reduced by $237 million. These
2008 proposed cuts come on top of seven years of steady
decline. As the chart included in my written testimony shows,
after adjusting for inflation, funding for the Interior
Department has declined by 16 percent since 2001, for EPA by 29
percent, and for the non-fire portions of the Forest Service by
a whopping 35 percent. These cuts have inevitably lead to
declines in services for visitors to our parks, refuges and
forests and to dramatic reductions in assistance to state and
local governments for environmental and conservation
activities.
Mr. Chairman, I know that your Committee understands the
impact which these reductions mean in a broad sense. But I want
to impress on you today what this means in terms of direct
services to the public we all serve. Under the President's 2008
budget, funding to help our local communities repair and
upgrade the water and sewer systems would decline by $662
million, or approximately 50 percent since 2004. This is
despite EPA's own estimate under Governor Christine Todd
Whitman of a shortfall of at least $388 billion for water and
sewer systems. Mr. Chairman, there is not a community in this
country that does not need help with its water infrastructure,
and without these investments drinking water related health
problems will increase and economic growth will be curtailed.
Air quality grants are reduced by $35 million at a time
when EPA has designated 208 American counties with a population
of 88 million as failing to meet air quality standards under
the Clean Air Act. Areas designated as EPA as not meeting air
quality standards include Columbia and Spartanburg in your
State of South Carolina, and Milwaukee, Racine and Sheboygan in
Mr. Ryan's State of Wisconsin. These areas need our help.
The annual level of clean up of Super Fund Sites
contaminated with PCB's and other highly toxic substances has
declined from eighty sites per year in the late nineties to
twenty-four sites estimated for this year and next under the
President's proposal.
Funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire
precious land for recreation and species habitat has declined
from $440 million in 2002 to $85 million under the President's
2008 request. I am not proposing money to acquire large new
tracts of land or establish new parks and wildlife refuges. If
funds are restored they will go mostly to acquire remaining
private properties in places like Valley Forge, Grand Teton
National Park, and the Flight 93 Memorial Site. All purchases
are from willing sellers.
Since 2001 staffing in the Forest Service has declined by
5900 positions making it more difficult to provide services
either to recreational visitors or to commercial timber
projects. Hundreds of Forest Service campgrounds are being
closed for lack of funding and our forests are overrun with
drug traffickers for lack of law enforcement personnel.
Staffing at the Fish and Wildlife Service has declined by 400
positions over the last two years. Many refuges out there do
not have one single person anymore to take care of them.
Mr. Chairman, my basic request, my urgent plea, is that
your Committee recognizes in its Budget Resolution for 2008
that the environmental and conservation needs of this country
have been neglect too long. I urge this Committee to reverse
this trend and provide a significant increase for discretionary
spending so that all of these deficits can begin to be
addressed.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to my testimony regarding
environmental and conservation needs broadly, I want to make a
specific request regarding the way the firefighting costs are
being dealt with under the budget. Frankly, the fire budget is
exploding as fires become more common, more severe, and more
expensive. These increased costs are causing havoc for other
Forest Service and Interior programs. As members know, funding
for other programs has been reduced by hundreds of millions of
dollars as funds are borrowed at the last minute to finance the
cost of fire suppression activities. In many cases, these funds
are never repaid and critical maintenance and hazardous fuels
work does not get done.
Mr. Chairman, these fire events are natural disasters every
bit as much as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. The costs,
however, are not treated like other emergencies whose costs are
covered either by the FEMA or by the emergency funds outside of
the discretionary caps. Mr. Chairman, we recognize that a
certain amount of fire expenditures are a recurring and
predictable expense and should be paid from discretionary
funds. I believe, however, that when there is a specially
catastrophic and expensive fire, or when costs substantially
exceed those of a normal year that alternative funding
arrangements need to be made.
I would urge your Committee to either provide an emergency
reserve fund of $500 million, as was done in 2004 and 2005 for
extraordinary fire costs as we did those last two years, or
provide an alternative mechanism for handling these costs when
fires get out of hand. Funding highly variable and highly
unpredictable fire fighting costs out of core discretionary
budget does not make sense. In fact, in 1991 13 percent of the
budget for the Forest Service was for fire. Today it is up to
somewhere close to between 45 and 47 percent of the entire
Forest Service budget goes to fighting fire.
So these are important matters. I have taken over the
responsibility as Chairman of the Interior and Environment
Appropriations Subcommittee, and as I showed you on this first
chart these cuts are not sustainable. I mean, these agencies
are being hurt and we need help both from the Budget Committee
and from the allocation that we get in the 302b process. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dicks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Norman D. Dicks, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Washington
Chairman Spratt and Members of the Committee, I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to share my views on
the fiscal year 2008 budget.
I think most of us who serve on the Budget and Appropriations
Committees are aware of the constraints which have been placed on
discretionary spending during the last half dozen years as tax policies
and war costs have drained the treasury of funds for basic services and
critical investments. There are serious shortfalls in education, health
services, research and other areas which others will testify about
today. I believe these are all critical challenges which we need to
address and I hope they will be recognized in the budget which you will
present to the House next month.
But, Mr. Chairman, there are other needs which also need to be
addressed in the 2008 Budget. My request today is that shortfalls in
environmental and conservation programs--which have reached critical
proportions--will also be more adequately funded in your budget.
The numbers regarding funding for environmental and natural
resource programs under budget function 300 tell a discouraging story.
As the Budget Committee's own analysis released last week shows, the
2008 request for function 300 programs of $28.7 billion is $2.8 billion
or 8.3 percent less than the amount required to maintain current
services. Funding for the Environmental Protection Agency is reduced by
$508 million. The budget for the Forest Service, not counting
firefighting costs, is down $343 million. Excluding the welcome
increase for our National Parks, funding for the Interior Department is
reduced by $237 million.
These 2008 proposed cuts come on top of seven years of steady
decline. As the chart included in my written testimony shows, after
adjusting for inflation, funding for the Interior Department has
declined by 16 percent since 2001; for EPA by 29 percent; and for the
non-fire portion of the Forest Service by a whopping 35 percent. These
cuts have inevitably led to declines in services for visitors to our
parks, refuges and forests and to dramatic reductions in assistance to
states and local communities for environmental and conservation
activities.
Mr. Chairman, I know that your Committee understands the impact
which these reductions mean in a broad sense. But I want to impress on
you today what this means in terms of direct services to the public we
all serve.
<bullet> Under the president's 2008 budget, funding to help our
local communities repair and upgrade the water and sewer systems would
decline by $662 million or approximately 50 percent since 2004. This is
despite EPA's own estimate under Governor Christine Todd Whitman of a
shortfall of at least $388 billion. Mr. Chairman there is not a
community in this country that doesn't need help with its water
infrastructure and without these investments drinking water-related
health problems will increase and economic growth will be curtailed.
<bullet> Air quality grants are reduced by $35 million at a time
when EPA has designated 208 American counties with a population of 88
million as failing to meet air quality standards under the Clean Air
Act. Areas designated by EPA as not meeting air quality standards
include Colombia and Spartanburg in your State of South Carolina, and
Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan in Mr Ryan's state of Wisconsin. These
areas need our help.
<bullet> The annual level of clean-ups of Superfund sites
contaminated with PCB's and other highly toxic substances has declined
from 80 sites per year in the late 1990's to 24 sites estimated for
this year and next under the president's proposal.
<bullet> Funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to
acquire precious land for recreation and for species habitat has
declined from $444 million in 2002 to $85 million under the president's
2008 request. I am not proposing money to acquire large new tracts of
land or to establish new parks and wildlife refuges. If funds are
restored, they will go mostly to acquire remaining private properties
in places like Valley Forge, Grand Teton National Park and the Flight
93 Memorial site. All purchases are from willing sellers.
<bullet> Since 2001, staffing in the Forest Service has declined by
5900 positions making it more difficult to provide services either to
recreational visitors or to commercial timber projects. Hundreds of
Forest Service campgrounds are being closed for lack of funding and our
forests are overrun with drug traffickers for lack of law enforcement
personnel.
<bullet> Staffing at the Fish and Wildlife Service has declined by
400 positions over the last two years.
Mr. Chairman, my basic request--my urgent plea--is that your
Committee recognizes in its Budget Resolution for 2008 that the
environmental and conservation needs of this country have been
neglected too long. I urge this Committee to reverse this trend and
provide a significant increase for discretionary spending so that all
of these deficits can begin to be addressed.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to my testimony regarding environmental
and conservation needs broadly, I want to make a special request
regarding the way that firefighting costs are being dealt with under
the budget. Frankly, the fire budget is exploding as fires become more
common, more severe and more expensive. These increased costs are
causing havoc for other Forest Service and Interior programs. As
Members know, funding from other programs has been reduced by hundreds
of millions of dollars as funds are ``borrowed'' at the last minute to
finance the cost of fire suppression activities. In many cases these
funds are never repaid and critical maintenance and hazardous fuels
work does not get done.
Mr. Chairman, these fire events are natural disasters every bit as
much as hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. The costs, however, are not
treated like other emergencies whose costs are covered either by the
Federal Emergency Management Administration or by emergency funds
outside of the discretionary caps. Mr. Chairman, we recognize that a
certain amount of fire expenditures are a recurring and predictable
expense and should be paid from discretionary funds. I believe,
however, that when there is an especially catastrophic and expensive
fire or when costs substantially exceed those of a normal year that
alternative funding arrangements need to be made. I would urge your
Committee to either provide an emergency reserve fund of $500 million
for extraordinary fire costs as we did two years ago, or provide an
alternative mechanism for handling these costs when fires get out of
hand. Funding highly variable and highly unpredictable fire fighting
costs out of our core discretionary budget just does not make sense.
Thank you for your consideration to this request.
Chairman Spratt. Mr. Dicks, thank you for excellent
testimony and great presentation of what is obviously an area
that needs our attention, your attention, the whole House's
attention. Can you give us some idea of how we could pay for
these increments, these additional needs? For example, fees or
transfer of funds from elsewhere, other allocations?
Mr. Dicks. One thing we do do already, we have visitors'
fees for the Park Service and for the Forest Service. In some
places they are controversial but overall they have been
accepted by the public. The money comes in, is used for
maintenance, used for other activities at these facilities. You
know, we have the Land and Water Conservation Fund, here is
another problem. Mr. Secretary Watt, do you remember James Watt
in the Reagan administration? He said that the money coming in,
this was not a mandatory money to expend the money. So we have
collected about $15 billion that has just gone into the
Treasury under Land and Water Conservation and it has not gone
out for the conservation needs of the country.
So, you know, a few years ago we had a bill in the House
called CARA. I, as an appropriator, was not supposed to vote
for it. I voted for it because that was I figured the only way
we are going to get the kind of money to deal with some of
these problems. Now, there is an opportunity right there under
Land and Water Conservation to do $900 million if we as a
Congress made that program mandatory and that money would go
out and be used to acquire lands and do other environmental
things at the state and federal level.
So, we have go to do something. I mean, these things, I
mean, what has happened here is with the priorities of the
administration being the War and tax cuts they have
shortchanged these programs. And we are pleased about the
increase in the money for the Park Service. But it is coming at
the expense of cuts in every other area of the environmental
budget. So we need help. We need relief.
Chairman Spratt. What about the allocation of funds from
off shore drilling?
Mr. Dicks. That is what I am talking about. That is the
Land and Water Conservation funding.
Chairman Spratt. Right.
Mr. Dicks. And we gave some of that money to the oil
producing states. I am saying we now should give some of the
money to the rest of the country for environmental needs across
the country. That is one place we could go to get some extra
money.
We also, by the way, the President's budget calls for $100
million increase, actually $3 billion over ten years, for the
Park Centennial. $100 million of that is mandatory spending, so
the Natural Resources Committee has got to come up with a PAYGO
to get $100 million. And then the administration is committed
to going out and raising $100 million each year from the
private sector. So that is another way to pick up $2 billion if
we can find a way to come up with a program to deal with that.
But that is the Resources Committee that would have to do that.
Chairman Spratt. Do other members have questions? Yes, sir.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, not really a question
but a comment. Congressman Dicks, we appreciate your comments.
As a member from the great State of Nevada I represent the Lake
Mead National Recreation Area, one of the most visited national
recreation areas in the country with millions of visitors every
year. I appreciate you making this a priority because it is a
serious challenge for us, also, you know, adjacent to the Las
Vegas area where we have 42 million visitors. Many of our
National Park Service employees are expected to be law
enforcement, expected to be environmentalists, and expected to
be tour guides. And there is a serious shortfall and I
appreciate you bringing this before the Committee today.
Mr. Dicks. Well, one good thing about the President's
proposal on the Parks is he is going add 1000 full time FTEs
for the National Parks and 3000 temporary workers for the
National Parks. So there is some relief for that one area. But
that does not affect the Forest Service and the other areas
that are cut back in order to put money into the Park Service.
Mr. Porter. Well said. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moore of Kansas [presiding]. Other members have
questions? Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. Congressman Dicks, eloquent and
forceful. I really appreciate your testimony and the work that
you have been doing to try to pull us back from the brink.
Following up on the Chairman's question to you about things we
can do, would you support, does it seem reasonable for us to go
back, you mentioned in your testimony we are only going to have
a couple dozen Super Fund sites despite the problems across the
country?
Mr. Dicks. You mean to go back to the tax?
Mr. Blumenauer. Yes, to reinstitute the Super Fund tax?
Mr. Dicks. Yes, I do think we need to do that. I mean, so
we have more money to clean up these Super Fund sites quicker.
I mean, that will help all of our environmental needs. So I am
for that. It is not, you know, the tax issues of course are
with the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Blumenauer. I also appreciate your clarifying the
explosion of, probably the wrong choice of terms, but fire
fighting costs. I am wondering if there is a way to couple, the
emergency reserve I am sensitive to.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
Mr. Blumenauer. That makes some sense to me.
Mr. Dicks. If we do not do that they have to take the money
out of other important accounts dealing with the environment
and running the Forest Service.
Mr. Blumenauer. Agreed. But at the same token, we have
federal policies that are driving up the costs of forest
fighting.
Mr. Dicks. That is right.
Mr. Blumenauer. The next twenty years there is going to be
another million people who are going to live in metropolitan
Denver, for instance, and that is what is driving up the costs
of forest, if it is out in remote areas the costs of forest
fighting, fighting forest fires, are a hundredth of what they
are when you have got people, recreational homes, and
development involved. Is there a way that we could couple your
very reasonable request of a reserve, a contingency, something
that would be truly emergency funding, with policies that will
stop restraining stupid activities on the part of the federal
government that are putting more property and lives at risk and
driving that cost up?
Mr. Dicks. Well, is it the federal government or is it the
local governments that are allowing this development to occur
near urban areas? That to me is more of a zoning issue that has
to be dealt with at the state and local level. But they are
allowing people to do it, and you are right. It is those areas
that are the most expensive. It is hugely more expensive.
What we are also trying to do, remember, is also under
health forests is to go in and do the cleaning out of the under
storage so that the fires are not as intense. And to me, that
makes sense. That is underfunded in this budget as well.
Mr. Blumenauer. Well, I would like to explore with you if
we could in the capacity of what we do on the Budget Committee,
I am also interested in things that we can do on the Ways and
Means Committee to make it hard to do stupid things. Like we
have done with flood insurance where repetitive flood losses we
have made some adjustments. And maybe there is a way we could
structure something that would be win-win, make your job
easier, reduce prices, and would be a cooperative effort.
Mr. Dicks. Yes, I would be glad to work with you on that,
as we always have over the years.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mr. Moore of Kansas. And we are out of time. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. Blumenauer. I completely understand.
Mr. Moore of Kansas. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Blumenauer. And thank you.
Mr. Moore of Kansas. The next person to testify is Julia
Carson. Ms. Carson, if you would come forward please we are
pleased to welcome you to the Committee and to accept your
testimony. And you are recognized, Ms. Carson, for ten minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JULIA CARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Ms. Carson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
me to testify before this powerful committee, the Budget
Committee.
The President's budget cuts funding for programs that are
vital to the senior citizens of this country. It does not
include funding that would ensure homeless veterans a safe and
affordable place to live. This year, the President's budget
again eliminates funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program. The CSFP provides monthly nutritious food packages,
including fresh produce, meats and other items to 553,000
seniors, women and children. In fiscal year 2006, 90 percent of
the program recipients were elderly or with income levels at or
below approximately $12,500 annually.
As in the fiscal year 2007 proposal, this year's proposal
would have current recipients enrolled in a traditional food
stamp program once the CSFP is eliminated. For this indigent
senior population food stamp vouchers are not an acceptable
replacement to this program. Food stamp vouchers do not offer
the same flexibility and would drastically reduce the already
meager dollar value benefit provided by CSFP.
It is incomprehensible, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, that this cherished generation, many of which rely
on the program, could be treated with such disregard. In
Indiana, 4,350 seniors are currently enrolled in the program.
On average, these individuals in my home state earn only $700
to $800 a month, leaving little if any to sustain a healthy
diet. In Indianapolis, Gleaners Food Bank implements CSFP
Program. Volunteers deliver food boxes to personal homes and
senior housing projects for those immobilized by ill health,
physical infirmities, or lack of transportation. The program is
not a luxury, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is
a necessity to prevent hundreds of thousands of seniors as well
as thousands of women and children from going hungry throughout
the country. I urge you to consider these individuals and would
appreciate your support of this invaluable program.
And as you prepare the budget, in addition to making cuts
in a program that would ensure food security for seniors, the
President has made no attempt to fund the Veterans Affairs
Supportive Housing Program. The President has signed this
program into law on two occasions, from 2001 and then
reauthorized the program in 2006. The administration has failed
to request funding now for this valuable program. The FASP
Program provides permanent subsidies and case management
services to homeless veterans with mental and addictive
disorders. The Department of Veterans Affairs screens homeless
veterans for program eligibility and provides case management
while HUD allocates rental subsidies from the Housing Choice
Voucher Program. In the first year the program was authorized,
had it been funded, it would have provided 500 HUD vouchers and
in the subsequent years an additional 500 would have been
added. This is the only program that HUD targets veterans and
at the same time provides supportive services.
The report entitled ``Ending Homelessness Among Veterans
Through Permanent Supportive Housing''by the Supportive Housing
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans and Volunteers of
America shows that permanent housing combined with supportive
services helps prevent and end homelessness among our precious
veterans. As more and more troops come home from Iraq and
Afghanistan the VA will be facing a major crisis. The VA
estimates that approximately 400,000 veterans would experience
homelessness and at some point during the year they can only
provide assistance for a quarter of them.
I appreciate your time and encourage you to consider the
vulnerable seniors and veterans who desperately need our
support through these times through initiatives when crafting
the fiscal year 2008 budget. I appreciate members of the
Committee for your attention and would encourage you to give
these requests your serious consideration.
[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 for allowing me to testify before the
Committee on the FY08 budget. The President's budget cuts funding for
programs that are vital to the senior citizens of this country and does
not include funding that will ensure homeless veterans a safe and
affordable place to live.
This year, the President's budget again eliminates funding for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program. The CSFP provides monthly
nutritious food packages including fresh produce, meats and other items
to 553,000 seniors, women and children. In FY06, 90 percent of the
program recipients were elderly individuals, all with income levels at
or below approximately $12,740 per year.
As in the FY07 budget proposal, this year's proposal would have
current recipients enroll in a transitional food stamp program once the
CSFP is eliminated. For this indigent senior population, food stamp
vouchers are not an acceptable replacement to the program. Food stamp
vouchers do not offer the same flexibility and would drastically reduce
the already meager dollar value benefit provided by the CSFP. It is
incomprehensible that this cherished generation, many of which rely on
the program, could be treated with such disregard.
In Indiana, 4,350 seniors are currently enrolled in the program. On
average these individuals in my home state earn only $700-$800 a month,
leaving little, if any, to sustain a healthy diet. In Indianapolis,
Gleaners Food Bank administers the CSFP program. Volunteers deliver
food boxes to personal homes and senior housing sites for those
immobilized by ill health, physical infirmities, or lack of
transportation.
This program is not a luxury, rather it is a necessity to prevent
hundreds of thousands seniors as well as thousands of women and
children from going hungry throughout the country. I urge you to
consider these individuals and would appreciate your support of this
invaluable program and as you prepare the budget.
In addition to making cuts to a program that will ensure food
security for seniors, the President has made no attempt to fund the
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program. The President has
signed this program into law on two occasions, first in 2001 and then
reauthorized the program in 2006. The Administration has failed to
request funding for this valuable program.
The VASH program provides permanent subsidies and case management
services to homeless veterans with mental and addictive disorders. The
Department of Veterans Affairs screens homeless veterans for program
eligibility and provides case management while HUD allocates rental
subsidies from the Housing Choice Voucher program. In the first year
the program was authorized, had it been funded, it would have provided
500 HUD-VASH vouchers and in the subsequent years, an additional 500
would have been added. This is the only program in HUD that targets
veterans and at the same time provides supportive services.
The report titled, ``Ending Homelessness Among Veterans through
Permanent Supportive Housing,'' by Corporation for Supportive Housing,
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans and Volunteers of America,
shows that permanent housing combined with supportive services helps
prevent and end homelessness among veterans. As more and more troops
come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the VA will be facing a major
crisis. The VA estimates that approximately 400,000 veterans will
experience homelessness at some point during the year, yet they can
only provide assistance for a quarter of them. Already veterans from
Iraq and Afghanistan are showing up in shelters and according to the
VA, one in five have been diagnosed with a mental disorder. We are
obligated to these veterans, who have selflessly given of themselves
for our country to provide them with the tools necessary to acquire a
dignified standard of living.
I appreciate your time and I encourage you to consider the
vulnerable seniors and veterans who desperately need our support
through these two initiatives when crafting the FY08 budget.
Mr. Moore of Kansas. Thank you, Ms. Carson, for your
compelling testimony. And we will take questions at this time
from members if you have questions. And I am going to turn the
Chair's duties over to Ms. Sutton and she will be the Chair
from here. Thank you.
Ms. Sutton [presiding]. Do any members have questions? Mr.
Porter?
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually not a
questions, just appreciate your being here, Congresswoman. I
appreciate your comments, and very well said. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Carson. Thank you very much for allowing me to be here.
Ms. Sutton. Are there any other questions for the witness?
Ms. Carson, if I could just also add my appreciation for you
coming in and testifying and giving a voice to people who are
sometimes not heard. Thank you.
Ms. Carson. Thank you very much. You know, the crime rate
among homeless veterans skyrockets. A lot of it is attributed
to the fact that they are homeless, they are hungry, and they
do not have supportive services. Thank you very much.
Ms. Sutton. Thank you. The next member to testify is Mr.
Ehlers. Mr. Ehlers, welcome. We are pleased to receive your
testimony.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, congratulations on your new position.
Ms. Sutton. Thank you, it feels good.
Mr. Ehlers. That is wonderful.
Ms. Sutton. You are recognized for ten minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, and I just want to comment, this is
totally outside my testimony. It is so refreshing to come in
here and hear discussions of national parks and how to improve
them, the problems related to them, and then about veterans. It
is kind of encouraging after all the debating I have heard in
the last few days about an issue we have very little control
over. So I just wanted to make that comment. I appreciate the
work of this Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. VERNON EHLERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Ehlers. I am pleased to testify with Mr. Holt, who I
believe will probably testify about the same issues I am and
probably better and more persuasively. I certainly appreciate
the opportunity to testify as you are considering the new
Budget Resolution. And in all the many difficult budget choices
you must make you must not overlook the fact that the
scientific research and development buttresses our economic and
national security. And we constantly argue about national
security issues, but not very often do we recognize how
important our scientific research and development is because
that provides the basis for our defense of the future.
On a bipartisan basis Congress has recognized that
innovation is critical to our national competitiveness, and it
took us a good ten years to recognize that after it became
apparent to folks like Mr. Holt and myself who are in this
business. But I am pleased that the national has recognized
this. And I hope as you begin the budget process, I certainly
strongly urge you to give high priority to scientific research
and development, as well as math and science education, and the
general space, science and technology function of the budget,
Section 250.
In my testimony today I will briefly highlight three
important agencies: the National Science Foundation, the
Department of Energy's Office of Science, and though it is not
funded under Function 250, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology.
The National Science Foundation is the envy of the world.
It is a fantastic organization. It is the only federal agency
dedicated solely to supporting basic scientific research. It
has generated more Nobel Prizes than any other research
institution in the world. Of all the awards they make for basic
research, 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, it is
a very efficient organization and it consistently receives the
highest rating from OMB for the efficiency and excellence of
its programs. So, money that you appropriate for the National
Science Foundation not only is extremely important, but it also
is used more efficiently than any other government agency does.
We also have the Department of Energy's Office of Science,
which is extremely important in a number of areas, important to
our nation. It is the premier physical science research agency
of the federal government. In order to maintain our economic,
technical and military preeminence, we must continue to support
research in alternative energy sources, nanotechnology,
supercomputing, and a number of other issues which are under
the aegis of the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
Unfortunately, they have been so poorly funded recently that
they had to lay off people and cut back the time in which we
allow usage of the major instruments, experimental instruments
they use.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology, they
deal with the nation's standards, and that may seem mundane but
the back up for that is important. And I do not think any other
standards institute in the world has received three Nobel
Prizes within the past decade, but our National Institute of
Standards and Technology has done that. They also play a major
role in other things ranging from fire protection, which you
were just talking about for the National Parks, onto a great
deal of scientific and technical research. And just a simple
example of how it affects our daily lives. Everyone, you are
probably too young to remember the days when color television
first came out and people were constantly hopping out of their
chairs to adjust the hue, and the tint, and the color was
awful. And now we do not have that problem. Interestingly
enough, the development of accurate time standards in the
Bureau of Standards made that possible because the frequencies
that are used to automatically adjust these colors require
very, very precise standards and the federal government through
NIST provides those.
NASA, very important agency, I am very concerned that they
are not getting enough money for their research programs. They
are getting money for space, but we must not forget their
research function. The rovers on Mars have taught us far more
than we have learned from any manned expeditions in space in
the recent past.
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
exactly 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 fiscal year 2008 budget. I
respectfully request that the Committee provide these agencies
with a budget that reflects the critical role they play in
maintaining our economic and military strength. I certainly
hope that you will help us in this effort.
[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 2008 Budget Resolution. I know the Committee
must weigh many pressing national priorities, including securing the
homeland, providing for our aging population, and maintaining a vibrant
national economy.
In making these difficult budget choices, we must not overlook the
fact that scientific research and development buttresses our economic
and national security. On a bipartisan basis, Congress has recognized
that innovation is critical to our national competitiveness and that
scientific research and development is the key to increased innovation,
economic vitality and national security. As you begin the budget
process, I strongly urge you to give high priority to scientific
research and development and math and science education in the General
Space, Science and Technology function (250) of the budget.
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. Last year's FY 2007 request sought to reverse this trend,
and House appropriators supported the increases requested by the
Administration for three important agencies: the National Science
Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. I am pleased that the
2008 request of $143 billion for research and development continues the
doubling path set out at these agencies for targeted research in the
physical sciences and engineering.
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 2008 budget request of $6.4 billion is a 7 percent
increase over FY 2006 appropriations, the first year in a ten-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 2008 and I ask you to enhance the science
allocation accordingly. The request is still well below the funding
level necessary to double NSF funding as authorized in 2002, but I am
confident that this request is the start of a doubling path that we can
truly follow.
While I am heartened by the requested funds for NSF, I am concerned
about the status of the Education and Human Resources (EHR) budget at
the Foundation, including the Math and Science Partnership program.
There is a continuing, but distressing, trend for NSF to move away from
its K-12 educational mission and to focus solely on graduate education
and activities to broaden participation in science, technology,
engineering and math (STEM) fields. For the first time in years the
Math and Science Partnership program will potentially be able to make
some new grants this year instead of being eliminated as in recent
budgets. With more than 50 years of experience, decreasing the role of
NSF in education seems shortsighted when we are currently facing the
challenge of adequately preparing our students to enter science and
technology fields.
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 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. To continue on the doubling path,
the 2008 request for the Office of Science is $4.4 billion. In recent
years it has endured significant cuts that, in part, led to layoffs and
the delay of many important instruments. 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 has earned a significant role in
our nation's economic competitiveness.
The budget request includes $501 million for the core NIST
laboratory programs and facilities in FY08, a nine percent increase
over FY06 enacted. This increase includes $59 million for new research
initiatives and enhancements to NIST's user facilities. I believe it is
very important to support this request. 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. manufacturers become more
globally competitive and retain leadership in cutting-edge
technologies.
NIST also manages two programs directed at small manufacturers: the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program and the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP). Both of these programs are consistently
supported by Congress, though they have fallen on hard times in recent
budget requests. Flat funding for MEP will devastate small and medium-
sized manufacturers and in the long run severely hurt our competitive
edge in the manufacturing sector. 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.
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. I appreciate support in your budget for strong
programs at NIST.
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 been forced to streamline its mission again this year.
The proposed missions will be very costly and will pose significant
technical obstacles that will only be solved through basic research.
Despite a 3.1 percent requested increase in FY 2008, the rigorous
flight schedule and impending Shuttle retirement has forced the science
directorates at NASA to temporarily foot the bill for exploration.
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 2008 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.
Thank you again for allowing me to testify.
Mr. Ehlers. If it is all right with the Chair, may I just
ask if Dr. Holt could give his testimony now and then we could
interact on any questions that might be answered, if that is
acceptable to you?
Ms. Sutton. No objection.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Holt. Madam Chair, I am pleased to join my colleague
the other half of the bipartisan physics caucus to second his
remarks and try to underscore the importance of funding
Function 250 programs.
Economists will argue about whether the return on
investment and research is 20, 40 or 60 percent. But whatever
it is, it is huge. Now, for when a private company invests, MIT
professor Lester Thoreau says it can expect an average return
of about 24 percent. However, the economic benefits of a
private R and D investment are felt by society as a whole and
often do not return to the company that makes the investment.
But the return to society on R and D investments is huge. Often
unpredictable about where it will fall, which is why companies
tend to spend less on research that will benefit society as a
whole.
One role of our government is to do things which benefit
society as a whole, particularly when market and other forces
will not do so. And the government has an important role to
play in the funding of research and history shows that in fact
federal funding of research stimulates private investment in
research.
So I will state it as forcefully as I can. We are
underinvesting in research in the United States by a very large
margin. This Committee would do well to increase the funding
for Function 250 by 50, 75 perhaps 100 percent and not come
close to saturating the need for investment in research in the
United States. The return will be huge as you go to balance the
income and the outgo in the out years, the situation will be
greatly improved by this investment. And we have, Mr. Ehlers
and I and others, I am sorry to say, been unsuccessful up until
now in convincing the predecessor Budget Committees to make
that kind of investment.
Now, let me just highlight a few of the specific points
that Mr. Ehlers already addressed. The President's budget does
honor the promise for the American Competitiveness Initiative,
which calls for long term increases in the National Science
Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. They are by
recent history attractive increases. They fall far short of
what could and should be done. But the President has been good
to his promise in those areas.
But aside from the ACI increases to NSF, DOE and NIST, the
other areas of the budget target increases for weapons
development and manned space flight and tend to greatly
underfund, in fact even cut, research in other agencies. The
2008 budget request for Function 250, Basic and Applied
Research, actually falls by 2 percent to $55 billion relative
to the continuing resolution, and down by 7 percent relative to
the 2004 peak. Energy R and D falls by 9.2 percent, or more
than $1 billion in the President's proposal relative to the
continuing resolution. NOAA R and D falls by about 9 percent.
The Department of Homeland Security R and D falls by more than
a percent and a half, I guess. We certainly should not let that
happen. If the Committee cannot see their way to make the kind
of bold investment that would benefit the country that I was
talking about, at least do not let these agencies lose ground
in research.
I would also like to underscore the importance of
maintaining the educational pipeline. Prospective
undergraduates need better access to the promise of scientific
and technical college education. Graduate programs must be made
more appealing by improved quantity and quality of fellowship
support. Post-doctoral fellowships are a disgrace. It
constitutes an increasingly long phase of a scientist's career
that they are not competitive with salaries even made by the
average college graduate. Now remember, these are post-docs and
while they require an extreme degree of individual geographic
flexibility the salaries are not even competitive with students
right out of college. And with wildly fluctuating federal
support of competitive grants and funding from some of the
national labs, even the mid-career and final phase of a
government or academic scientific career is unstable and much
less appealing.
To achieve the best of our national potential, we have got
to do a far better job in overcoming the social and financial
barriers for people to enter the sciences. So it is not only in
elementary and secondary education, but it is in all of these
federally funded research efforts under Function 250 that we
have a desperate need to make a strong investment. Otherwise,
our economic future and society well-being are literally in
jeopardy.
[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 Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan, and distinguished
Members of the Committee on the Budget. I appreciate the opportunity to
provide testimony on funding levels for Function 250 programs in the FY
2008 Budget.
According to MIT Economics Professor Lester Thurow, when a private
company invests in research and development, it receives an average 24
percent return. However, the economic benefits of a private R&D
investment are felt by society as a whole. The return to society on R&D
investments averages 66 percent, so two thirds of the reward is felt by
others besides the company making the research investment. Therefore,
companies tend to spend less on research than would benefit society as
a whole.
It is the business of government to do things which benefit society
as a whole, particularly when market and other forces will not do so.
Government therefore has an important role to play in the funding of
research and development. However, only 30 percent of total American
R&D is federally funded. With a 66 percent rate of return, 30 percent
is not enough. In fact, things are even worse than these numbers
suggest, as private companies have incentives to focus mostly on
development to the exclusion of research, and even then, mostly on
short-term development. We must compensate for this by insuring heavy
investment in the research portion of research and development,
avoiding the temptation to focus on short-term development rewards. We
have not done enough to keep the research in research and development
in the past, and this budget proposal is particularly dangerous in that
regard.
Because R&D gives such strong economic returns, we must see it as
an investment, not an expense, and invest far more in Function 250
across the board. President Bush's budget request calls for increases
in several important areas, but in real terms it means the federal
research investment would fall for the fourth sequential year after
peaking in 2004.
IMPORTANT INCREASES
President Bush's budget request honors the promise of the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which calls for long-term increases
in the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of
Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
laboratories. Support of these programs has stagnated for far too long,
and our current ten-year path towards doubling them is essential to
American quality of life and global competitiveness.
MISPLACED PRIORITIES
In the President's budget, aside from the ACI increases to NSF,
DOE-Science and NIST, the other areas that the budget targets for
increases are weapons development and manned space flight. I am
concerned that massive increases in these development programs are
coming at the expense of a broad-based, balanced research portfolio.
<bullet> Large increases for DOD weapons and NASA spacecraft mean
an all-time high of $82.8 billion for development, a three percent or
$2.4 billion increase from last year.
<bullet> In NASA, the $12.6 billion, 7.7 percent increase to the
R&D budget is entirely devoted to the International Space Station and
the Crew Launch Vehicle and Crew Exploration Vehicle combination.
Proponents of President Bush's Function 250 request may laud the
1.4 percent increase in research and development overall from the FY
2007 Continuing Resolution. However, this number is deceiving. Although
the dollar amount has increased to $143 billion, the increases are
concentrated in development for items like weapons systems and manned
space flight. Although defense and aeronautic development are not
insignificant priorities, the role of Function 250 is to support a
broad range of R&D, priorities that lay the groundwork for a globally
competitive workforce and groundbreaking advances in health,
telecommunications, energy, applied sciences, and many other areas.
CUTS IN RESEARCH
In President Bush's FY 2008 budget request for Function 250, basic
and applied research programs actually fall by 2.0 percent to $55.4
billion relative to the Continuing Resolution, and down by 7.4 percent
relative to the 2004 peak. The cut in basic and applied research is a
combination of a rare cut in NIH research along with steep cuts in
research at DOD (20.3%), NASA, USDA, and other agencies. At NASA,
despite manned space flight increases, cuts are imposed on research on
the physical sciences, environment, aeronautics, and other fields.
Relative to the Continuing Resolution, research at the National
Institutes of Health declines by $325 million, or 1.1 percent.
Energy R&D falls by 9.2 percent, or $1.3 billion, in the
President's proposal relative to the Continuing Resolution. The
Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) R&D budget falls by 9.5 percent. This is shocking
in the context of an unprecedented level of scientific and political
consensus on global warming and the importance of sustainable energy
practices.
Department of Homeland Security R&D funding falls by 1.5 percent.
This is similarly surprising in the context of the varied R&D-relevant
threats which the administration regularly reminds us we face at home.
This is not limited to protecting American citizens from terrorist
attacks. We must remember that the charge of the Department of Homeland
Security includes preparedness and response to natural disasters, as
well as items like immigration and customs control. The breadth of the
department and the importance of its charge make R&D pivotal in areas
under its jurisdiction.
EDUCATION
Nearly fifty years ago, Americans were shocked when the Soviets
launched the first man-made satellite into space. President Kennedy
responded by challenging the Congress--and the country--to put the
first man on the moon by the end of the 1960s. What followed was an
unprecedented federal investment in education, with a focus on math and
science, investments in research and development, and the establishment
of NASA. And just over a decade later, America landed the first man on
the moon, a feat not yet achieved by the Russians or anyone else.
Mr. Chairman, the evidence is plentiful that since this ``Sputnik
moment,'' our commitment to supporting scientific and technological
research and development has waned. Our economy faces new challenges
from emerging powers whose students outperform our own, and who produce
vastly more graduates in the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) fields. We must do more through Function 250 to
support the education of prospective undergraduates and graduate
students who are seeking to enter the STEM fields.
Prospective undergraduates need better access to the promise of a
technical college education. Graduate programs must be made more
appealing by improved quantity and quality of fellowship support.
Postdoctoral fellowships, which constitute an increasingly long phase
of a scientist's career, are not competitive with salaries made by the
average college graduate, while requiring an extreme degree of
individual geographic flexibility. With wildly fluctuating federal
support of competitive grants and national labs, even the final phase
of a government or academic scientific career is unstable and therefore
much less appealing than we need to be the case. To achieve the best of
our national potential, we must do a far better job of overcoming
individuals' social and financial barriers to entry to the sciences,
and must provide far more stability and reward at every phase in the
process.
R&D LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE FUTURE
Better investment in research and development are crucial to our
safety, sustainability, quality of life, and competitiveness. None of
these objectives are independent, and virtually all agencies are
relevant to all these objectives. It is critically important that we
support R&D more thoroughly and more consistently, and we have the
opportunity to do that as we review the President's proposal. Congress
can and must meet the challenge presented by the ill-advised cutbacks
hiding behind the largely commendable flagship projects of the proposed
FY 2008 budget.
Ms. Sutton. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. Do any
members have any questions? Mr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly share with
you the concern that we are underfunding research and
development as a nation, and some of this work has to be done
by the government. It is not going to be done by the private
sector. And return on investment is obvious. I would pose this
question to you, to both of you. Do you think this is important
enough to the future well-being of this country to be willing
to forego some of the tax cuts that are proposed in the
President's budget and the extension of some of those tax cuts
to fund these particular matters?
Mr. Holt. Well, I will jump in there and say absolutely.
Individuals, not just society as a whole, individuals will
benefit sufficiently that most of them will actually come out
ahead. Historically, when you look back in the days of, and I
am talking three and four decades ago, of large federal
investment in research and development, the economy benefitted
and many individuals benefitted from that.
Mr. Ehlers. If I may answer that, I cannot say without
knowing the specific taxes that you might be discussing. But I
would not averse to that for certain taxes and I would be happy
to discuss this later as to which ones. The important point, as
Dr. Holt mentioned, is the investment. And just to give you,
several years ago I was asked by Newt Gingrich, who was Speaker
then, to write a new Science Policy document. This government
had not even written a science policy statement since 1945. And
so I proceeded to do that. And in the process I tried to find
out what the actual return on investment was. It is very
difficult to calculate, and economists are all over the map,
but I could not find anyone who said it was less than 20
percent and the highest I found was 4000 percent.
Now, that was probably something like the laser which I
think cost the government, I would guess less than $10 million
in research at the time it was founded. Today it is a multi,
multi-billion dollar industry in lasers. And the clothes you
are wearing was cut out by a laser, and medical uses, and many
other uses of it. And we take it for granted. But it did not
come out of thin air. It came out of the laboratory of a
scientist who found a unique way of making it work. And at
fairly low cost.
And that is what most scientists do. They are pursuing the
basic fundamental knowledge of the universe, but almost
invariably that turns out to be very useful with a huge rate of
return on the cost of the investment. So this is probably one
of the few areas that you can rationalize the government going
into debt because the return on investment is so high. But I am
sure you are concerned about making sure we pay for it.
Mr. Holt. But you need not go into debt in order to do
this. A bold investment is something that would not only be
socially exciting, it would be the kind of thing we are
supposed to be doing here in Congress.
Mr. Berry. It would be the equivalent of building the
transcontinental railroad in the nineteenth century. You have
already alluded to the debt, and that was going to be my next
question. Do you think it is worth putting our children and
grandchildren in debt for it?
Mr. Ehlers. I gave that answer already. Not that I advocate
it, but it is the one thing that you can be pretty certain that
will not add to their debt. If we spend the investment wisely,
they in fact will benefit and receive the benefits from it. And
I say that fearlessly. I am not speculating. This is a
historical record. And other countries have caught onto this,
China, India, some of the European countries. If you look at
the charts, and I did not take any along, but I have spent a
lot of time on that. If you look on the charts of what
countries are putting in their investment and how much they are
spending on this, we used to be at the top. We have now been
passed by a couple of countries and believe it or not, South
Korea is very close to passing us up on a per capita or on a
gross domestic product basis. So they are not sitting still.
They are racing to catch up or beat us. And we are just
plodding along with as my companion said very, very slow
increases. The other countries know what they are doing, and
they are beating us.
Ms. Sutton. Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Holt, if I could just ask you a
question. You make a compelling case about the investment and
the return. What has been the obstacle to getting Congress to
move?
Mr. Holt. Part of the reason is that the typical lobbying
effort, if I may use that shorthand for the people who bring
their cases before Congress, is that research has a non-
specific pay back. No interest group can be sure that it
personally, that they personally, will benefit from this. And
there are not many people who come and lobby Congress for the
common good. We are supposed to deduce that on our own, and we
have not been very good at that when it comes to investment in
scientific research. I cannot explain better, and I wish I
could understand, why we have been so blind to this when, as
Mr. Ehlers says, there is ample historical evidence. The
economics are difficult to work through but, as I say, and as
Mr. Ehlers says, it is to try to come up with a distinction
between whether it is 20 percent, 40 percent, or 60 percent
return. It is not whether it is 2 or 3 percent return.
Mr. Ehlers. Let me add a bit, and I can give you two
reasons why there is a problem. Number one, there are not
enough nerds in the Congress. There are just two of us, and in
spite of the fact that we are right it is hard to persuade the
rest. That is number one. The other is, it is very difficult
when you are funding research to point out specific
applications that this might lead to. The laser I mentioned, I
was in graduate school when the laser was developed. I was
delighted, I thought, ``Boy, this is great. What a fantastic
research instrument I will have to make all kinds of new
discoveries.'' It never once dawned on me that there would be
this huge commercial market. And in fact, General Electric,
which was doing research, which could have made millions or
billions on it, decided they would not do it. Westinghouse
decided they would not do it. It was the scientist who
developed it who saw the market, and they went out and they
made the billions of dollars, not the old, stodgy corporations.
So, all I can say is just look at the field of medicine for
an example. We do not expect that physics research is going to
contribute much to medicine. I mean, what can physics do that
can help our health? Well, just as an example, x-rays developed
by physicists. The MRI, developed by physicists. CT Scan,
developed by physicists. I happen to have not very good ears at
this point, I am wearing hearing aids. I remember when I was a
child the hearing aids were boxes like that you carried in your
breast, the batteries had to be changed everyday. With the
development of the transistor, which pure physics research,
they had no idea what would come of it, I now and most of the
world wears hearing aids which have integrated circuits, that
digitizes the signal, just like your CD player operates. It
chops the signal up in different parts, amplifies it to match
your ears, and they are not cheap but boy it is wonderful. And
all because someone developed the transistor at one point and
Texas Instruments developed the integrated circuit.
Mr. Holt. And for almost all of those inventions that Mr.
Ehlers spoke about, it is hard to separate the public and the
private sector contributions to their development. It appears
to be the case that public investment in research leads the
private investment in research. And historically, again going
back to some of the golden era of research thirty and forty
years ago, the public sector and the private sector were
approximately equal. The public sector has fallen dramatically
and we are living economically off of the advances that were
made decades ago. We are not replenishing those advances at the
present time.
Ms. Sutton. Well, I thank you both for your testimony on
behalf of the greater good. It is eloquent and appreciated.
Thank you.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
Ms. Sutton. The next member to testify is Ms. Boyda.
Welcome, Ms. Boyda, and we are pleased to have you here to
testify. You are recognized for ten minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY BOYDA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Ms. Boyda. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
inviting me to testify about the 2008 federal budget, a subject
that is truly on the hearts and minds of Kansans. The House
Committee on the Budget has the power and responsibility to set
Americans' financial priorities. You direct the disbursement of
nearly $3 trillion, that is $3 million million dollars every
year. Armed with this enormous wealth we can secure our nation
and build a more just, free, and sustainable society. Yet, this
tremendous opportunity is balanced by an equal duty to act
wisely, not work for political benefit but work for the common
good.
As you prepare the 2008 budget, you must consider
innumerable priorities. All are important, many are critical.
The budget must expand access to affordable healthcare. It must
relieve taxes on the independent businesses that are struggling
to survive. It must revitalize the rural economy through
targeted developmental farm assistance. It must fund
alternative fuel resource to free us from the chains of oil
dependence. And your budget absolutely must fulfill America's
promise to our veterans and military personnel who have risked
their lives to secure our peace.
All of these goals are vital, but I have not yet mentioned
our nation's highest priority. Today America faces threats from
a nuclear armed North Korea, from a belligerent Iran, and from
Al Qaeda terrorists who have already struck such a devastating
blow against us. In this age of unprecedented dangers, we must
devote our great nation's resources to improving our military
readiness.
I am deeply concerned that our strategic readiness was
placed at risk by the 109th Congress. Congress had a legal
obligation to fund out military by passing a 2007 budget before
October 1, 2006. Not only did they fail to meet this deadline,
but they left office without ever passing a budget. The
implications of their failure were far reaching and
devastating, especially to my congressional district's three
military bases. Consider the example of Fort Riley, a dominant
force in the American military that has demonstrated
outstanding leadership in the War on Terror. Recently, through
the Base Realignment and Closure Process, Fort Riley won the
return of the 1st Infantry Division of the United States Army,
the legendary big red one. Fort Riley and all Kansans were
heartened by this news and we quickly developed plans for a
barracks to house the big red one. Funding for this barracks
should have been included in the 2007 budget, but of course
Congress never passed a 2007 budget. As I testify before you
today, the big red one's barracks is five months behind
schedule and it is unlikely to be completed before their return
from Iraq.
Other construction projects at Fort Riley, Fort
Leavenworth, and America's many other military bases have been
similarly delayed. Responsibility for this sorry state of
affairs rests squarely on the shoulders of the 109th Congress.
The new democratic majority has already begun to recover from
the last Congress' failures. We passed a continuing resolution
that increased BRAC funding by $1 billion over the levels
approved by the 109th Congress, and we are working on a
supplemental bill to further support BRAC through 2007.
Now your Committee must continue the critical work. You
must prepare a budget that fully funds the Base Realignment and
Closure process for 2008. Please note that I consider this to
be the most single important issue of our day, both for my
constituents in Kansas and also for America's security. Once
your Committee has ensured America's safety I hope you will
consider many further opportunities to brighten our country's
future.
Your ambitions for 2008 should begin with helping millions
of Americans who now struggle at the bottom of our economic
ladder. I am heartbroken that in today's America, the richest
nation in the history of mankind, nearly 47 million of our
fellow citizens lack health insurance. These hardworking
families face an uncertain future. An accident, severe illness
could spell financial ruin. The United States Congress as a
whole, and this Committee in particular, must seek fiscally
responsible, market driving solutions that strengthen America's
systems of employer provided coverage.
Of course, the employer care system will collapse if our
employers themselves falter, and so I believe the fiscal year
2008 budget must strongly support America's businesses,
especially our independent employers. When small businesses
flourish our communities and our national economy will
flourish. Congress is currently considering legislation that
would ease the burden of taxation on small businesses by over
$1 billion, and I consider these cuts to be wise and a prudent
investment in our future.
In order to further strengthen our economy we must end the
drain on the wealth in our communities, in our rural
communities especially. This means supporting our farmers and
our ranchers whose hard work provides America with the safest
and the most abundant food supply in the world. Congress has
long boosted the agriculture industry through rural development
funds and the 2008 federal budget must continue this
commitment. By investing in American agriculture this Committee
can energize the rural economy and open new opportunities to
hard working farmers and ranchers.
As you support the industries that have guided America
through its past, you must also consider our future. One day
soon, oil and gas and coal will end their centuries long reign
as the planet's primary source of energy, replaced by fuels now
under development in laboratories across the world. Our nation
must prepare for this historic transition, and I urge you to
pass a 2008 budget that invests in new energy sources such as
cellulosic ethanol. And I especially encourage Congress to
invest in wind energy. With your support, my State Kansas,
which is the third windiest in America, can and will lead the
world in developing clean, efficient wind-based power.
Finally, this Committee must fulfill America's promises to
our veterans. The men and women who served in World War II,
Korea, Vietnam and Iraq never hesitated when their nation
called them to duty, and America owes our veterans the same
unflinching support. Yet lawmakers have consistently cut
corners on veterans programs, ignoring the promises made when
our soldiers were on the line of fire. I am the daughter of one
veteran and the wife of another, so I speak from deep in my
heart when I say that these failures are unacceptable. Your
Committee must fully fund the VA. We owe our veterans nothing
less.
I have mentioned many goals in my testimony today and I
could have mentioned a hundred more without scratching the
surface of the 2008 budget. I realize faced with so many
complex and sometimes conflicting priorities this Committee
will have to make compromises. You cannot fund every worthy
project. Yet by investing our limited resources very wisely, by
setting aside partisan politics for the public good, I am
confident that you will strengthen and secure our great nation.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Boyda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Nancy E. Boyda, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Kansas
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify about the 2008
federal budget, a subject that is truly on the hearts and minds of
Kansans.
The House Committee on the Budget has the power and responsibility
to set America's financial priorities. You direct the disbursement of
nearly $3 trillion--that's three million million dollars--every year.
Armed with this enormous wealth, you can secure our nation and build a
more just, free, and sustainable society. Yet this tremendous
opportunity is balanced by an equal duty to act wisely, to work not for
political benefit but for the common good.
As you prepare the 2008 budget, you must consider innumerable
priorities. All are important; many are critical. The budget must
expand access to affordable health care. It must relieve taxes on the
independent businesses that are struggling to survive as America's
wealth floods overseas. It must revitalize the rural economy through
targeted development and farm assistance. It must fund alternative fuel
research to free us from the chains of oil dependence. And your budget
absolutely must fulfill America's promises to our veterans and military
personnel, who have risked their lives to secure our peace.
All of these goals are vital, but I have not yet mentioned our
nation's highest priority. Today America faces threats from a nuclear-
armed North Korea, from a belligerent Iran, and from the al Qaeda
terrorists who have already struck such a devastating blow against us.
In this age of unprecedented dangers, we must devote our great nation's
resources to improving our military readiness.
I am deeply concerned that our strategic readiness was placed at
risk by the 109th Congress. Congress had a legal obligation to fund our
military by passing a 2007 budget before October 1st, 2006. Not only
did they fail to meet this deadline, but they left office without ever
passing a budget.
The implications of their failure were far-reaching and
devastating, especially to my Congressional district's three military
bases. Consider the example of Fort Riley, a dominant force in the
American military that has demonstrated outstanding leadership in the
war on terror. Recently, through the Base Realignment and Closure
process, Fort Riley won the return of the First Infantry Division of
the United States Army--the legendary ``Big Red One.''
Fort Riley and all Kansans were heartened by this news, and we
quickly developed plans for a barracks to house the Big Red One.
Funding for this barracks should have been included in the 2007 budget
* * * but of course, Congress never passed a 2007 budget. As I testify
before you today, the Big Red One's barracks is five months behind
schedule, and it is unlikely to be completed before their return from
Iraq. Other construction projects at Fort Riley, Fort Leavenworth, and
America's many other military bases have been similarly delayed.
Responsibility for this sorry state of affairs rests squarely on the
shoulders of the 109th Congress.
The new Democratic majority has already begun to recover from the
last Congress's failures. We passed a continuing resolution that
increased BRAC funding by $1 billion over the levels approved by the
previous Congress, and we are working on a supplemental bill to further
support BRAC through 2007. Now your committee must continue our
critical work. You must prepare a budget that fully funds the Base
Realignment and Closure process for 2008. Please know that I consider
this the single most important issue of our day, both for my
constituents in Kansas and for America's security.
Once your committee has ensured America's safety, I hope you will
consider your many further opportunities to brighten our country's
future. Your ambitions for 2008 should begin with helping the millions
of Americans who now struggle at the bottom of our economic ladder. I
am heartbroken that in today's America, the richest nation in the
history of mankind, nearly 47 million of our fellow citizens lack
health insurance. These hardworking families face an uncertain future;
an accident or severe illness could spell financial ruin. The United
States Congress as a whole, and this committee in particular, must seek
fiscally responsible, market-driven solutions that strengthen America's
system of employer-provided coverage.
Of course, the employer care system will collapse if our employers
themselves falter, and so I believe the fiscal year 2008 budget must
strongly support America's businesses--especially our independent
employers. When small businesses flourish, our communities and our
national economy will flourish. Congress is currently considering
legislation that would ease the burden of taxation on small businesses
by over a billion dollars, and I consider these cuts to be a wise and
prudent investment in our future.
In order to further strengthen our economy, we must end the drain
of wealth from our rural communities. This means supporting our farmers
and ranchers, whose hard work provides America with the safest, most
plentiful food supply in the world. Congress has long boosted the
agricultural industry through rural development funds, and the 2008
federal budget must continue this commitment. By investing in American
agriculture, this committee can energize the rural economy and open new
opportunities to hardworking farmers and ranchers.
As you support the industries that have guided America through its
past, you must also consider our future. One day soon, oil and gas and
coal will end their centuries-long reign as this planet's primary
sources of energy, replaced by fuels now under development in
laboratories across the world. Our nation must prepare for this
historic transition. I urge you to pass a 2008 budget that invests in
new energy sources, such as cellulosic ethanol, and I especially
encourage Congress to invest in wind energy. With your support, my
state of Kansas, which is the third-windiest in America, can and will
lead the world in developing clean, efficient, wind-based power.
Finally, this committee must fulfill America's promises to our
veterans. The men and women who served in World War II, Korea, Vietnam
and Iraq never hesitated when their nation called them to duty, and
America owes our veterans the same unflinching support. Yet federal
lawmakers have consistently cut corners on veterans' programs, ignoring
the promises made when our soldiers were in the line of fire. I am the
daughter of one veteran and the wife of another, so I speak from deep
in my heart when I say that these failures are unacceptable. Your
committee must fully fund the VA. We owe our veterans nothing less.
I have mentioned many goals in my testimony today, and I could have
mentioned a hundred more without scratching the surface of the 2008
budget. I realize that, faced with so many complex and sometimes
conflicting priorities, this committee will have to make compromises.
You cannot fund every worthy project. Yet by investing our limited
resources very wisely, by setting aside partisan politics for the
public good, I am confident that you will strengthen and secure our
great nation.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Sutton. I thank the gentle lady for her testimony. Are
there any questions? Any members who would like to be
recognized in thee remaining time? Mr. Porter?
Mr. Porter. Madam Chair, I am sure that the three of us
could vote unanimously today, but thank you very much for your
testimony.
Ms. Boyda. Thank you so much.
Ms. Sutton. If there are no questions, thank you very much
Ms. Boyda.
Ms. Boyda. All right, thank you. Good luck with your budget
process.
Ms. Sutton. Thank you. I am going to turn the Chair over to
Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird [presiding]. The next member to testify is Mr.
Buchanan. Welcome, and we are prepared to receive your
testimony. You will be recognized for ten minutes. If you cut
it a little shorter than that we might have time for questions.
Thanks, Mr. Buchanan, we will look forward to what you have to
say.
STATEMENT OF HON. VERN BUCHANAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Buchanan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. I hope to convey my
thoughts about our current budget, and talk about my
legislation, H.J. RES. 21, which would add a balanced budget
amendment to the U.S. Constitution. My bill would balance the
budget by 2012. It requires a three-fifth vote for any
increases in debt, that the President submit a balanced budget
to Congress, and that any legislation to increase revenues must
be passed by a true majority of each chamber not just a
majority of those present and voting. Exceptions to these
provisions are provided in a time of military conflict, or
natural disasters. I have secured numerous co-sponsors.
As you know, and especially people on this Committee know,
the national debt today is $8.6 trillion. Each taxpayer shares
over $28,000. I know in the last year, year and a half in my
congressional district many of the constituents are very, very
concerned about the debt. In fiscal year 2006, $405 billion of
taxpayer money was spent on interest payments to holders of
national debt. Last year the interest paid on the national debt
was the third largest expense in the federal budget. Meanwhile,
the debt is increasing by over $1 billion every day and yet the
federal revenues increased 11.8 percent in 2006.
Forty-nine out of fifty states, including Florida, have a
balanced budget requirement. Cities, counties in our area all
have to pay their bills as they go. Florida has continued for
the last eight or nine years to have one tax cut after another
but our revenues have continued to grow. It has been the number
one job growth state in the country. But yet when 9/11 hit and
we did not have the revenues we made the tough choices. Here in
this institution you do not have to. In 1994, Contract with
America had a balanced budget requirement, constitutional
balanced budget requirement. We did not have quite enough
votes. The time is now. The last twenty-seven years as I have
watched politics, and I was a big fan of Ronald Reagan, one of
the things that a lot of us cannot stand is intolerable as we
continue to run up these massive debts. There is absolutely no
confidence that this institution can balance and pay its bills
as it goes.
The balanced budget requirement that the President has
proposed is in alignment with mine in a period of five years.
We can at that point have a balanced budget requirement. It is
not a Republican or a Democratic issue. The fact is, I looked
at the thing and the PAYGO, it just does not go far enough. Our
children and grandchildren are counting on us to deal with this
today. The other thing, one thing I read that a politician runs
from election to election, a statesman runs for the next
generation.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak
here today. I look forward to working with you and your
colleagues on this very important issue. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Baird. I thank the gentleman for his remarks and for
being brief. If I may ask just a couple of quick questions.
First of all, I share your commitment to a balanced budget. But
I have to ask, as a member of this Committee, do you consider
that the President's plan which asserts that we will have
balanced budget within five years, but at the same time borrows
$1.1 trillion from social security including about $180 billion
or more during the year that we are supposedly in balance, is
that a balanced budget if we are borrowing $180 billion from
social security?
Mr. Buchanan. I do not agree with that, but my feeling is
is that the thought is that if we are growing our revenues at 8
or 10 percent a year we do not have to stop spending
completely. We can maybe add 2 or 3 percent a year. But I think
we could work together on a bipartisan basis to put something
in place over five years, get a constitutional balanced budget
amendment with the exception of war or natural, Katrina or
something like that. But I think if we do not do it, I am
convinced, being a student of politics and watching over the
last twenty-five, thirty years, and this is not about Democrats
and Republicans this is about doing what is right. If we do not
do it, the $400 billion we are paying in interest this year
someday might be $1 trillion for our kids. I am concerned about
it.
Mr. Baird. I share the concern. I would just ask, if we are
going to have a balanced budget amendment, to the Constitution
no less, it is important to me we be clear on what defines a
balanced budget. And the President of the United States has
said he will have the budget in balance and yet clearly he will
be borrowing $100 billion plus from social security that at
some point we have to pay back. So definitionally, would your
amendment to the Constitution address that matter? In other
words, how would you define a balance? Does the President,
under your amendment, declare that it is in balance? Or do we
have on budget versus off budget balance? Or how do we deal
with that?
Mr. Buchanan. I think that there are a lot of issues like
that that we would have to work through. But I think if we did
it on a bipartisan basis, the Democrats put out a PAYGO, I just
think we need to take it to the next step. And if we need
additional revenues and people want to raise taxes, I am
against that, but if that is where they want to go at least we
are not borrowing from our kids in the future.
Mr. Baird. Well, amen to the latter. We are passing
unconscionable debt onto our kids and I share that concern. But
I think we also, if we do not, if we are not going to pass that
debt, David Walker, who is the Comptroller of the Government
Accountability Office has testified before this Committee, and
he quite clearly has said that we are going to need a
combination of spending constraints and revenue increases. He
does not think we can get there. And when you look at the long
term budget, particularly the growth of entitlements, I do not
think we can either. I mean, just mathematically, and I wish I
could just say one or the other.
And I will just, I guess for the record in your testimony
you suggest that since the Bush tax cuts were enacted our
revenues have grown to record levels. You were not here, this
is your first year in Congress I know, we had a hearing before
this very Committee when your party was in charge. And it was a
good hearing, it was a hearing about whether or not tax cuts
paid for themselves. Two of the three witnesses were called by
the then majority party and included Doug Holtz-Eakin, the
former head of the Congressional Budget Office, I have slipped
the other gentlemen's names. But all three of those individuals
were asked, top flight economists, do tax cuts pay for
themselves? And have the President's cuts lead to a revenue
increase then the revenue that would have been generated has
there not been cuts? All of them said no.
Mr. Buchanan. Well, the only thing I can tell you, take a
look at Florida's history. We have had substantial cuts year
after year and our revenues continue to grown. Look at last
year to this year, we are up 11.8 percent. First quarter of
last year, fiscal quarter this year we are up 8 percent. Those
are the numbers. Our budget this year has grown from $2.7
trillion I guess to $2.9 trillion. Maybe there are numerous
reasons for that. But I think at the end of the day, we make
the hard choices. It might be a tax increase. Again, I think we
can get it done the other way but if we cannot get it done let
us make the hard choices. Let us pay like every American family
and business, pay as you go. It is your term. But the only way
I think this ever gets done, in watching this for thirty years,
is to have a constitutional budget requirement.
Mr. Baird. Well, I commend the gentleman for his commitment
to balance and a bipartisan approach in joining in that. I may
not join you on the amendment but I think you are absolutely
right that we are going to have to put everything on that
table. And the reason we are going to have to is otherwise we
pass unconscionable debt levels onto our kids. David Walker has
testified before this Committee that in 2000 the long term
seventy-five year horizon commitment and current value was $20
trillion. By 2006 it had grown to $50 trillion, 93 percent of
the net worth of all American households. You are absolutely
right, Mr. Buchanan, we have got to work together on this and
whether we agree or not on the details of the amendment I
applaud you for your commitment to the issue. I know it is
sincere, and I am glad you took the time to come before this
Committee.
Mr. Buchanan. Well, the only thing I would say is I think
there is going to be, there would ideally be give and take on
both sides. But I think at the end of the day we have got to do
what is right for the next generation.
Mr. Baird. Amen to that.
Mr. Buchanan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Any other members wishing to have
questions? Thank you, Mr. Buchanan, I very much appreciate your
commitment and sincerity in taking the time to be here.
Mr. Buchanan. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. The next member to testify is Mr. Larsen, the
gentleman from Washington. Welcome, Mr. Larsen, my good friend
and neighbor to the north. We are pleased to receive your
testimony and you are recognized for ten minutes. And as I
mentioned before, if you speak for ten minutes I cannot ask you
any questions so that might be a good strategy as well. But if
you are shorter than that we can have a little dialogue if
necessary.
Mr. Larsen. I am sure we can finish all of this in under
ten.
Mr. Baird. Okay.
Mr. Larsen. And I will give you a minute back.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Larsen. I want to thank the Budget Committee for the
chance to speak today and I want to focus on one issue in
particular. And that is the opportunity to speak to you today
in favor of funding for programs that aid in the fight against
methamphetamine.
As you know, methamphetamine is an insidious drug. It is
literally a chemical cocktail made from hazardous, caustic
substances and it affects every aspect of our communities. Meth
labs pollute the environment, endanger children, and wreak
havoc in our neighborhoods. Meth users steal innocent victims
identities and will commit any crime in the search of their
next fix. The toll on our businesses, families, the
environment, schools, and communities is extreme.
The fight against meth has thus far been largely a fight
fought at the state and local level, with assistance from the
federal government. Our states have done a tremendous job
reducing the number of home grown meth labs, but while meth
labs are decreasing meth use is still on the rise fueled by
cheap, pure crystal meth from countries such as Mexico. It is
time that we bring the same level of urgency and commitment to
the federal government's efforts to combat meth as we have seen
from state and local communities bringing that fight to the
issue of meth for years.
Our state and local law enforcement officers, treatment
providers, and prevention experts have proven effective in
beating back meth. But they cannot do it alone. There are many
successful federal programs that can provide them with
desperately needed resources to do their jobs. Unfortunately,
many of these programs have taken severe budget cuts in recent
years.
One such program is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant, or the Byrne/JAG Program. This important
program supports multi-jurisdictional and regional drug task
forces and aids our local and state law enforcement in busting
drug trafficking rings. It is the only formula grant program
available to local law enforcement agencies. Through Byrne/JAG
state, county, and city law enforcement officers are able to
work together with federal law enforcement agents to stem the
flow of meth and save communities from crime. Unfortunately,
the President has continually proposed to eliminate Byrne/JAG
Program dollars despite its many successes.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request again
eliminates the Byrne/JAG Program but keeps the name ``Byrne''as
part of the new Byrne Public Safety and Protection Program.
This new Byrne Program consolidates eleven different justice
programs and underfunds them. These eleven programs were funded
at almost $800 million individually in fiscal year 2006 but the
President's request proposes to fund all eleven under this new
Byrne Program at only $350 million for fiscal year 2008.
This Committee graciously included $900 million for the
Byrne/JAG Program in the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution.
For fiscal year 2008, I would encourage the Committee to not
only reject the President's new Byrne Public Safety and
Protection Program, as he proposes to structure it, but also to
again provide $900 million in budget authority for Byrne/JAG as
it stands today.
Another important law enforcement program within DOJ's
budget is the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS,
Program. The President proposes to cut COPS by over $500
million in fiscal year 2008. For fiscal year 2007 he asked for
$117 million for COPS but Congress disregarded that request and
funded it at $542 million. So I ask the Committee to again
disregard the President's budget request and to provide full
funding for COPS in your budget resolution.
This week I visited the Drug Enforcement Administration's
training facilities at Quantico and took part in some of the
training that DEA provides for state and local law enforcement.
I got a small taste of the dangers faced by the men and women
on the front lines of the meth epidemic. Our DEA agents do
great work and the training they provide is useful preparation
for local law enforcement. Unfortunately, the President's
fiscal year 2008 request of $1.8 billion is not enough to hire
new agents, and the DEA faces a hiring freeze for the next two
years. So I would encourage the Committee to include enough
money in its budget resolution to fully fund the DEA.
In conclusion I would just like to mention a handful of
programs that aid both in the fight against meth and drug abuse
in general. While law enforcement is important, preventing drug
abuse in the first place is key. Both the Safe and Drug Free
Schools and Communities Program and Drug Free Communities
Program are critical to ensuring safe, healthy, and drug free
schools. And for those who missed the prevention message and
choose to abuse alcohol and drugs access to treatment is vital.
The Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant is the
backbone of our nation's publicly funded treatment and
prevention system, and serves our most vulnerable citizens.
Again, I want to thank the Committee today again for the
opportunity to testify. And I have additional comments that I
have submitted for the record, and I am happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Washington
Thank you, Chairman Spratt. I appreciate the opportunity to speak
today in favor of funding for programs that aid in the fight against
methamphetamine.
As you know, methamphetamine is an insidious drug. It is literally
a chemical cocktail, made from hazardous, caustic substances, and it
affects every aspect of our communities. Meth labs pollute the
environment, endanger children, and wreak havoc on our neighborhoods.
Meth users steal innocent victims' identities and will commit any crime
in search of their next fix. The toll on our businesses, families,
environment, schools, and communities is extreme.
What started out as a regional west coast drug has quickly
enveloped the entire country. All you have to do is look at a map to
see the spread of meth use. In 2005, 49 states reported meth lab
incidents.
The fight against methamphetamine has thus far been fought mainly
at the state and local level, with some assistance from the federal
government. Our states have done a tremendous job reducing the number
of homegrown meth labs.
Thanks to state laws restricting access to meth precursors, and
also to the Combat Meth Epidemic Act, the number of domestic meth labs
has significantly decreased in recent years, from over 17,000 labs
busted in 2003 down to 6,435 in 2006.
But while meth labs are decreasing, meth use is still on the rise,
fueled by cheap, pure crystal meth from countries like Mexico. It is
time that we bring the same level of urgency and commitment to the
federal government's efforts to combat meth as states and local
communities have been bringing to the issue for years.
Our state and local law enforcement officers, treatment providers
and prevention experts have proven effective in beating back meth. But
they can't do it alone. There are many successful federal programs that
provide them with desperately needed resources to do their jobs.
Unfortunately, many of these programs have taken severe budget cuts in
recent years.
One such program is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant program. This important program supports multi-jurisdictional
regional drug task forces and aids our local and state law enforcement
in busting drug trafficking rings. It is the only formula grant program
available to local law enforcement agencies. Through Byrne-JAG dollars,
state, county, and city law enforcement are able to work together with
federal law enforcement agents to stem the flow of meth and save
communities from crime.
One success story of Byrne-JAG can be found in my district. In June
of 2005, the ATF, along with the Northwest Regional Drug Task Force,
made close to 40 arrests as part of a three-state effort to dismantle a
drug and gun-selling operation based in Bellingham, Washington. The
arrests were the culmination of a two-year investigation. Operation
Roadhouse, as it was called, would not have been possible without
Byrne-JAG. Those federal dollars allowed the drug task force to do its
part in busting the bad guys.
Unfortunately, the President has continuously proposed to eliminate
the Byrne-JAG program despite success stories like the one in my
district.
The President's FY08 Budget request again eliminates the Byrne-JAG
program but keeps the name ``Byrne'' as part of the new Byrne Public
Safety and Protection program. This new Byrne program consolidates
eleven different justice programs and under funds them. These eleven
programs were funded at almost 800 million dollars individually in
FY2006, but the President's request proposes to fund all eleven at only
350 million dollars for FY2008.
The Committee graciously included 900 million for the Byrne-JAG
program in your fiscal year 2007 budget resolution. For fiscal year
2008, I encourage you to reject the President's new Byrne Public Safety
and Protection program and to again provide 900 million dollars in
budget authority for Byrne-JAG as it stands today.
Since FY2002, justice assistance program funding in the Department
of Justice budget has been cut by more than 63 percent.
Crime isn't just a local issue and we owe it to our constituents to
help protect them.
Another important law enforcement program within DOJ's budget is
the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program. The
President proposes to cut COPS by over 500 million dollars in fiscal
year 2008. For fiscal year 2007 he asked for 117 million for COPS, but
Congress disregarded that request and funded it at 542 million. I ask
the Committee to again disregard the President's budget request and to
provide full funding for COPS in your budget resolution.
This week I visited the Drug Enforcement Administration's training
facilities at Quantico and took part in some of the training DEA
provides for state and local law enforcement. I got a small taste of
the dangers faced by the men and women on the front lines of the meth
epidemic. They confront dangerous criminals, hazardous chemicals and
life-threatening explosives every time they bust a meth lab. Our DEA
agents do great work and the training they provide is useful
preparation for local law enforcement. Unfortunately, the President's
FY2008 request of 1.8 billion is not enough to hire new agents and the
DEA faces a hiring freeze for the next two years. I encourage this
Committee to include enough funding in its budget resolution to fully
fund the DEA.
In conclusion, I'd like to mention a handful of programs that aid
both in the fight against meth and drug abuse in general.
While law enforcement is important, preventing drug abuse in the
first place is key. Both the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
and the Drug-Free Communities programs are critical to ensuring safe,
healthy, and drug-free schools. For those who miss the prevention
message and choose to abuse alcohol and drugs, access to treatment is
vital. The Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant is the
backbone of our nation's publicly funded treatment and prevention
system and serves our most vulnerable citizens.
I again thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee
today. I have additional comments that I will submit for the record.
Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD
Impact Aid
Impact Aid is a critical program for school districts in my
district and across the country that are adversely impacted by tax-
exempt federally owned land. The Second Congressional District of
Washington has two Navy bases and eight federally recognized tribes.
The funding impacted schools in these areas receive through the program
provides students with the resources they need to learn and teachers
with the tools they need to teach.
The President's FY08 budget request would again woefully under fund
IMPACT AID. Under the President's budget, funding would stay stagnant
at $1.092 billion, where it has been the last few years. With an
increased student base, the impact of level funding means that school
districts across the country that receive IMPACT Aid funding will
receive less money per student throughout the year. School and school
districts in impacted areas are squeezed tighter than ever. I urge the
committee to reject the President's request and increase funding for
IMPACT AID to a level of $1.35 billion and help us keep our commitment
to schools and school districts throughout the country. Students in
these impacted schools should not have to suffer.
Along with Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois, I have again
introduced the ``Government Reservation Accelerated Development for
Education Act (GRADE-A),'' to ensure the prompt payment and efficient
delivery of IMPACT AID to our schools. Our legislation would make
Section 8002 (Federal Property) and Section 8003 (Basic Payments for
Federally Connected Children) an entitlement and no longer subject to a
yearly appropriation. Under this legislation, teachers and their
students would have the secured resources they need to have a
productive and effective learning environment.
In the absence of this legislation, I respectfully request the
Budget Committee to fully fund basic support payments for IMPACT AID at
a level of $1.35 billion.
Small Business Development Centers
The President's Fiscal Year 2008 budget is once again a direct
assault on the Small Business Administration and the many vital
programs the SBA administers. The President's budget again proposes
eliminating of a number of key programs and represents a 45% decrease
in total funding for the SBA since the President first took office in
2001.
One critical program proposed to receive level funding for the 7th
year in a row is the Small Business Administration's Small Business
Development Center (SBDC) program. The President's FY08 Budget Request
would keep funding for SBDC's level at $87.12 million which represents
a cut from FY06 and presumably FY07 funding levels, while costs and
inflation continue to rise.
The SBDC program helps small businesses get started and grow, and
create and save jobs in the process. In Washington state, SBDCs have
provided management and technical training to more than 27,000 small
business owners, managers and employees, and provided business
counseling to more than 19,000 small businesses, since 2001. In the
process, Washington state SBDCs have helped local businesses create and
save more than 10,000 jobs, acquire more than $113 million in
additional funding, and make more than $288 million in sales. Further,
Washington state SBDCs not only pay for themselves but have a net
increase for the federal treasury. Washington state SBDC's business
counseling clients generate $3.84 million in additional federal
revenues in 2005 (as a result of increased economic activity), which
well over twice the federal government's investment of approximately
$1.62 million in Washington state SBDC's in 2004.
However, federal funding for SBDCs has been in decline since 2004.
This decline in funding has limited and will continue to limit
Washington SBDCs' ability to serve local small businesses and create
new jobs.
Therefore, I urge the committee to reject the President's proposal
and include funding for the SBDC program at a level of $110 million.
This level would still fall below the Fiscal Year 2001 level, while
adjusting for inflation. Restoring this funding would provide SBDC's
across the country with the resources they need to help our small
businesses.
Mr. Baird. Well, thank you. I want to thank the gentleman
for his leadership on the Methamphetamine Caucus. You have done
great work, and someone who has been very active myself in that
I am grateful for you being here, and calling the Committee's
attention to this. As you talk to your local law enforcement
officers and they look at these cuts, what is their reaction
to, if the federal government under the Bush administration
were to cut these programs to the levels that are proposed?
What are the local, guys on the street saying?
Mr. Larsen. It is usually disbelief, followed by
frustration. In Snohomish County alone, which is the largest
county in my district, the Snohomish County Regional Drug Task
Force would have to shut down within two years if there was
zero funding through the Byrne/JAG Program. They could get
through one year by shifting dollars, but the second year would
require them to just totally shut down thereby obviously
decreasing the effectiveness and the coordination that is
important to conduct interdiction against drugs and
methamphetamine in particular. So, disbelief followed by
continued frustration to have to fight this battle year after
year in Congress. It is tough enough to fight the battle
against drugs and interdiction and, you know, prevention and
treatment at home at the grassroots. But to have to fight a
battle out in Washington, D.C. to make sure that there are
dollars there to help them fight that battle is more work than
they need to be doing.
Mr. Baird. One last question. Some would argue that, well,
we do not need this federal support. Law enforcement is a local
responsibility. But as my awareness of, particularly the
methamphetamine problem, is we have a very good job over the
last number of years locally and with federal help of cutting
the local clandestine labs and their local domestic supply of
meth. But increasingly it is international superlabs bringing
finished product in, which makes it a federal issue in my
judgment. Are your law enforcement people dealing more,
especially on the drug front which some of these programs
address, more increasingly with international suppliers? Or is
it still the local clan labs?
Mr. Larsen. It is increasingly an international supply. In
fact, in the last several years nationally we have seen a
decrease of meth lab busts from a round number of 12,000 down
to about 6,000 per year. That is great news. But busting what
some call these Beavis and Butthead labs, or Mom and Pop labs,
is one thing, but that supply is being replaced by a higher
form of methamphetamine that is coming in through international
distribution channels. That is why in the Combat Meth Epidemic
Act, which Congress passed last year and you worked on as well
as many other members in a bipartisan way worked on, there is
this very important international element for international
interdiction. We expect within the next couple weeks for the
State Department to come out with their list of top five
exporters and importers of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, the
precursor chemical for not just great products like Sudafed but
bad products like methamphetamine, to help develop a baseline
for further action on international interdiction. So the
international element is a critical component and the federal
government is the only dog big enough to fight that battle. I
cannot rely on my local sheriff, or your local sheriff in
Cowlitz County, to deal with international drug trafficking.
That is a federal responsibility.
Mr. Baird. I think you could not have said it better. It
was very articulately put and I am glad it is in the record for
this Committee and I know we will be very cognizant of that as
we craft the budget. I thank the gentleman. If you have any
further remarks or anyone else has questions? If not, thanks
for your testimony.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baird. And our next witness, I think, is Mr. Wolf.
Welcome, Mr. Wolf. We are pleased to receive your testimony and
as I mentioned to our friend Mr. Larsen we have ten minutes,
and feel free to use it as you so choose.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK WOLF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Committee has a
formidable challenge before it in crafting the nation's budget.
I do not know, I am not an economist, but as everyone knows
this nation is facing a financial crisis like none other in our
history as the baby boom generation starts moving into
retirement.
The retirement of the first baby boomer will begin as a
trickle in less than a year, a few years later the trickle
becomes a flood, and within five more years a tsunami which
will wreak havoc on our nation. Our national priorities like
finding a cure for cancer or fighting meth or keeping America
competitive in education are already being crowded out by
mandatory spending in the areas of social security, Medicare,
and Medicaid. The retirement of the baby boomers will only
exacerbate an already strained budget.
We need to take action now in addressing these issues are
critical to ensure that countries that hold our debt do not
control our future. Borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars
from countries like China puts not only our future economy at
risk but also our national security.
There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions,
but the longer we wait the more dramatic the remedy will need
to be. Abraham Lincoln, one of our nation's greatest
presidents, said, ``You cannot escape the responsibility
tomorrow by evading it today.''
It is encouraging that many members of Congress are
discussing how to address the issue. I believe the Congress
understands the crisis we are facing and I believe the
President does, too. I also believe there is a desire by the
Democrats and Republicans, as well as the administration, to
address this crisis. Unfortunately, there may not be the
political will to make the touch choices to keep the nation
from falling off a financial precipice. Therefore, I believe we
need to do something dramatic and something bold that can move
the nation to understand where the financial future of America
is headed.
It is with the hope of building a consensus on this issue
that Senator Voinovich and I reintroduced the Secure in
America's Future Economy Commission Legislation, also known as
the SAFE Commission. I believe the SAFE Commission can provide
an opportunity to thoughtfully address the nation's budget
challenges, reflect on national priorities, and move us to take
responsible actions that will avoid wholesale arbitrary cuts or
caps. One of the most critical responsibilities of the
Commission will be explaining the crisis we face and listening
to the American people about how to get the country back on
track. To help determine national priorities, the Commission
would hold series of public hearings across the country to
engage the American people. I hope and expect that the American
people would participate and share their thoughts. The key to
the nation's financial future is a debate that puts everything,
entitlements and tax policies, on the table. It then would
require that Congress for an up or down vote on its
recommendations in their entirety, similar to the BRAC process.
I believe and fully expect the Commission's legislative
recommendation to accurately reflect our national priorities,
but it is important to remember the Commission proposal will
not become law without a vote on behalf of the Congress,
including an opportunity for amendments and the President's
signature. This has the support of the Heritage Foundation, the
Concord Coalition, former members of Congress including one who
chaired this Committee, former CBO directors.
I have heard criticism that such weighty decisions on the
nation's financial future are the responsibility of Congress.
That is accurate, but there are two provisions to protect
congressional prerogative. First, four of the fourteen
congressionally appointed Commission members must be sitting
members of Congress. Obviously, the Chairman of this Committee
and the Ranking Member would almost certainly be two. There
could be more. Second, if Congress acts significant legislation
aimed at addressing this looming crisis, the SAFE Commission
would terminate and cease to exist. But if Congress does not
act no later than seventeen months from the organization of the
Commission, it will be required to vote up or down on
legislative proposals.
I think with that, Mr. Chairman, I will just sort of end
it, and just say that, you know, we have a history of your
mother and father, my mother and father, and parents sacrificed
for us and I think as a father of five children, as a
grandfather of twelve, it is time for us to face this very,
very critical issue. I believe, again, there is a strong
desire, just listening to members on both sides speak. The
question is, is there the will?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Wolf, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Virginia
Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today.
This committee has a formidable challenge before it in crafting the
nation's budget. While I am not an economist, I do know that this
nation is facing a financial crisis like none other in our history as
the baby boom generation starts moving into retirement.
The retirement of the first baby boomer will begin with a trickle
in less than one year. A few years later, that trickle will become a
flood that within five more years will become a tsunami that will begin
to wreak havoc on federal programs and the economy.
Our national priorities like finding a cure for cancer or keeping
America competitive in the world economy are already being crowded out
by mandatory spending in the areas of Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid. The retirement of the baby boomers will only exacerbate an
already strained budget.
We need to take action now to ensure that we have the necessary
resources available for programs such as education, health care and
transportation, among others, that the American people expect.
Addressing these issues is also critical to ensure countries that
hold our debt do not control our future. Borrowing hundreds of billions
of dollars from countries like China puts not only our future economy
but also our national security at risk.
There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, but the
longer we wait, the more dramatic the remedy will need to be.
Abraham Lincoln, one of our nation's greatest presidents, once
said: ``You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it
today.''
It's encouraging that many Members are discussing how to address
this issue. I believe the Congress understands the crisis we are facing
and I believe the president understands it. I also believe there is a
desire by Democrats and Republicans as well as the president to address
this crisis.
Unfortunately, I believe neither the Congress nor the president has
the political will to make the tough choices to keep our nation's from
falling off the financial precipice.
Therefore, I believe we need to do something dramatic, something
bold, that can move our nation to understand where the financial future
of America is headed.
It is with the hope of building consensus on this very difficult
issue that last month Senator Voinovich and I reintroduced the Securing
America's Future Economy Commission legislation (H.R. 473), also known
as the SAFE Commission.
I believe the SAFE Commission can provide an opportunity to
thoughtfully address the nation's budget challenges, reflect on
national priorities and move us to take responsible action that will
avoid wholesale, arbitrary cuts or caps. If we continue to wait and go
along like the realities of tomorrow will never come, Congress will
find itself in crisis mode.
One of the most critical responsibilities of the commission will be
explaining the crisis we face and listening to the American people
about how to get the country back on track. To help determine national
priorities, the SAFE Commission would hold a series of public hearings
across the country to engage the American people in a national
conversation about our country's financial future. I hope and expect
that the American people would participate and share their thoughts on
how best to respond to the challenges facing our nation.
The key to our nation's financial future is a debate that that puts
everything on the table: entitlements, other federal programs, and tax
policies.
The SAFE Commission does that and requires Congress to vote up or
down on its recommendations in their entirety, similar to the BRAC
process.
I believe and fully expect the commission's legislative
recommendations to accurately reflect our nation's priorities, but it
is important to remember that the commission's proposal will not become
law without a vote in Congress--including an opportunity for
amendments--and the president's signature.
Since we first introduced the idea of the SAFE Commission last
summer, the proposal has received strong support from across the
political spectrum. Supporters include: the Heritage Foundation; the
Concord Coalition; former members of Congress including those who
chaired this very committee, and former CBO directors.
It has been embraced by major newspapers across the country, and
syndicated columnist David Broder.
I have heard criticism that such weighty decisions on the nation's
financial future are the responsibility of Congress.
I couldn't agree more.
There are two provisions to protect congressional prerogatives.
First, four of the 14 congressionally appointed commission members
must be sitting Members of Congress.
Second, if Congress enacts significant legislation aimed at
addressing this looming crisis, the SAFE Commission would terminate and
cease to exist.
But if Congress doesn't act, no later than 17 months from the
organization of the commission, it would be required to vote--up or
down--on legislative proposals.
I am including for the record a summary of the composition and
operation of the SAFE Commission to help answer questions you may have.
As a father of five and grandfather of 12, the challenge posed by
the pending retirement of baby boomers strikes me as much more than a
routine policy discussion. Without action, just what kind of future are
we leaving to our children and grandchildren?
I also deeply believe there is a moral component to this issue that
goes to the heart of who we are as Americans. By that I mean, I wonder
if we have lost the national will to make tough decisions that may
require sacrifice?
Moreover, have we lost the political courage to reject the partisan
and special interest demands and do what is best for our country?
If we remember the legacy we have inherited--the sacrifices of
Washington's crossing the Delaware and the battle at Antietam and so
many other examples from the over two centuries of our nation'
history--and the debt we owe to previous generations--our grandparents
and our parents and the sacrifices they made to make our country what
it is today--I believe we all will be moved to do our duty.
The SAFE Commission should be embraced by both sides of the aisle.
This is a national issue; not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue.
I am open to suggestions about the legislation from members of both
parties. I believe most Americans will welcome it as well, especially
considering we all want what is best for our children and
grandchildren.
We must heed the cautionary words of George Washington's 1796
farewell address:
``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden
of which we ourselves ought to bear.''
I ask that you take the time to review this legislation and look
forward to working with you to take the necessary action to secure
America's future economy.
Thank you, again, Chairman Spratt and Mr. Ryan, for this chance to
testify today.
Mr. Baird. I thank the gentleman first of all for his many
years of service and his initiative in bringing this up. And I
think you raise a number of interesting points. I share the
absolute passion to try to resolve this. And is not, as you
said very eloquently, it is not a Democratic issue, it is not a
Republican issue. Our attack ads would probably say,
``Congressman Wolf wants to cut benefits for retirees,''and
your attack ads would say, ``Congressman Baird wants to raise
taxes.'' We are not going to solve the problem with attack ads.
We are going to solve the problem when we both do the kind of
things that this Commission would probably recommend.
If I could ask just a couple questions about the Commission
itself? As I read it, Mr. Wolf, you are saying that we would
have to have an up or down vote, but in your testimony I think
you talked about opportunities for amendments.
Mr. Wolf. Yes. Each party could have an amendment. The
House could have its own package, the Senate could have its own
package, and the administration could have his and it would be
king of the hill.
Mr. Baird. Okay. So no amendments to the----
Mr. Wolf. Correct.
Mr. Baird. Straight up or down vote on the package itself?
Mr. Wolf. Correct.
Mr. Baird. Walk us through the rationale for that, if you
would.
Mr. Wolf. We would never have closed a base in this country
if we did not have the Base Closing Commission. Dick Armey put
that idea together. There is not the will. And sometimes
strangely enough in this place, the bigger the issue the easier
it is to get done. Sometimes an amendment will come out on the
floor for a $1 million. They will take the whole afternoon
debating it. Then the next day, perhaps defense appropriations
come out, and they spend an hour debating the whole bill. So, I
just do not believe there is, and plus this place,
unfortunately, is very, very partisan, just what you said at
the outset. So I think everyone who had that opportunity, I
think you could certainly, and I changed the bill based on Mr.
Spratt's comments that there were not enough congressional on
it. So we did put members on, and he would certainly be on and
Mr. Ryan would be too, but that number could even go up. But we
also have Portman from OMB, and we have the Secretary of
Treasury, and some outside people. They would hold public
hearings in every federal reserve district. Short of that, I
just do not think it is going to happen.
Mr. Baird. Your comment about our kids, you know, I often
say at town halls, I had a series, as you know, the Concord
Coalition, and David Walker, the Comptroller of the Currency,
are doing this fiscal wake up.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, they support this bill.
Mr. Baird. Yes, I know. And I had a town hall on that very
topic two weeks ago and I said any responsible adult between
themselves experiencing physical pain or illness and suffering
or passing it on to their kids would immediately say, ``Put the
pain on me, spare my kids.'' When it comes to fiscal pain, this
Congress and frankly the constituents and citizens themselves
are complicit in passing it on to our kids and I applaud you
for looking for a way to address that. And I call on the
Ranking Member Mr. Smith to see if he has any questions or
comments.
Mr. Smith. I do not yet. I appreciate the opportunity to
review your testimony and I will probably speak later. Thank
you.
Mr. Wolf. Good, thank you. I might say, I am going to look
for opportunities to offer this in this session. I may offer it
in full Appropriations Committee, offer it wherever. But I know
it is somewhat controversial but without this, Mr. Chairman, I
am not sure we will act. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Baird. If I could ask one last question, and this will
sound like I am trying to be cute and I am seriously not.
Mr. Wolf. Well, that is okay. No.
Mr. Baird. I think you are very cognizant of this in the
structure of the Commission process. It has got to be a super
majority of, what was it, two-thirds?
Mr. Wolf. Yes, we were even thinking of, I, whatever Mr.
Spratt and Mr. Ryan and you all wanted I would change.
Mr. Baird. Yeah.
Mr. Wolf. I mean, you all are the boss.
Mr. Baird. The reason I ask it is because, and again this
is not meant to be cute, because I have immense respect of the
administration officials as individuals that you spoke of. And
frankly, for that matter, for my colleagues on this Committee.
The question would be, balances of power can change. You could
have a Democratic president next time. Presumably you would be
comfortable, partly because of the super majority requirement,
and I do not read this as you are trying to stack the deck. You
are trying to get responsible people.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, it is eight and eight.
Mr. Baird. Yeah.
Mr. Wolf. So it is eight and eight, and hopefully we would
pass this before the next president. So, no, this is eight
Republicans and eight Democrats. It is exactly split, eight and
eight.
Mr. Baird. Is that coincidental to the majority make up of
the House right now?
Mr. Wolf. No, it is where we are based on we have a
Republican administration and we have a Democratic Congress.
Mr. Baird. Yes, my question Mr. Wolfe would be if we had
next round a large switch in the other direction, one way or
the other so that it was Democratic administration, Democratic
Congress or Republican administration, Republican Congress,
does the balance get skewed at that point?
Mr. Wolf. Well, I really had not thought about that. That
is a good question. I am hopeful, well I am really not hopeful
that it is going to pass. I am going to try that it would be
done in this Congress. And I think we are at a, we are at a
point, and there is a sincere, I read everything Mr. Spratt
puts out. I will stipulate, he is very sincere about this.
Mr. Baird. He actually is.
Mr. Wolf. And when you listen to Mr. Conrad over in the
Senate side I believe he is, too. Our members are, too. So I
think we are at a point now, where we have a Republican
administration, a Democratic House and Senate in Congress, you
almost have a stalemate, each can check point. And by having a
super majority, we require it not only be Democrats for it but
some Democrats and Republicans. Or, not only just Republicans
but some Democrats. So it can truly be bipartisan.
Mr. Baird. I appreciate it. I know you to be sincerely and
passionately committed to this, and that is why I wanted to, I
was not trying to get you on the record.
Mr. Wolf. That is okay.
Mr. Baird. I was trying to give you a chance to be on the
record as manifesting that, is what was the goal of that.
Because I know that what you are trying to do is come up with a
Commission that can get the job done without one side or the
other having so much power over the other side. That is not
something we can agree with. Because in the end, then, we would
not vote it right.
Mr. Wolf. That is right. And everything, again, I heard you
talking, everything, everything has to be on the table.
Mr. Baird. Amen to that. I thank the gentleman very much
for his service and contribution.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baird. The next member is the gentle lady from the
Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen. Welcome, and we are pleased to
receive your testimony. You are recognized for ten minutes.
Thank you for being here.
Dr. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baird. Pardon me, I should have said Dr. Christensen.
Dr. Christensen. Thank you. I will make reference to that,
and in order to shorten my presentation it is a little
different from what you have in the complete testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Dr. Christensen. I want to thank you, Chairman, and members
of the Committee for the opportunity to give testimony into
what I know will be a very difficult budget process. And I come
to you today wearing many congressional hats. First, as the
Delegate from one of the offshore possessions of the United
States and as Chair of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs. As
such, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the
economic conditions of the U.S. Territories under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Interior have languished over
the past ten years. Each of them, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
America Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas,
continue to suffer from high unemployment and unstable
economies.
While our well being is depending on programs and every
department of our government being applied in the most
appropriate way to our islands, in large measure it does fall
to the Technical Assistance Account of the Office of Insular
Affairs as the only program which provides assistance
specifically to the U.S. Territories to meet and tailor the
programs to our needs or respond to some of the unique
challenges that we face. At a time when the economic trend in
all of these U.S. Territories is downward, that one account,
which can be useful to help improve our condition, should not
also be decreased as it is in the President's budget.
Accordingly, I believe more resources should be devoted to the
Office of Insular Affairs Technical Assistance Account to
better respond to the needs of our territories. And to further
support our economies I would also encourage the Committee to
work with the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico to provide for the
full cover over of excise taxes that are due to the
territories.
But, Madam Chairwoman and colleagues, I also come to this
Committee as the only female physician ever to have served and
the only physician of color in this body. Also, as Chair of the
Health Braintrust of the Congressional Black Caucus and as one
of the three Health Co-Chairs of the Tri-Caucus, which is made
up of the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian-Pacific
Caucuses. In that capacity we represent nearly one-third of the
U.S. population, which is growing. Unfortunately this is also
the segment of our population that makes up more than one-half
of the uninsured, that has the least access to quality care,
and that therefore bears the greatest burden of disease in this
country. These circumstances have created longstanding and
shameful disparities in health between our populations and the
rest of the country and this results in close to 100,000
premature, preventable deaths every year.
The time has come for ethnic and racial minority Americans
and for our entire country to make that up front investment in
the healthcare of people of color to end these disparities; to
bring fairness, justice and equal opportunity to our national
healthcare system; and to prevent the healthcare crisis that
now exists from becoming a catastrophe.
But we have to be willing to set the new direction and to
provide the bold leadership we promised this country last year
which, though doubtful, they elected us to provide. I have to
say up front, and I know this is going to be a bit of heresy to
many people, that it will take either ending the tax cuts for
the wealthiest among us and cutting the excess fat out of a
defense budget that pays for billions in waste, or it will take
increasing our debt or slowing our achievement of a surplus.
But it is an investment that we cannot afford not to make. Our
country's strength, continuing moral leadership, and national
security depend on it. Even if it increases debt, the
economists define good debt and bad debt. What we are asking
will not be the bad debt that has left the middle class as well
as the poor and people of color waiting and left behind while
the big corporations and wealthy Americans have gotten more at
their expense and the expense of our country. It would be good
debt, which through investing in our people improves well being
and preparedness and so increases productivity, and the
strength, competitiveness and prosperity of our nation.
We have all asked to lead and now it is up to us to do so.
And doing so will require a change in the healthcare and health
spending paradigm we have followed for far too long in this
country. Whether we get additional funding, as I am requesting,
or not, it is critical that we redirect how we spend the
limited healthcare dollars we will have. We can no longer
continue to increase funding just to NIH at the expense of
prevention and quality healthcare. We cannot just fund health
centers without ensuring their survival through adequate
reimbursement through full funding of public health programs
and increased training of a diverse health workforce to take
care of our increasingly diverse population. Our failure to do
this is at the heart of our failure to close the disparity gap
and reach our health people goals.
The adage an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
has not survived this long without good reason. It was true
when first uttered, it is true today, and it applies to how we
can most effectively spend our healthcare dollars which are
considerable. Without a doubt, the $2 trillion we now spending
annually has not raised our health status ranking in the world;
has not enabled the poor, the rural or those Americans of color
to be healthier; nor has it prepared us to protect our
communities from the threat of terrorism by biologic, chemical,
or even nuclear agents. To spend the dollars we do budget more
effectively and to reduce and eventually reverse the
skyrocketing cost of healthcare, we have to set a new
direction, to change course, to alter the old tried and failed
approach and instead focus on expanding coverage, increasing
access, improving quality, providing cultural and linguistic
competence in healthcare, and improving the social determinants
of health in poor, rural and communities of color.
I have listed a number of programs in my submitted
testimony which are important to this goal, programs which have
been cut, eliminated or level funded and which need to be at
least restored and at best increased which is what we urge you
to do. Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP for the states and the
territories and the rebuilding of a better, stronger healthcare
in New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf region affected by
Katrina and Rita are among the top priorities because they are
the foundation upon which the new direction of healthcare must
be started. But there are also the programs that give our
children a healthy start in life. Many of these and more are
listed in the testimony: those that target aid dollars to the
hardest hit communities, especially the African American
community; that provide increased access and equity to mental
health and substance abuse treatments; that fund programs to
American Indians living in urban areas; that empower
communities to develop systems that better meet their
healthcare needs and support wellness; those that reach out and
bring under represented minorities into the health professions
at all levels; or that keep the facilities and institutions
that serve the under served open; that reimburse providers for
the largely high quality healthcare they provide despite being
nickeled and dimed to death; or those programs that improve the
social and economic factors that underpin our health and that
above all focus on health promotion and disease prevention,
which is the key to reducing our nation's health costs and to
reliably and sustainably reducing the deficit.
In none of the projections I have seen has there been any
reference to the impact of healthcare cost to the debt, if
those healthcare costs continue their rapid, uphill spiral
unchecked. To rein in these costs the options are only two.
One, to provide the quality and comprehensive care, to reduce
or prevent catastrophic, high cost disease, and create healthy,
productive citizens and communities. Or, to use a class
containment strategy that creates a multi-tiered system of
healthcare delivery and simply leaves the poor and very often
the middle income to fend for themselves, which bluntly put is
to write them off. The second is not only abhorrent to our
democracy and the ideals of this country, it is not an option.
Finally, Madam Chairwoman and colleagues, and this is where
I am asking you to step up and out even further beyond our
comfort zone and the political limitations we have placed on
the 2008 budget and on ourselves. For this nation's health to
improve, for the cost of healthcare to begin to go down, for us
to once again be the most productive and competitive nation we
have always been, we must do what is necessary to ensure equal
opportunity for all and that includes equal opportunity for
healthcare and to good health. To do that we must first
eliminate health disparities. And so in addition to repairing a
budget that is in need of intensive care I am asking for a
Health Equity Fund to be created at the level of somewhere
around $2.5 billion over the next five years, with the
possibility of renewal.
The disparities, which are sometimes called the slave
health deficit because of its origins, have been with us for
400 years. It would be reasonable to expect that it would take
more than five years to close it. While I and many of our
partners and supporters would have no problem if we were to
incur good debt for this noble purpose, it is also possible to
find an offset for this fund which is so vital for our future
in other areas of the Health, Budget, or other sections of our
national budget. Our bottom line is we cannot afford to do it,
Madam Chair and other colleagues. Advances in technology and
the over $6,000 per capita we spend in this country on health,
at least one person of color whose death should not have
happened, whose death was premature and preventable, died in
the time it took me to make this presentation. It adds up to
over 200 people per day, and close to 100,000 people annually.
Not just because they failed to act responsively, in most cases
they try, but because the institutions that serve them and
create the programs and the policies that direct that work
themselves fail to act responsively.
This is the kind of terrorism that African Americans, other
people of color, and the poor live with every day. The
President's budget is woefully out of sync with the American
public as are his policies and priorities. Americans want equal
opportunity to good healthcare and to good health for all. They
want an America that lives up to its promise, a promise that
includes investing in the most precious resource we have, our
people. The Democratic party, and all of us who have come here,
have always stood for those same things. This would be a bold
step. But bold leadership is also what we promised and I want
us to deliver on that promise.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Donna Christensen, a Delegate in Congress
From the U.S. Virgin Islands
Thank you, Chairman Spratt and members of the committee for the
opportunity to give testimony and input into what I know will be a very
difficult budget process.
I come before you today, not only as a fellow colleague, but as the
only female physician ever to have served in this body, as the only
physician of color in this body, as Chair of the Health Braintrust of
the Congressional Black Caucus and as one of the three health co-chairs
of the Tri Caucus--made up of the Congressional Black, Hispanic and
Asian Pacific Caucuses.
In that capacity, we represent nearly one third of the US
population and are growing. Unfortunately, this is also the segment of
our population that makes up more than one half of the uninsured; that
has the least access to quality care; and that therefore bears the
greatest burden of disease in this country.
We refer to the health gap between this population and other
Americans as Health Disparities. They are great, they cause about
100,000 premature preventable deaths each year, and they lower the
quality of care and drive up the costs for everyone.
And so while what I am about to request may seem irresponsible on
its face, given our growing indebtedness, I submit to you that it is an
investment that must be made to improve the overall health and strength
of our nation.
And Mr. Chairman and Colleagues, this investment can come from but
a small portion of savings realized from rescinding or not renewing the
tax cuts for the wealthiest category of individuals. Or it can cause a
small but productive increase in our debt. But it would be worth it in
terms of the returns for the health and health care savings of all
Americans.
As you know better than I, economists make the distinction between
bad debt and good debt, and agree that ``good'' debt is investment debt
that creates or improves value and ``bad'' debt accomplishes the very
opposite. Mr. Chairman, my request is one that falls under the ``good''
debt category because it would be increasing value that is evident not
only in the health and well being of individuals and communities, but
also in the strength of the workforce, our defense and ultimately our
nation.
To be effective, it would be critical that we adopt a new approach
to healthcare funding that goes beyond our current focus of research at
the expense of prevention and care, and community health centers, which
while they have the potential to be the cornerstone of healthcare,
cannot do so without adequate reimbursements, well funded public health
programs and staff that reflects and is sensitive to our diversifying
communities.
So to not just eliminate disparities, but to slow down and begin
the reversal of the skyrocketing health care costs, beginning with this
new budget which sets a new direction for our country, we must change
our focus and expand coverage, increase access, improve quality, as
well as cultural and linguistic competence, and change the social
determinants of health in communities of color.
To begin with, we have to restore cuts and fill in gaps in the
president's budget.
As the Congresswoman from the United States Virgin Islands, who
practiced medicine there for more than two decades before coming to
Congress, I am very concerned that under the President's budget, the
Virgin Islands and other U.S. territories will continue to NOT receive
state-like treatment under Medicaid and Medicare, despite having state-
size health and health care needs and challenges. Compounding and
further exacerbating this problem is the inability of territorial
governments to afford to fully meet the health care needs of their
citizens, whose incomes are less than double the U.S. poverty level.
The time has come for us to invest in the health and life opportunities
of ALL Americans, from Maryland to California, from Alaska to the U.S.
Virgin Islands and from Oregon to Guam.
Mr. Chairman and Colleagues, we owe it to all citizens to address
this problem, that is why my fellow territorial Delegates and I have
each year introduced legislation to lift the federal Medicaid Cap and
provide it with a match equal to that of the poorest state. We were
fortunate in the last Congress to receive an increase in Medicaid funds
for the first time since the balance Budget act of 1997. It is my hope
that this the first budget put forth by Democrats in over twelve will
at the very least begin the process of addressing this need.
Additionally, as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs,
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the economic conditions in
the U.S. territories, under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Interior, have not improved over the past ten years. Each of them, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands continue to suffer from high unemployment and
unstable economies. In large measure, the Technical Assistance account
of the Office of Insular Affairs is the only program which can be used
to respond to the circumstances in these U.S. territories.
At a time when the economic trend in all these U.S. territories is
downward, the one account which can be useful to help improve their
condition should not follow. Accordingly, I believe that more resources
should be devoted to the Office of Insular Affairs Technical Assistance
account to better respond to the needs of our U.S. territories.
Mr. Chairman and Colleagues, as someone who remembers the images of
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I am disheartened that the
President's budget fails to include any funding for rebuilding the
healthcare infrastructure in the Gulf Coast. Mr. Chairman, thanks to
24-hour news coverage, the nation; no, the world saw, heard stories of
and saw images of the negative impact that social determinants of
health have on our most vulnerable and marginalized communities.
Enough time has passed from August 29, 2005--the day that Hurricane
Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast--and now for us to have seen a
redesigning and rebuilding of the healthcare infrastructure in the Gulf
Coast.
It has been well-documented that three states bore the brunt of the
hurricane's impact--Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. And, not only
did these states have some of the highest poverty rates in the nation
before the hurricane hit, but also had noted health disparities that
left a disproportionate number of African Americans, other people of
color and the poor un- and under-insured, in poorer health, suffering
worse health outcomes and more likely to die prematurely, and often
during their most productive life years, from preventable causes.
While some steps have been taken, myriad challenges in redesigning
and rebuilding the healthcare infrastructure in the Gulf Coast continue
to exist, and without adequate funding, these challenges will not fix
themselves; they will not solve themselves; they will not disappear;
and the Americans most affected by the storm will never be made whole.
Mr. Chairman and Colleagues, as the Chair of the Congressional
Black Caucus Health Braintrust, I am especially struck by the fact that
the President's budget literally eliminates or cuts--and at best,
level-funds--every single health and health care program that is
critically important to our nation's most vulnerable and marginalized
residents' health, well being and life opportunities. And, a
disproportionate number of the residents who stand to lose the most are
not only African Americans, other Americans of color and rural
Americans; they are the very who stand to lose the absolute very most
to pay for a war that no one supports and for extensive tax breaks for
the nations few super-billionaires. Mr. Chairman and Colleagues, that
is not the America that I know, champion or support!
The list of programs on the fiscal chopping block reads like an
honor roll--or, perhaps I should call it a DIS-honor roll, because it
lists programs that are essential and necessary, and thus should not be
level funded, cut or eliminated.
When the President introduced his FY 08 budget, I--like so many of
my colleagues--was struck by one disappointing, yet indisputable fact:
the President's health and health care priorities are not in sync with
those of most residents of this nation. Mr. Chairman, they are not only
NOT in sync with Americas' priorities; they completely contradict them!
Rather than address the root causes of uninsurance, poor health
outcomes and escalating health care costs, the President's budget
instead shifts the burden onto individuals, health care providers and
states.
I'll start with some of the programs that are slated for level
funding:
<bullet> The president's budget freezes funding for Minority AIDS
Initiative, even though the HIV/AIDS epidemic often hits racial and
ethnic minority communities in a manner that rivals the trends in sub-
Saharan Africa;
<bullet> The Substance Abuse Block Grant, the Child Mental Health
Block Grant, and the Protection and Advocacy grant program in the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration also are flat
funded;
<bullet> The budget level funds the Indian Health Service Diabetes
grants; and
<bullet> The budget level funds Health Resource and Service
Administration's Sickle Cell grants;
The following programs slated for elimination need to be restored
and increased:
<bullet> The Health Care Facilities/Other Improvement Projects
grants;
<bullet> The Community Health State planning grants;
<bullet> The Healthy Community Healthcare Access Program;
<bullet> The Health Professions Training Activities;
<bullet> The Emergency Medical Services for Children program;
<bullet> The Universal Newborn Hearing/Trauma Screening, an effort
that in FY2006 was allocated $10 million by Congress;
<bullet> Indian Health Service Urban Health grants;
<bullet> The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which--funded at
$107 million in FY 02007--provides food packages designed to address
specific nutrient deficiencies for about 500,000 low-income elderly
persons, women, and children each month; and
<bullet> The food stamp program, which disproportionately affects
11 states--South Carolina, Delaware , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts
, Michigan , North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Washington , and Wisconsin--
that operate simplified food stamp programs.
And, at the very least, the cuts to these programs that follow need
to be restored and increased to meet the increased demands after years
of cuts and neglect:
<bullet> The budget cuts funding to the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) by $159 million dollars and
cuts drug treatment programs by $47 million dollars. The services
offered under SAMHSA are critically important to Americans with serious
mental health issues and to those who need substance abuse prevention
and treatment services;
<bullet> The budget slashes Health Resource and Service
Administration's Rural Health programs by $143 million dollars;
<bullet> The budget cuts the Administration for Children and
Families by $1.868 billion dollars;
<bullet> The budget cuts Medicare spending by $252 billion over ten
years ($65.6 billion over five years);
<bullet> The Budget fails to provide sufficient funding for the
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In fact, the funding
level in the President's budget is woefully less than the amount needed
to maintain benefits for those now receiving SCHIP and for those
millions of uninsured children who are eligible for SCHIP, but who have
not been enrolled;
<bullet> The budget cuts Medicaid by $28 Billion over five years.
Medicaid is critically important to millions of Americans, not only
because it keeps them from joining the ranks of the uninsured, but
because it allows beneficiaries with very real, very urgent health
needs to have access to care that literally sustains their lives;
<bullet> The budget cuts the Health Resource and Service
Administration's National Health Service Corps by $10 million dollars.
This program is critically important to closing the gap between high
health care needs and a dearth of health care providers;
<bullet> The budget cuts the Health Resources and Services
Administration's Nurse Training Program by $44 million dollars and cuts
the Advanced Education Nursing Program by $57 million dollars. These
cuts are problematic because the nation's shortage is very real. In
fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that by 2014, the
national health care system will need 1.2 million registered nurses to
replaced retired nurses, accommodate aging baby boomers, and growing
patient needs;
<bullet> The budget slashes the Indian Health Service Health
Facilities construction grants from $38 million dollars to $13 million,
the Indian Health Service Health Facilities sanitation construction
grants from $92 million dollars to $89 million, and the Indian Health
Service Health Facilities construction grants from $38 million dollars
to $13 million. Historically, we--as a nation--have done far too little
to ensure the health and well being of our American Indian residents,
and these cuts do not put us on the right path;
<bullet> The Budget cuts the Healthy Start infant mortality
initiative--an initiative which boasts results in reducing racial and
ethnic disparities in infant mortality--by $1 million. That may not
seem like a lot of money, but to this program, that cut will be
catastrophic!;
<bullet> The President's budget cuts funding for the Office of
Minority Health by $3 million, the Office of Women's Health by $1
million, and the National Center for Minority Health and Health
Disparities at National Institutes of Health by $1 million dollars.
Finally, Mr. Chairman and Colleagues, the forgoing requests are
important and while restoring them will have an impact on the
eliminations of health care disparities, they do not go far enough to
close the huge chasm in this country between the poor and the rich; the
rural and urban and the suburban; and the white American and those of
color. And so I further propose a ``health equity fund'' of at least
$2.5 Billion over 5 years to fund the expansion of proven models of
prevention and care that demonstrate clear efficacy in closing health
gaps. This investment could come from new or existing monies in all
related programs across several agencies and offices in way that has a
specific focus and mandate. And, it could be placed in any number of
agencies, such as the Bureau of Primary Care or the 0ffice of Minority
Health, as long as the purpose and use of the fund is clearly
delineated, monitored and reported on.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, this country--the richest and most
powerful in the world--ranks below most industrialized countries in
maternal and infant mortality. We are ranked 39th by the World Health
Organization in health status. And yet we spend at least twice as much
as any other country in the world on health care; just about $2
trillion in 2005 and roughly 16% of GDP. And that expenditure is
increasing.
Clearly we are doing something wrong and continuing the same course
will only give us the same result. And the continuing ill health and
consequent overuse of expensive care will only undermine what can be
the world's best healthcare system for everyone. That is unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman and Colleagues, in this country of great wealth, more
than 200 people of color will die prematurely from preventable causes,
who ought not to have died, by the end of the day today. And, that
trend will continue until we do what is necessary to stop it.
Many would blame the people themselves, and definitely each of us
has a responsibility for our individual health. But just think of the
very responsible person who has no way to pay for care; who is
discriminated against by the system and many of its providers; or who
live in circumstances such as substandard housing or polluted
communities, or neighborhoods where common medication and other health
care services are unavailable, or for whom the closest provider is
someone they cannot understand or does not understand them. This is the
circumstance that far too many Americans find themselves in and which I
am asking you to change.
I know that if we meet them half way, they would do their part. So,
I am here before you arguing, as I will continue to do, for a new
investment and a new direction in health budgeting and spending.
We ran on a new direction platform. We won because that is what the
American people want and need.
The president's budget is woefully out of sync with the American
public, as are his policies and priorities. They want equal opportunity
for good health care and good health for all. They want an America that
lives up to its promise; a promise that includes investing in its most
precious resource: our people.
This would be a bold step, but bold leadership is also what we
promised. I want us to deliver on that promise.
Ms. Hooley [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony and
for really pointing out all of the inequities that we have in
our healthcare system, the amount of money that we spend and
yet we do not really have a healthcare system. I appreciate
your testimony and this will be put in the record and certainly
passed on to our Chair of this Committee. So, thank you very
much.
Dr. Christensen. Could I just read a quote that comes from
Dr. Stephen Wolf at Virginia Commonwealth University? It is
very short.
Ms. Hooley. Okay.
Dr. Christensen. From some studies that he has done, and it
sums it up, ``In the end, however, it all comes down to
priorities.'' And this is the quote, ``In the end, however, it
all comes down to priorities. Perhaps we have reached the point
when progress in providing good care when needed with
compassion and skill and without errors would impress the
public as a more meaningful medical advance than the roll out
of the latest device or pill. Failing to establish systems to
ensure that everyone receives recommended care is causing
greater disease and deaths at levels that can rarely be offset
by medical advances.'' I thank you for allowing me to include
that quote.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you. We have Representative Higgins next,
and then right after him I believe it is Representative Hayes.
Welcome, and we are pleased to receive your testimony. You are
recognized for ten minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN HIGGINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished
members of the Committee. I am here to ask the Committee for
consideration of two priorities that I would like to see
reflected in fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. One is the
federal courthouse proposed for the City of Buffalo. The
judiciary has identified this project as a top project, top
priority in the nation. Although this project has not received
funding over the last couple of years, in the proposed 2008
budget the President has included as the only funded courthouse
$46.7 million. The continuing resolution that the House passed
a couple of weeks ago included $280 million to the government
service agency specific to new courthouse construction. I
believe that GSA will provide $83.5 million of that $280
million. The $46.7 million in the President's proposed budget
for 2008 would completely fund that project.
While it is a courthouse project, generally speaking, to
Buffalo it is an economic development project. The GSA has
already started to clear the site. It has relocated businesses.
The property is currently off the tax roles. So it is a very,
very important project and I respectfully ask for the
Committee's consideration for keeping that $46.7 million for
the Buffalo courthouse in the 2008 budget.
The second issue is something very different, but something
I think very important to the nation and that is funding to the
National Cancer Institute. Madam Chair, over the past five
years this administration has cut approximately $250 million to
the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of
Health. This funding is vitally important for cancer research
and prevention.
We have made great strides as a nation in treating and
effectively dealing with the issue of cancer. Thirty years ago
if you were diagnosed with cancer fewer than 50 percent lived
beyond five years of their diagnosis. Today, it is 65 percent
for adults, 85 percent for kids. More people are living with
cancer today than are dying from it. But we still face
extraordinary challenges. Men have a one in two likelihood of
developing invasive cancer in their lifetime, women a one in
three likelihood. Cancer research is very, very important at
the research level because it sustains funding for clinical
trials which if successful will provide treatments for
tomorrow's cancer therapies. But it also undermines the start
of new cancer research.
So I would respectfully ask the Committee to restore the
cut, again, that the administration has made to the National
Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Health, that
being $11.4 million.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Higgins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brian Higgins, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New York
I thank the Committee for this opportunity to testify today on some
of the priorities I would like to see reflected in the Fiscal Year 2008
Budget Resolution.
Briefly, I would like to state my support for a number of programs
that are important to Western New York including LIHEAP, the
Weatherization Assistance Program, COPS, and the Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Fund. I urge the Committee to reject dangerous cuts to
these effective programs as proposed in the President's budget.
I would like to focus my remarks today on two issues of particular
interest to me. The first is the construction of a new federal
courthouse in Buffalo, New York. The Buffalo Courthouse is the top
project on the Judicial Conference's priority list, and was the only
federal courthouse construction project requested in the FY 2008 budget
request. The Administration has requested $46.7 million for this
project which, coupled with funds we made available for courthouse
construction in the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, will enable the
General Services Administration (GSA) to undertake this critical
construction project in Buffalo's downtown core.
The existing Michael Dillon U.S. Courthouse is no longer adequate
and has major security concerns. The judges' chambers are directly
across the street from a parking garage with a clear view into the
chambers, making them vulnerable to attack. Prisoners are unloaded on
the street and are brought to courtrooms by the same elevators used by
the public, judges and court personnel. These elevators are antiquated
and accidents have happened when they failed to align properly with the
floors. Several of the courtrooms had to be fashioned from office space
and are therefore undersized, with view-obstructing columns. It is time
that the court has a facility that will function efficiently and
provide the necessary security for all who use and work in the
courthouse.
GSA received $14.2 million for acquisition of land and design of
the Buffalo Courthouse from 2000 through 2002. It has acquired property
on Niagara Square, an important commercial area in downtown Buffalo.
The design has won award and acclaim, and demolition will commence this
year. But unless Congress provides the funding necessary to allow
construction to proceed, the net impact of the federal government's
actions on this project will be to displace small businesses from the
site, to remove this real estate from the local tax rolls, and to leave
a vacant lot on an important piece of real estate in a vital section of
our struggling downtown core.
These are economic and tax impacts which our region, with a
struggling economy and local governments mired in fiscal straits, can
not and should not be made to bear. Buffalo simply can not afford to
delay this opportunity to turn a vacant lot into a tower of jobs that
will complement the nascent investment and revitalization we are
experiencing in other parts of the city.
Because the Judicial Conference has ranked the Buffalo Courthouse
as its top construction priority nationwide, and because allowing this
federally-acquired land to remain fallow would be destructive to our
community, I strongly encourage the Budget Committee to include the
$46.7 million that will allow GSA to complete this important project.
The second issue I would like to focus on is one of national
concern. You are in a unique position to put us on the path towards
meeting the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) goal of eliminating death
and suffering due to cancer by the year 2015. Recent statistics have
shown declining cancer deaths in the United States for the second year.
This drop is largely due to increased awareness, better treatment, and
larger numbers of people being screened; but these advances are also
due to the past investments that Congress made to the National Cancer
Institute and the National Health Institutes (NIH) in general.
Unfortunately, we are at serious risk of losing the momentum towards
meeting the 2015 as research dollars are cut and cannot keep pace with
medical inflation.
The 110th Congress should lead the way with the objective of
eradicating cancer death and suffering in this decade by restoring deep
cuts to federal cancer research and prevention programs. The
President's $2.7 trillion budget for 2007 reduced funding for virtually
every cancer research and prevention program totaling $40 million this
year, $70 million last year and $250 million over the past five years.
His proposed budget for 2008 includes more cuts to cancer funding, down
to $4.782 billion, or an $11.4 million cut below the 2007 Continuing
Resolution. In 1998 25% of research applications to NCI were being
funded, now only 10% are being funded and many researchers are being
forced to cut clinical trials because they cannot afford the expense.
These cuts will further slow existing research and delay the start of
promising new research. In my district alone, these cuts represent $5
to 6 million in losses to the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, an NCI
designated center and one of the leading research institutes in the
country.
Less than 10 percent of cancer deaths today are caused by the
primary tumor. It is when cancer metastasizes that it becomes deadly.
Early detection saves lives and money, an estimated $300 billion last
year alone in health care costs and lost productivity. Cancer
researchers are making impressive progress toward unraveling cancer's
dark mysteries and using this knowledge to prevent cancer from becoming
life threatening. Today's research will produce tomorrow's treatments
and cures. Thirty years ago, fewer than 50 percent of those with cancer
lived five years beyond their diagnosis date. The survival rate today
is 65 percent for adults and 80 percent for children. In America more
people are living with cancer than dying from it. Today we have 10
million cancer survivors; tomorrow we could have more.
Despite this impressive progress, big challenges remain. Men today
have a 1 in 2 likelihood of developing invasive cancer in their
lifetime; women have a 1 in 3 chance. Last year more than 1 million new
cancer cases were diagnosed and 500,000 people died from cancer.
Funding cancer research not only saves lives and money, but it expands
economic growth. Roswell, in my district, pioneered studies that gave
us chemotherapy, the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test and research
linking smoking and lung cancer. With more than 2,700 employees,
Roswell Park is a major employer and contributor to the regional
economy, drawing patients and researchers to Buffalo from throughout
the world.
NCI and the American Cancer Society set an ambitious goal of
eliminating all human suffering and death from cancer by the year 2015.
We can do more than simply supporting a resolution towards this goal;
we can give the medical community the tools it needs to achieve it.
This should be a fully funded national imperative; you have the power
to make it America's goal.
Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. I know you
face many competing demands as you craft the budget, but I hope you
will look favorably on these two essential issues.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions?
Again, thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hooley. The next member to testify is Representative
Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I remember that last
time that you and I and Mr. Higgins were together. I'm sure
this will be an equally pleasant experience.
Ms. Hooley. Welcome, and we are pleased to have your
testimony, and you are recognized for ten minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Hayes. Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you for allowing
me the opportunity to testify before the Committee today.
Several topics I would like to highlight: funding for veterans
healthcare, Impact Aid, vocational and technical job training
programs, and Department of Agriculture programs.
Madam Chair, the service of our country's veterans ensures
that all Americans can live in freedom. They answered the call
without question and that is why it is so vitally important
that we honor their service by making certain that they receive
the quality healthcare they have more than earned. The
President's request in the 2008 budget proposal for Veterans
Affairs totals $86.75 billion, including $44.9 in mandatory
funding to support benefit programs for our nation's veterans
and $36 billion for medical care.
Though levels of healthcare funding continue to grow, as we
continue the Global War Against Terrorists so do the number of
veterans increase. With exponential healthcare cost increases
it is important that we provide the maximum possible level of
funding for their care. As you and your Committee begin
assembling the budget resolution for 2008 I ask that you fund
programs for our nation's veterans. I would also ask that you
include necessary funding for PTSD and mental health, traumatic
brain injury, and blast related injuries in order to fulfill
the growing needs in those areas within VA.
In my district in North Caroline I fought for a new
Community Based Outpatient Clinic, CBOC, so that local veterans
would have improved VA healthcare access. I am very pleased
that the Department of Veterans Affairs in the process of
establishing a CBOC in the eighth district, and I look forward
to working with them and my fellow members of Congress on
providing the necessary funding for VA healthcare facilities
across the country.
I would also ask that you consider reducing the funding for
foreign operations. We have so many needs here at home, sending
American tax 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.
Another critical area of concern is that of military
construction funding. The continuing resolution drastically
reduced funding for essential construction projects, global
rebasing and implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure
process. This has a negative effect on both our military
readiness and our nation's servicemembers. In my home district
at Fort Bragg alone, up to $220 million in construction
projects have been put in jeopardy. These projects include
everything from barracks to training ranges to child
development centers. I urge you to do all that you can to fund
military construction at the highest possible level to help
lessen the blow to our bases, safety and quality of life for
our men and women in uniform, and our national security.
Madam Chair, another issue important to our military
families is Impact Aid. Funded in both the Department of
Defense and Education, this critical program acts as Uncle
Sam's tax payment on land owned by the federal government.
These funds are vital to sustaining local school districts that
derive little or not property tax revenue because they are
situated on federal or Indian land. The importance of the
Impact Aid Program is illustrated by my own district in North
Carolina which is typical of many places around the country
with military bases as the largest employers and land owners.
The eighth district is home to Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force
Base. The counties of Cumberland and Hoke are affiliated with
these local military installations. The President's 2008 budget
calls for a third consecutive year of a freeze in funding. I am
increasingly concerned about how BRAC and global rebasing is
affecting our local schools.
Currently over one million federally connected children
with a potential increase of 35,000 to 40,000 in 1400 public
school districts and 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 at
least $50 million 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.
Madam Chair, 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 116-member House Impact Aid
Coalition I want to work with you to provide a modest increase
in Department of Education funding to cover the federal
government's obligation to these school districts.
Madam Chair, community colleges in my district are
concerned about funding for vocational and technical education
such as Perkins Loan and Community Based Job Training Programs.
Workforce training programs are vital in my district for
teaching workers who have experienced job losses in the textile
and manufacturing industries, teaching them the skills they
will need to succeed in the high growth and high demand
industries of the twenty-first century. I feel that by
eliminating these programs we may leave behind students and
programs that provide hands on workforce education in the
growing trades of our economy.
I am very concerned that the administration's 2008 budget
proposal for the Forest Service once again includes an
initiative for the sale of certain National Forest System lands
to provide funding for an extension of the Secure Rural Schools
Act. The proposal calls for the sale of more than 270,000 acres
of forest lands nationwide and 5600-plus acres in North
Carolina. Uwharrie National Forest is one of Montgomery
County's largest attractions and is a vital component for
economic development in the region. Towns and communities
located in this area depend on tourism from those visiting
these pristine forest lands. This initiative could threaten a
critical source of economic revenue for my constituents,
therefore I strongly oppose this proposal and hope you will
share my concerns.
As you know, eighth district farmers continue to express to
me their strong concern over proposals seeking to decrease the
agriculture budget in Congress. The budget reductions in
agriculture continue to bring a disproportionate burden of
deficit reduction on America's farmers and rural communities.
Appropriations bills have increasingly reduced mandatory
funding for conservation, rural development research, and
renewable energy. For 2006 the reduction was $1.7 billion. In
addition, the budget reconciliation bill passed last year is
projected to reduce the Agriculture Committee's spending during
2006 to fiscal year 2010 reconciliation period, four years, by
$3.7 billion. CBO also released their agriculture baseline. It
is clear that the amount of money for agriculture is shrinking.
Since the 2002 Farm Bill expires in September of this year,
we are under even more pressure to ensure that we have the
necessary resources to develop a new Farm Bill which will bring
certainty to producers who make their planning decisions and
business plans based upon these agricultural programs. However,
it is imperative that we do this without removing important
safety nets that truly protect farmers from low prices and poor
yields.
In regard to the administration's Farm Bill proposal, I
appreciate the aggressive position they took in many areas such
as renewable energy and conservation programs. Focus on ethanol
produced from these biomass sources will allow our farmers to
play a vital role to help increase our nation's energy
independence from foreign sources of energy. As for
conservation, my 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 have some concerns
with the administration's proposal to significantly reduce the
adjusted gross income eligibility cap. This could be very
damaging to many farmers in the eighth district. I look forward
to working with the administration to learn the details of
these proposals in the near future. I also look forward to
working with my colleagues on the upcoming Farm Bill and I am
hopeful that you will continue to support agriculture programs
that are important to eighth district farmers.
Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before your Committee about these important programs. I
appreciate your consideration, look forward to working with you
on the fiscal year 2008 budget, and I thank you my friend.
[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 Veteran's health care, Impact Aid, vocational
and technical job training programs, and Department of Agriculture
programs.
Mr. Chairman, the service of our country's veterans ensures that
all Americans can live in freedom. They answered the call without
question and that 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.
The President's requested FY 2008 budget proposal for the
Department of Veterans' Affairs totals $86.75 billion, including $44.97
billion in mandatory funding to support benefits programs for our
nation's veterans and $36.6 billion for Medical Care. Though the level
of health care funding continues to grow, as we continue the Global War
on Terror so do the number of veterans. With exponential health care
cost increases, 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 2008, I ask that you
fund programs for our nation's veterans. I also ask that you include
necessary funding for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and mental
health, Traumatic Brain Injury, and blast related injuries in order to
fulfill the growing needs in those areas within the VA.
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 is in the process of 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.
I also 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.
Another critical area of concern is that of Military Construction
funding. The Continuing Resolution drastically reduced funding for
essential construction projects, global rebasing, and implementation of
the Base Realignment and Closure process and this has a negative impact
on both our military readiness and our nation's service members. In my
home district at Fort Bragg alone, up to $220 million in construction
projects have been put in jeopardy. These projects include everything
from barracks to a training range to a child development center. I urge
you to do all that you can to fund Military Construction at the highest
possible level to help lesson the blow to our bases, the safety and
Quality of Life of our men and women in uniform, and our national
security.
Mr. Chairman, another issue important to our military families is
Impact Aid. Funded in both the Departments of Defense and Education,
this critical program acts as Uncle Sam's tax payment on land owned by
the federal government. These funds are vital to sustaining local
school districts that derive little or no property tax revenue because
they are situated on federal or Indian land.
The importance of the Impact Aid program is illustrated by my own
District in North Carolina, which is typical of many places across the
country with military bases as the largest employers and land owners.
The 8th District is home to Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, and the
counties of Cumberland and Hoke that are affiliated with these local
military installations.
The President's FY'08 budget calls for a third consecutive year of
a freeze in funding. I am increasingly concerned about how BRAC and
global rebasing is affecting our local schools. Currently, there are
over 1 million federally connected children with a potential increase
of 35,000 to 40,000 in 1400 affected public school districts, and
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 at least 50 million 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.
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 116 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.
Mr. Chairman, Community Colleges in my District are concerned about
funding for vocational and technical education such as Perkins loans
and community-based job training programs. These workforce training
programs are vital to my District for teaching workers who have
experienced job losses in the textile and manufacturing industries the
skills they will need to succeed in the high growth and high demand
industries of the 21st Century. I fear that by eliminating these
programs, we may leave behind students and programs that provide hands
on workforce education in the growing trades of our economy.
I am very concerned that the Administration's FY 2008 budget
proposal for the Forest Service once again includes an initiative to
sale certain National Forest System Lands to provide funding for an
extension of the Secure Rural Schools Act. This proposal calls for the
sale of more than 270,000 acres of forest land nationwide, including
5,685 acres in North Carolina.
The Uwharrie National Forest is one of Montgomery County's largest
attractions, and is a vital component for economic development in the
region. The towns and communities located in this area depend on
tourism from those visiting these pristine forest lands. This
initiative could threaten that critical source of economic revenue for
my constituents; therefore I strongly oppose this proposal and hope you
share my concerns.
As you know, 8th District farmers continue to express to me their
strong concern over proposals seeking to decrease the agriculture
budget in Congress. Budget reductions in agriculture continue to bring
a disproportionate burden of deficit reduction on America's farmers and
rural communities. 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 budget reconciliation bill passed last year is projected
by CBO to reduce agriculture committee spending during the FY 06 to FY
10 reconciliation period by $3.7 billion. CBO also released their
agriculture baseline and it is clear, the amount of funding for
agriculture is shrinking.
Since the 2002 Farm Bill expires in September of this year, we are
under even more pressure to ensure that we have the necessary resources
to develop a new farm bill, which will bring certainty to producers who
make their planting decisions and business plans based upon these
agriculture programs. However, it is imperative that we do this without
removing important safety nets that truly protect farmers from low
prices and poor yields.
In regards to the Administration's Farm Bill proposal, I appreciate
the aggressive position they took in many areas, such as renewable
energy and conservation programs. The focus on ethanol produced from
new biomass sources will allow our farmers to play a vital role to help
increase our nation's energy independence from foreign sources of
energy. As for conservation, my 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.
However, I have some concerns with the Administration's proposal to
significantly reduce the adjusted gross income eligibility cap. This
provision could be very damaging to many farmers in the 8th District. I
look forward to working with the Administration to learn the details of
these proposals in the near future. I also look forward to working with
my colleagues on the upcoming Farm Bill, and 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
2008 budget.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, any questions? Yes, Representative
Blumenauer?
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate
Congressman Hayes, your point about, even though Congresswoman
Hooley and I deeply care about the extension of the rural
schools funding that it not come at the expense of selling off
our precious natural resources, and I appreciate your reference
to that and I certainly agree.
I have two questions about your testimony in terms of
understanding. You reference concerns about the adjusted gross
income eligibility cap that the President has come forward
with. My understanding is that is $200,000?
Mr. Hayes. Correct.
Mr. Blumenauer. And a requirement that it actually be
$200,000, that it could not be multiple members of a family so
that it is 200, 200, 200.
Mr. Hayes. Right.
Mr. Blumenauer. Or spouse and kids. You say, what level do
you think it should be at?
Mr. Hayes. Oh, I wish I knew. It is a very good question.
In checking the figures over two million folks who have
adjusted gross incomes of over $200,000 so it is not an
insignificant number of folks. Of the 85,000 who filed Form F
Farm Request, 25,000 actually received payment. So it is a
larger number. I do not know what the number should be. My
concern is going from $2.5 million down to $200,000 is a huge
jump and I have asked the Secretary just to take a look, as you
have asked me, to make sure that we are not missing something
in our attempt to solve what may or may not be a problem.
Mr. Blumenauer. You reference your concern about reducing
funding for foreign operations. I guess that is the 150
accounts? Do you have a sense of what programs you want reduced
or deleted? Health? Water? Military? Where do you think the
cuts should be made?
Mr. Hayes. That is a tough one. Just in general, folks at
home think foreign aid is not nearly as important as water,
food programs, schools, and other issues that are domestically
important to them. I sort of share, I would be happy to look up
and give you some specific recommendations. That is a tough
question to answer. Basically, it is the difference between
domestic and foreign and that is what the folks back home care
about.
Mr. Blumenauer. Well, I would be interesting to hear it.
Mr. Hayes. I would be happy to.
Mr. Blumenauer. And your reaction. It is true, people say
that. Of course, you are also aware of the public opinion polls
that people think we spend ten times as much as what we do.
Mr. Hayes. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Blumenauer. And we are having testimony here about the
fact that the United States does less with foreign aid than any
of the other major countries. We made a commitment, as you
know, to do .7 percent of our GDP. We are down to .25 percent
and we are not keeping our commitments on things like water.
And some of the things that you are talking about, they use
money to buy things from us. Some of our agriculture is used
overseas, actually posing problems for poor people overseas.
Mr. Hayes. Sure.
Mr. Blumenauer. Because we get food and we are not buying
it from the local areas. So this is an area of great interest
to me and one that is going to be of contention on the
Committee. Because things like international water and
sanitation saves lives and protects the health of Americans and
we are going to be, I think, struggling with this in a way that
we could use guidance in terms of the specifics. In terms of
areas that you think are worthy of cuts so that if we come
forward with something that it would actually be supported.
Mr. Hayes. I appreciate the depth and nature of your
question, and I will be happy to come back to you with some
more specifics. I suspect that a lot of these countries in that
percentage do not give credit to the United States for the
security measures that we provide for them, but that is neither
here nor there. Yours is a very good question. It is an issue
that we all have to examine very closely, what we want to do.
And I thank you for the question and I will get you some
specifics.
Mr. Blumenauer. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you.
Mr. Blumenauer. Madam Chair, this is one area that is going
to be very contentious for us.
Ms. Hooley. Right.
Mr. Blumenauer. And we want to do it right.
Ms. Hooley. And I thank the gentleman for his testimony,
and I, too, am very pleased that you brought up not only
veterans healthcare but particularly the mental health piece. I
think that is going to critical for every one of our returning
soldiers. And I wholeheartedly agree with you for the Secure
Rural Schools Act, that we should not be selling off our
wonderful natural resources. So thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Hayes. You are welcome. And just a quick comment on
that, it is interesting, and I am sure that you have looked at
it with the resources forest-wise you have in Oregon, there are
some very isolated pieces. I wish we would sort of reshape the
program so that these isolated pieces could be used to increase
and enhance the main bodies of land that are the real, I mean
it is all a treasure. But if you have got the forest here, and
a small piece of acreage, the Forest Service is kind of slow
talking about, ``Well, how do we trade this private piece over
here which might be valuable to enhance the main part of the
holding?'' So to the extent we can, that would be something I
hope the Committee can, you know, help facilitate. Thank you.
Ms. Hooley. And I am going to be turning this over, as
Representative Turner comes up, to Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur [presiding]. I would like to welcome our
colleague, especially because you are from the State of Ohio.
We look forward to your testimony today, and I thank
Congresswoman Hooley for the great job she has done. Welcome to
the Budget Committee. We look forward to hearing your formal
testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Turner. Madam Chair, let me state my appreciation for
having a fellow Ohioan sitting in the Chair seat and Mr.
Blumenauer thank you for being here and for the opportunity to
testify before the Budget Committee.
I am here to testify in support of the $8.2 billion request
for the Base Realignment and Closure Account. This account was
created to implement the recommendation of the 2005 Base
Realignment and Closure Commission. The last round of BRAC was
included in the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. In
2003, the Defense Department published a draft of the BRAC
review criteria, and in March, 2004 DOD submitted the four
structure plan and infrastructure inventory to Congress.
Congress approved the final review process or criteria in
April, 2004. In May, 2005 the Defense Department provided its
closure and realignment Recommendations to the Base Realignment
and Closure Commission. The Commission delivered its report to
the President in September, 2005 and he delivered it to
Congress the same month. The BRAC recommendations came before
Congress on October 27, 2005 as H.J. Res. 65 in an attempt to
disapprove the recommendations of the Base Realignment and
Closure Commission. The House overwhelmingly defeated the joint
resolution by a vote of 85 to 324 to 1. By defeating the
resolution the House had the effect of supporting the BRAC
recommendations. On November 9, 2005 the BRAC recommendations
officially took effect, marking the end of a three-year process
and the beginning of another six-year process of realignment
and closure.
Congress designed BRAC as a deliberate, slow process
outside the political process. It is very hypocritical of
Congress to create a process, support it, clamor for its
funding, and then reduce its funding and authorization. The
BRAC recommendations have the force and effect of law and it is
the responsibility of Congress to see that the process is
completed. The administration's fiscal year 2008 budget calls
for the authorization of nearly $8.2 billion for BRAC
implementation. This funding request is based upon the schedule
created by the Department of Defense to meet the military
construction needs as a result of BRAC. The full authorization
of this account in the budget resolution is necessary to meet
the statutory deadline imposed by Congress of 2011. A failure
to meet the budget request level will jeopardize the
implementation time line and degrade the readiness of our
military facilities.
The military services in many communities throughout the
country have begun making specific plans to prepare for
missions either lost or gained under BRAC. In the case of my
community, Dayton, Ohio, partnerships between academia,
industry, and research institutions formed to ensure that
during the BRAC transition a minimal human capital impact
occurs in the science and technology fields. A substantial
funding cut to implement the BRAC recommendations risks the
plans that my and other communities have spent months creating.
A reduced authorization increases the risk that nationally the
BRAC savings will be reduced, raises the chances of delaying or
postponing scheduled redeployments of military personnel and
their families, and undermines the BRAC process that Congress
established.
In fiscal year 2007 the House budget resolution supported
the administration's $5.6 billion budget request for BRAC. The
House Armed Services Committee fully authorized the funding for
BRAC and the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee
supported the funding of BRAC. However, the other body was not
able to finish its work requiring the creation of continuing
resolutions to fund government operations. The CR written by
the new House majority cut BRAC implementation in fiscal year
2007 by $3.1 billion, raising serious questions on whether the
Department of Defense could meet the statutory deadline of
2011. Representative Obey, Chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee said last week that he is planning to add the missing
BRAC funding to the war supplemental request that the
administration submitted to Congress. If the Appropriations
Committee does not provide additional funds for BRAC in fiscal
year 2007 the House Budget Committee would need to increase
fiscal year 2008 requests for BRAC by the $3 billion from $8.2
billion to $11.2 billion in order to put the implementation
time line back on track.
Supporting $8.2 billion in fiscal year 2008 for BRAC is a
necessary step toward realizing the savings from BRAC and
protecting the integrity of the BRAC process. A majority of
Congress supported BRAC and it was Congress that created the
BRAC process. Including the requested $8.2 billion in the House
budget resolution enables the military services and the
civilian personnel to continue their planning for possible
relocation.
I encourage the Budget Committee to support the request for
$8.2 billion for BRAC in the budget resolution, and I thank you
Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Turner, and I
would like to give my colleagues a chance to ask questions. I
happen to be one of the designees from the Appropriations
Committee to the Budget Committee, so I followed very carefully
what you are saying. And my question is, let us just say the
worst happened and neither the supplemental, though Congressman
Obey has promised it, nor the budget mark would provide the
funding that you seek to fully implement BRAC. What impact
would that have, let us say in your district or Ohio? Could you
verify for the record?
Mr. Turner. Well, and my district is an excellent example
because it is a domino effect. There are 1800 jobs that are
being relocation to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, as you know, is a research and
development base predominantly. It is not planes and flying
missions, it is research and development. From the early Wright
Brothers plane all the way to Stealth, our advantage on the
battlefields on tomorrow is developed, designed, and
implemented at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
When BRAC decided to send more jobs and missions to Wright-
Pat it did so with an analysis based upon savings that would
occur by consolidating those missions at Wright-Pat. The monies
that are sought in construction allow those missions to be sent
to Wright-Pat, but are deemed to be savings that we later find
in the budget as a result of those missions coming. There are
not only individuals that are represented by those 1800 jobs,
there families, there are businesses, there is planning, there
are missions that could be lost, and future opportunities for
ingenuity and work once the synergy of these missions being co-
located occurs. So the domino effect of what we miss is cost
savings, opportunities to take advantage of the ingenuity of
employees, and of course the impact on their lives.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for clarifying that. For the record,
I would like to ask our colleague Mr. Blumenauer if he has any
questions or comments he would like to make at this point?
Mr. Blumenauer. I appreciate your reference to BRAC, Madam
Chair, Congressman Turner. This is an area of great concern to
me as well, and I hope it is something the Budget committee
will have a chance to focus on. I do not know quite how we put
all the pieces together, but we have vast areas of formally
used military sites, including some actually that are
continuing to be used, that have not been appropriately cleaned
up and transitioned. So there is a huge opportunity lost and
because we do not adequately fund it it actually means that the
unit cost to clean up and transition increases. And I would be
interested, Congressman, in perhaps your reflections on ways
that we might all work together to squeeze a little more value
out of this process. Because I think we are leaving a lot of
money on the table.
I am concerned about you, but I had an amendment on the
floor last year because Sacramento, which had a base closed in
the first round of base closing, anticipates that it will be
fully cleaned up in 2079. I do not think that is fair to you.
It is not fair to people in prior round. And it is not fair to
the public to have these important resources chewing up money
and potentially being economically dangerous or environmentally
dangerous. And I would really appreciate thoughts that you may
have at some point that we might be able to work either through
this Committee or some of our other mechanisms that we
cooperate on to make progress on that.
Mr. Turner. I appreciate Mr. Blumenauer raising that issue.
I know he is a great advocate for urban areas and I have
enjoyed our conversations about what we can do for economic
development for communities. In my community, in addition to
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base we also had a Department of
Energy Mound Facility that was active in the deep space nuclear
energy components. And it was decommissioned and is in the
clean up process. And there, luckily DOE has worked in
partnership with the community so that as land becomes
available there is a master plan for its transition for
economic readiness. But the biggest impediment is the time line
of funding and completion of clean up in order for that land to
be available. The community is having a great deal of
difficulty in planning when the land as part of the partnership
might be clean and available in order to attract additional
economic capital. And I know that is a big concern of yours, so
I would love to work with you on it.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Blumenauer. I
might just say, Congressman Turner, you stayed within the time
limit so well you have given me a chance to ring in as part of
this triumvirate here on clean up. Because one of the most
perplexing sites in the country is one that I represent. I
think there are two sites in the country where there is
ordinance that is buried under water. And it happens to be, one
of those is in North Carolina, the other is in Lake Erie. And
last year we were able for the first time to get mapping,
because of new technology the Department of Defense has brought
on line, to actually identify where this buried ordinance is.
It is massive. And you have got 150mm shells, you have got who
knows what under there. They do not shoot out into Lake Erie
anymore, but the issue for us is how do we clean it up? There
is no real, you would say, ``Well, the Army Corps of Engineers
should clean it up.'' Guess what? They do not do water. That is
the Army, they do land. And there really is not any naval
facility up there on Lake Erie. But we have got all this stuff,
and when I asked the DOD personnel who came out to survey the
site when they did their preliminary work--by the way, the
helicopter crashed. It crashed into Lake Erie. We lost the
copter, but the people in it were okay because the boom caught
the edge of a wave, I guess. They were too close to the water.
But when they showed us the preliminary mapping it showed that
on a scale of one to ten, it was a 7.5 to eight degree of
damage. It is quite significant. But the question becomes, how
do you clean it up? It is the same challenges that each of us
face as we struggle with this.
So I want to thank you, Congressman Turner and Congressman
Blumenauer, for paying attention to these environmentally
damaged sites and what we can possibly do to move toward
cleaning them up. And you mentioned 2079, I mean my goodness. I
doubt that the timetable for ours is much better than that, if
at all. And so we look forward to working with you. Did you
wish to state anything else for the record?
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your
interest and your time.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much. Thank you for appearing
today.
Mr. Hayes. Madam Chair, if I might?
Ms. Kaptur. I would be pleased to recognize the gentleman.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Yes, Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Mr. Blumenauer, one thing I forgot when you
asked a great question about adjusted gross income. In my
district it goes from very urban in the west in Charlotte, very
urban in the east in Fayetteville, in between very
agricultural. A lot of our farmers, a couple of really big
ones, are in that area next to the urban area. And what I do
not want to have happen is a disincentive for them and their
family members to keep farming and turn around that sell that
land for development land. That was another piece of that
concern that I had there. So thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, and I am sorry I missed your full
testimony, Congressman Hayes. But, believe me, I heard the
questioning.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. We thank you for coming today. Thank you,
gentlemen. I would to now call our next witness, Congressman
Jason Altmire from the great Keystone State of Pennsylvania.
Welcome, Congressman Altmire. We welcome you to the Budget
Committee and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JASON ALTMIRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Altmire. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Mr.
Blumenauer for being here as well. And thank you to Chairman
Spratt for allowing us to come before the Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
importance of the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution and its
impact on western Pennsylvania. Before I begin, I ask unanimous
consent to advise and extend my remarks.
Ms. Kaptur. Without objection, your full statement and
attachment will be placed in the record.
Mr. Altmire. Thanks. In the President's State of the Union
he outlined his budget priorities for the year: the need for
fiscal responsibility, reducing the number of uninsured,
investing in renewable energy, and protecting America's
homeland security. But unfortunately, the President proposed a
fiscal year 2008 budget that does not represent any of the
rhetoric that we heard and instead continues the same failed
policies of the past six years. If enacted, the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget would not, as it claims, balance the
budget within five years. The President ignores out year costs
and uses overly optimistic economic forecasts in the name of
fiscal responsibility to achieve balance in 2012. But an honest
assessment of the President's budget shows that it never
reaches balance and instead would increase the deficit by over
$3 trillion over the next ten years.
I believe we must begin the fiscal year 2008 budget process
with a true accounting of where we are, and what we will be
required to pay for over the next five to ten years. No more
gimmicks in order to make a political statement. No more
omissions of costs that wee all know we are going to have to
face. We cannot continue to deficit spend in the trillions of
dollars and pretend it does not matter. It only delays the
inevitable and passes the tough decisions of today on to future
generations.
I would strongly encourage the Budget Committee and
leadership in both chambers to adopt the fiscally responsible
budget resolution. While we will not be able to dig ourselves
out of the deep hole created over the last six years in just
one year or perhaps even the next five, we can stop the
bleeding and put us on the toward a balanced budget. Many of my
colleagues have spoken here today about the need to invest in
essential programs and priorities and I agree with many of
them. But I will again emphasize to the Committee that the
decisions about which programs to support and increase funding
for must be made within the constraints imposed by adopting a
fiscally responsible budget. And within that responsible
framework I believe the fiscal year 2008 budget should focus on
a core set of priorities: healthcare for veterans and seniors,
educating our children, and assisting first responders to
properly defend the homeland.
We owe no greater debt than to our veterans and I urge the
Committee to make sure that we fully fund their medical
coverage and hospital services. The Veterans Affairs healthcare
system is chronically underfunded, and even in the President's
budget he shortchanges our nation's veterans' medical care by
requesting insufficient funding. Over the next five years
funding for the VA health system would be short $3.4 billion if
the President's budget were enacted. In addition, the President
asks veterans to pay a new enrollment fee and increased
pharmacy copayments at a total cost of over $2 billion. Our
veterans should be at the top of our priority list when it
comes to making decisions about the federal budget. As our
veterans have honorably served this country, we should honor
our commitment to them by adequately funding their healthcare
coverage.
Approximately 124,000 Medicare beneficiaries reside in my
district, so any changes to the Medicare Program are of deep
concern to me and my constituents. After the President's call
to address the healthcare crisis in this country, I was amazed
to see his subsequent budget request reduce spending for
Medicare beneficiaries by over $250 billion over the next ten
years. I find this misguided at a time when the number of
Medicare beneficiaries is growing every year, and the baby
boomers are for the first time now starting to qualify for
Medicare.
The proposed budget also continues to demonstrate the
President's failure to live up to his commitment to fully fund
education programs for our children. K-12 spending is still $15
billion below authorized levels. As a member of the House
Education and Labor Committee, I believe it is critical to the
future of this country for us to increase funding for No Child
Left Behind and our K-12 schools. The new global economy
requires a highly educated and trained workforce and we must
meet our commitment to properly invest in the future of this
country by increasing that funding.
We must also address the mounting concerns of students and
parents who are finding it harder to afford a college
education. I believe we took an important first step during the
first 100 hours by slashing student loan rates by 50 percent.
But as a father of two, I share the concerns of millions of
parents in this country who wonder how they are going to afford
sending their children to college. The President's budget again
takes us in the wrong direction, and I hope this Committee will
reject many of his education proposals. Nine higher education
programs are completely eliminated, leading to a cut of $1.4
billion in financial assistance to students. The proposed
increase in the maximum Pell Grant award is nothing more than
robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Most alarming to me are the proposed cuts to homeland
security. Under the President's budget funding for first
responders will be reduced by 42 percent. State homeland
security preparedness grants are cut by 64 percent. And grants
to firefighters are cut by 55 percent. Further, state and local
law enforcement grants through the Department of Justice, the
COPS Program, are nearly eliminated, which consequently
deprives our local communities of the critical support they
need to operate in this post-9/11 world.
It is my hope that Congress can work in a bipartisan manner
to move this country in a new direction with the adoption of a
new fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. A new direction that
properly accounts for every dollar of the federal government's
spending and moves us towards great fiscal responsibility. A
new direction that adequately provides for the health services
of our veterans and our seniors. A new direction that invests
in our children to ensure that they receive a proper education
and the opportunity to attend college, and are sufficiently
prepared to enter the workforce and compete in our global
economy. A new direction that provides our local firefighters,
law enforcement officers, and other first responders with the
training and equipment required to defend our homeland.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to address the
Committee today and outline my priorities in the fiscal year
2008 budget. I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today on the importance of the fiscal year
2008 budget resolution and its impact on western Pennsylvania. Before I
begin, I ask unanimous consent to advise and extend my remarks.
In the President's State of the Union, he outlined his budget
priorities for the year: the need for fiscal responsibility, reducing
the number of uninsured, investing in renewable energy, and protecting
America's homeland security. Unfortunately, the President's proposed
fiscal year 2008 budget does not represent any of the rhetoric that we
heard and instead continues the same failed policies and misguided
priorities of the last six years.
If enacted, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget would not, as
it claims, balance the budget within five years. The President ignores
out-year costs and uses overly optimistic economic forecasts in the
name of fiscal responsibility to achieve balance in 2012. An honest
assessment of the President's budget shows that it never reaches
balance and instead increases the deficit by $3.2 trillion over the
next 10 years.
We must begin the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution with a true
accounting of where we are and what we will be required to pay for over
the next five years. No more gimmicks in order to make a political
statement. No more omissions of costs we all know that we are going to
have to face. We cannot continue to deficit spend in the trillions of
dollars and pretend it does not matter. It only delays the inevitable
and passes the tough decisions of today onto future generations.
I strongly encourage the House Budget Committee and leadership in
both chambers of Congress to adopt a fiscally responsible budget
resolution. While we will not be able to dig ourselves out of the deep
hole created over the last six years in just one year or even the next
five, we can stop the bleeding and put us on a path toward a balanced
budget.
Many of my colleagues have spoken passionately here today about the
need to invest in essential programs and priorities, and I agree with
many of them. But I will again emphasize to the Committee that the
decisions about which programs to support and increase funding for must
be made within the constraints imposed by adopting a fiscally
responsible budget.
Within a fiscally responsible framework, I believe the fiscal year
2008 budget resolution should focus on a core set of priorities: health
care for veterans and seniors, educating our children, and assisting
first responders to properly defend the homeland.
We owe no greater debt than to our veterans and I urge the
Committee to make sure we fully fund their medical care coverage and
hospital services. The Veterans Affairs health care system is
chronically underfunded. In the President's budget, he has again
shortchanged our veterans' medical care by requesting insufficient
funding. Over the next five years, funding for veterans would be short
$3.4 billion if the President's budget were enacted. In addition, the
President asks veterans to pay a new enrollment fee and increases
pharmacy co-payments at a total cost of $2.3 billion.
Our veterans should be at the top of the priority list when it
comes to making decisions in the federal budget. As our veterans have
honorably served this country, we should honor our commitment to them
by adequately funding their health care coverage.
Approximately 124,000 Medicare beneficiaries reside in my district,
so any changes to the Medicare program are of deep concern to me. After
the President's call to address the health care crisis in this country,
I was amazed to see his subsequent budget request reduce spending for
Medicare beneficiaries by $252 billion over 10 years. I find this
misguided at a time when the number of Medicare beneficiaries is
growing every year and the baby boomers are for the first time now
starting to qualify for Medicare.
The proposed budget also continues to demonstrate the President's
failure to live up to his commitment to fully fund education programs
for our children. K-12 spending is still $15 billion below authorized
levels. As a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, I
believe it is critical to the future of this country for us to increase
funding for No Child Left Behind and our K-12 schools. The new global
economy requires a highly educated and trained workforce and we must
meet our commitment to properly invest in the future of this country by
increasing funding for K-12 schools.
We must also address the mounting concerns of student and parents
who are finding it harder and harder to afford a college education. I
believe we took an important first step during the first 100 hours in
slashing student loan rates by 50 percent. But as a father of two, I
share the concerns of millions of parents who wonder how they are going
to afford sending their children to college. The President's budget
again takes us in the wrong direction and I hope the Committee will
reject many of his proposals. Nine higher education programs are
eliminated, leading to a cut of $1.4 billion in financial assistance to
students. The proposed increase in the maximum Pell Grant award is
nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Most alarming to me are the proposed cuts to homeland security:
Under the President's budget, funding for first responders will be
reduced by 42 percent, state homeland security preparedness grants are
reduced by 64 percent, and grants to fire fighters are cut by 55
percent. Further, state and local law enforcement grants through the
Department of Justice--the COPS program--are nearly eliminated, which
consequently deprives our local communities of the critical support
they need to operate in a post-9/11 world.
It is my hope that Congress can work in a bipartisan manner to move
this country in a new direction with the adoption of the fiscal year
2008 budget resolution. A new direction that properly accounts for
every dollar the federal government spends and moves us toward fiscal
responsibility. A new direction that adequately provides for the health
care services of our veterans and seniors. A new direction that invests
in our children to ensure they receive a proper education and the
opportunity to attend college, and are sufficiently prepared to enter
the workforce and compete in the global economy. A new direction that
provides our local firefighters and law enforcement officers with the
training and equipment required to defend our homeland.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee today
and outline my priorities for the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Altmire, very, very much
for your time today. I note that in your excellent testimony
that you have prioritized veterans healthcare at the top of
your list, and I think it is propitious that the Chair of the
Veterans Affairs Committee here in the House, Congressman
Filner just happens to be awaiting testimony himself and what a
find job he has done in attempting to increase funding for our
veterans.
I am going to ask my colleagues, Mr. Bishop and Mr.
Blumenauer, if they have any questions or comments they wish to
make at this point regarding your testimony?
Mr. Altmire. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. All right, very good. Thank you. The Committee
will place into the record your testimony as well as any
additional attachments that you wish to provide, and we will
note your priorities as we struggle to make the different
budget marks across the various categories for which we have
responsibility. So we thank you so very much for coming today.
Mr. Altmire. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. The very best to you in your first term. I am
now going to call Congressman Jim Matheson of Utah. And
Congressman Bishop will take the Chair at this point.
Mr. Bishop of New York [presiding]. Congressman Matheson,
welcome to the Budget Committee.
Mr. Matheson. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop of New York. You are now recognized for ten
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Matheson. Well, thank you. I will tell you up front I
do not think I am going to take all ten minutes. There have
probably been a series of members come through all day on
Member Day for the Budget Committee, and I suspect every member
who came here asked for more money for something. That is the
challenge you face as the Budget Committee, is when you set a
budget you have got to prioritize among a number of great ideas
and you cannot do everything for everyone.
I am very concerned about the lack of fiscal responsibility
that this country has undergone in the last few years, and so
what I wanted to talk to you about today is if we could make
some effort to return to the fiscally responsible policies we
had in the past decade. This Congress, this House of
Representatives at least, made an important first step when in
establishing the rules at the start of this Congress it
included PAYGO. And that is a good thing. But as I said, that
is a good first step. If we want to recreate the dynamic that
existed, that started in the early nineties, we need to have
statutory PAYGO and we need to have spending caps as well on
discretionary spending. It is going to force tough decisions, I
get it. It is always tough when you have to live within a
budget. But for the fiscal health of this country I would
suggest that as this Committee undertakes the process of
creating a budget resolution for the next fiscal year, I would
say that looking at budget enforcement mechanisms that were
successful, and we have the model that shows how they were
successful, I would submit that those ought to be on the table
as well. And so I want to come and make a pitch for that,
recognizing that if we have to live under those restrictions we
as members of Congress all have to face some real tough choices
for how to live within those restrictions. But I think that is
what we were elected to you and I suggest that that ought to be
part of what we are looking at in the budget process today. And
just to show I am doing my part, I am going to offer you three
quick items where I would suggest we probably ought to cut.
First of all, there is a program called the Reliable
Replacement Warhead Program for replacing our current nuclear
weapons warheads in our arsenal. It is projected in the
President's budget to spend another $120 million this year. One
of the chief justifications for moving ahead with replacing all
these warheads is there was concern that the plutonium in the
existing warheads was deteriorating and so we had to have new
warheads. But the JASON Study, which just came out in December
of last year, said it turns out the plutonium pits are not
deteriorating, that they are good for a couple of hundred
years. And so it is not clear to me what the need is to jump
ahead with this new program, which I suspect is going to be a
new effort at developing new types of nuclear weapons quite
frankly. And I would submit that in the currently difficult and
challenging fiscal times we live in right now, perhaps not
moving ahead with the Reliable Replacement Warhead at this time
would be a more prudent cause to take.
Secondly, a broader effort in terms of changing our nuclear
weapons arsenal is the program called Complex Twenty Thirty.
Now, there is not cost estimate for this effort that has been
released. It is estimated to be in the billions of dollars.
Again, I would submit that we, instead, as a measure that would
be more fiscally responsible and I think adequate for our
nation's security needs, to continue with the existing
Stockpile Stewardship Program, that is what it is called. And I
think that would be another area where we could experience
savings in our budget in the next few years.
And finally, a third item, the proposed storage facility at
Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel. There a lot of issues
about this facility that I think are fair questions to be
raising. I have concerns about the transportation risks of
bringing this material to Yucca. There are concerns about the
scientific data that has been used to justify using this, and
you are probably familiar with reports over the years where
scientific data has been called into question and the project
has been delayed, and delayed, and federal money keeps getting
poured into this project. The problem often for people who say
they oppose this project is they do not really offer a solution
or an alternative. And I would submit to you that there is an
alternative. It is reflected in legislation introduced in the
past Congress by Senator Reid in the Senate, and I introduced
it in the House. It calls for interim onsite storage, where
waste each site would be converted into dry cask storage units.
The federal government would take title, and it would stay on
site.
Now, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 was passed,
which was the precursor to the Yucca Mountain discussion we are
having here twenty years later, no one had heard of dry cask
storage because that was a technology that did not exist. The
point is is that technology does advance and things change. And
when I say ``interim onsite storage,''dry cask storage is a
200-year solution. It is not a permanent solution, but it is a
200-year solution. It gives us a couple of hundred years for
technology to maybe take us to a new place for what we could
do. And that would be a third item where I would submit that we
could save money in this budget.
So, just for fun I though I would, the real reason I came
here was PAYGO spending caps, statutory, let us show fiscal
responsibility. But just to throw in my two cents I thought I
would offer three areas where I think we could save some money
in the budget and with that I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Bishop of New York. Mr. Matheson, thank you very much.
Mr. Blumenauer, any questions? Ms. Kaptur?
Ms. Kaptur. I just want to thank the gentleman for his
testimony, particularly he is a member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee. I will take very close note of the
programs that you have mentioned, and unfortunately did not
receive a copy of your testimony at my place here but I am
going to take it to our Defense Appropriations hearings and we
will well consider what you have recommended. Thank you so
much.
Mr. Matheson. Great, I look forward to working with you on
that. Thank you so much.
Mr. Bishop of New York. Thank you very much for your
testimony. The next member we will hear from is the Chairman of
the Veterans Committee, Mr. Filner of California.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, and colleagues. I
appreciate the work you are going through. Ms. Kaptur, I heard
your plea for help to clean up the ordinance. I am sending the
Navy from San Diego directly to Lake Erie. We will figure that
out.
I have a prepared testimony that you have, but I am just
going to talk briefly on the high points. Although the current
administration will boast that it has improved the funding for
veterans, and especially veterans healthcare, an incredible
figure, I think they say 80 percent, 70 percent dollar amount,
we have gone backwards during this administration. Because of
inflation and the increasing needs of veterans, the absolute
dollars have not met the real needs and we have great amount of
neglect to make up with the new Congress. I think we have, as
you know more than any other Committee, pent up demands in lots
of areas. We make campaign promises in lots of areas. And we
are not going to be able to meet all these needs overnight. But
we can have a plan over time to meet them. We have to meet
these needs, I think, in installments.
The first installment for veterans you have already made.
You and the Appropriations Committee by increasing the
continuing resolution for 2007 by $3.6 billion, sending an
incredible signal across the country that this Congress was
going to take care of veterans. You cannot believe the powerful
and optimistic feedback we have had because of the C.R. that
was passed with that money. So we have done our first step as a
Democratic Congress, I think, in showing that veterans are
going to be met.
I think in the second installment, that is in fiscal year
2008, we have to take care in a visible way of those young men
and women, and brave young men and women coming back from Iraq
and Afghanistan. Tremendous physical injuries, loss of limbs,
brain injuries, equally traumatic injuries of the mind that we
have to take care of. I do not care how we are going to vote on
this resolution on the floor right now about the War, but we
are going to be committed as a part and as a Congress to taking
care of every young man and woman who comes back from that War.
And we are going to take them and give them the care and love
that they deserve and have earned. If we can pay for the War,
we can pay for the warriors.
So our next installment of meeting the needs, in this 2008
budget we have to take care of the healthcare of those
returning veterans. The President's budget was a shell game. He
upped the absolute dollar amount for the first year of 6
percent for healthcare, but over the five-year period actually
cut dollars for healthcare. We cannot do the same thing. And I
think our Committee is going to recommend a 12 percent increase
for healthcare in this first year.
And of course, we want to show that we are taking care not
only of the incredible physical damage but the mental health
needs. PTSD, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which has become
the catch all phrase. We know when we did not treat the mental
needs of those coming back from Vietnam we have tremendous
problems today. Half of the homeless on the street tonight are
Vietnam vets. We see the same thing happening already with our
Iraqi vets. They are going through the same thing, and we know
how to prevent it. We have to have the outreach and the
resources available to meet the needs and we are going to do
that with your help in this Congress.
And of course, we have to make up more money than the
President's budget assumed, an enrollment fee for certain
veterans and a double co-payment on pharmacy items which this
Congress is not going to approve. So we are going to have to
find that money in additional areas. So we have to take care of
those health needs.
I would like you to keep in mind one further need for 2008.
We have tremendous obligations to past veterans. World War II,
sixty years ago, we still have veterans alive. They are in
their eighties, some already in their nineties. There are
several injustices which we must correct because they are going
to die in the next budget cycles. We have veterans, we call
them atomic vets, who were not told about the dangers of being
in the test zones, have cancers and they are being forced to
prove that there is a relationship between their service in the
armed forces and their cancer. This should be a presumptive
thing, and we have to take care of these men.
In addition, sixty years ago the Filipino veterans,
Filipino soldiers fought in the Pacific, helped us when that
War. We took away as a Congress their benefits in 1946. They
are not interested in money in return, but they would like to
have the honor and dignity of being American veterans. I think
we can do that. It is accomplishable within our budget.
Lastly, the merchant mariners of World War II took
tremendous losses. They helped us when the battle in the
Atlantic. There is less than 10,000 alive. They were never
given the advantages of the Bill of Rights that was so
important to other veterans. They never got the education or
the housing benefits. We have legislation which we will
recommend to you that, again, is not a lot of money but says
thank you to these merchant mariners of World War II.
Our job will not be finished with this budget. But we have
to see it, I think, hopefully that with Democrats in the
majority we will continue our installment of paying down the
debt that we need to our nation's veterans. We promised in the
campaign a 21st century GI Bill. That means updating the
education benefits, the housing kinds of allowances that are in
there. But in addition, are Guard and Reserve units, who are
taking half of the fighting burden in Iraq, do not have the
same access to the GI Bill. We have to give that to them. They
have deserved it, they have earned it.
We have, as I said, over 200,000 homeless vets on the
streets of America tonight. That is a tremendous moral blot on
our nation. We can still do something about that if we so
choose. There are lots of things to do. There are greater
demands than we have the money for. But I think, as we showed
in the C.R., that when they put that money in and if we
adequately care for the items that I mentioned in 2008 we will
have the veterans on our side. They will see that we are
committed to them and we will continue to address their needs
until we have met them all in the coming budgets of America.
I thank you for your Committee's work. It is a tough job,
especially when they have given us this incredible debt to dig
ourselves out of. We not only have to make up for past problems
but we have to try to balance the budget also. That is a
tremendous job. We are going to have to work together as a team
to do it.
Thank you for what you are doing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Filner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Filner, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California
Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan, thank you for hearing my
views regarding the proposed FY 2008 budget for the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). The Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a
hearing last week on the VA's FY 2008 budget submission. Today, our
Subcommittee on Health is holding a hearing on the VA's medical care
budget request. We are beginning the process of working on our views
and estimates, which we will submit to this Committee on March 1, 2007.
Our views and estimates will contain concrete recommendations regarding
the points I will be touching upon briefly today.
Caring for our veterans is an ongoing cost of war, and a continuing
cost of our national defense. As a Congress, and a nation, we must
fulfill our obligations to the men and women who have served.
In a paper released last month, Linda Bilmes, of the John F.
Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University, estimated that the
long-term costs of providing veterans' disability benefits for
returning servicemembers may range from $68 billion to $127 billion.
She also estimates that the cost of providing health care may reach
$315 billion over 40 years. These are indeed staggering numbers. As we
spend hundreds of millions of dollars a day on operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, we must begin to meet the needs of our veterans. I do not
believe that the Administration's budget request does this.
I am pleased that the Administration asked for an increase in
appropriated dollars this year for veterans' health care. The
Administration has requested a $1.9 billion increase over the FY 2007
levels* for the three accounts that comprise veterans' medical care.
This recommended increase was a welcome departure, and stands in sharp
contrast to two years ago, when the Administration requested an
increase in appropriated dollars of less than one percent. The VA also
estimates that the costs attributable to inflation will be $1.4 billion
for FY 2008. When these costs are subtracted from the recommended
increase, the VA will have precious few resources to meet its ever-
growing commitments. Indeed, if the Administration's proposal is a
first step, we have a long journey ahead of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note that the FY 2007 levels referenced throughout my testimony
refer to the levels in H.J. Res. 20, the joint funding resolution that
passed the House of Representatives on January 31, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration's request amounts to a 6 percent increase. We
provided a 12 percent increase this year over FY 2006 levels. The
Independent Budget and The American Legion, in testimony before my
Committee both recommended more than a 12 percent increase for FY 2008.
The Vietnam Veterans of America recommended substantially more.
Although requesting an increase for VA medical care for FY 2008,
the Administration's budget also proposes cutting VA medical care by
$3.4 billion below current services levels from FY 2008-FY 2012. I
believe that this Administration should stop playing budget games with
the health and well-being of veterans.
In the area of mental health, the VA is requesting an additional
$56 million for a total of $360 million for its Mental Health
Initiative. The VA's budget submission also claims that the VA plans to
spend $3 billion for mental health services. The GAO has reported in
November that the VA failed to fully allocate resources pledged in FY
2005 and FY 2006 for this Mental Health Initiative. Mental health and
post-traumatic stress-disorders (PTSD) are a serious problem facing our
returning servicemembers, and an ongoing issue facing veterans from our
previous conflicts. I believe we must do more in this area, and will be
recommending increased resources for mental health.
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is considered by many to be the
signature injury of this war. We must ensure that the VA has the
resources it needs to begin tackling the issues surrounding TBI, as
well as the resources it needs for VA Polytrauma centers to treat our
most grievously wounded veterans. In the area of prosthetics we must
make sure that veterans are provided with state-of-the-art equipment. I
will be recommending increases in these areas.
Homelessness among veterans is an ongoing problem, and a major
concern of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Over the course of the
year VA estimates that 400,000 veterans will experience homelessness at
some time. Through an array of programs, VA assists 25 percent of that
number and the community based organizations serve 50,000. The FY 2008
budget requests $107 million for the VA's Grant and Per Diem Program
and Special Needs Grants. Last year, P.L.109 -461 authorized $130
million for this program. I will be recommending that VA's homeless
programs receive additional funding.
The VA is facing a backlog of over 600,000 claims. Over the coming
months my committee plans on addressing this intolerable backlog. There
are many reasons why we are facing a backlog of this magnitude, but
clearly funding is needed to hire more claims processors, and I will be
recommending additional funding in this area.
Once again this year, the Administration has included legislative
proposals that would levy a health care enrollment fee and sharply
increase pharmaceutical co-payments. In a departure from last year, the
Administration deems the revenues it projects from these proposals to
be ``mandatory'' revenues. Although these dollars are not directly
subtracted from VA's discretionary accounts, they are subtracted from
VA's mandatory accounts and we will need to provide funding for these
once they are rejected by Congress yet again.
Finally, I am concerned that the VA's budget request does not
include adequate funding to meet the health care needs of our veterans
in the coming year. We are still faced with the Administration's
refusal to ban enrollment of new priority 8 veterans, which has been in
place since January, 2003. Although the VA was granted the authority to
curtail enrollment when faced with unexpected shortfalls in revenues,
this authority was never meant to be permanent. I believe that we must
revisit this issue and find ways to ensure that all veterans have
access to the VA health care system, including priority 8 veterans,
rural veterans, and veterans with special needs. The VA's FY 2008
budget request for long-term care further reduces the Average Daily
Census (ADC) level to 11,000 for nursing home care. The Veterans
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act (P.L. 106-117), which was
enacted in 1999, requires the VA to maintain an ADC 13,391. The VA has
not requested funding in order to comply with its long-term care
obligations.
In the area of medical and prosthetic research, the Administration
has recommended a cut in appropriated dollars below the FY 2007 level.
In order to account for the rate of biomedical inflation, I believe
that we should provide at least a $15 million increase for this
account.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remark. We have a lot of work ahead
of us if we are to keep our promises to veterans. 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.
Mr. Bishop of New York. Mr. Filner, thank you very much for
your testimony and thank you for your service as Chairman of
the Veterans Committee. If I could just make a comment and ask
a question. One of the things that the President has been
saying about his budget is that it comes to balance in five
years without a tax increase. I think we all know that that is
wishful thinking at best if not an outright fiction, because it
does not recognize costs associated with the War in Iraq nor
does it recognize the cost of fixing the AMT. But also it is
shot through with increases in fees, and increases in fees are
simply a tax increase by another means. Could you talk more
about the increase in fees proposed for veterans for access to
healthcare and for pharmaceuticals and what the impact would be
on the veterans population?
Mr. Filner. The administration has proposed this year and
in past years, slightly different this year, an enrollment fee
on what they call ``lower priority veterans,''that is veterans
who do not have service connected disability or who are of
``high income.'' High income, by the way, means over $25,000.
But their enrollment fee, which is up to $250 a person, could
lead to they say, and they say it with great glee I am afraid,
that several thousand veterans would leave the system. To me,
we should be expanding the system not contracting it. But they
estimate that if the enrollment fee goes through, several
hundred thousand veterans will not be able to afford the
system. They have the same in Tricare, by the way, which is not
under Veterans but under Armed Services. Their increases in
Tricare, they believe, will also lead to about a quarter of a
million retirees to leave the system. I think that is
disgraceful, to say we set up a system and say goodbye.
In addition, the copays for medicines, pharmaceutical
items, will double for many veterans, most veterans. That again
is going to make life extremely difficult because that
copayment is per medicine and per month. So it looks as if it
is going up from eight dollars to fifteen dollars. But if you
are dealing with ten medicines, ten times a year, I mean the
fee is very, very great and we see what happens with our
seniors when they cannot afford it. They cut the medicines,
they do not take them when they should and that leads to deaths
and other problems. So we should not even entertain those fees.
But that leaves us money to make up in the budget.
Mr. Bishop of New York. Thank you very much, Mr. Filner.
Ms. Kaptur?
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I just
want to say Chairman Filner we are so proud of you and the work
that you are doing and will do as Chairman of the Veterans
Affairs Committee.
Mr. Filner. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. I know how totally dedicated you are to it, and
you know such a great deal about it and you are young enough to
really make a difference. So I just wanted to comment on the
issue of fees. I had a veteran come up to me who was over
eighty years of age and who was on something like twelve
medications, a World War II veteran. I wondered after I dealt
with him whether you might just advisedly take this, after a
veteran reaches a certain age, especially eighty, should we not
just let them have the medicine that their doctor prescribes? I
mean, this poor soul had lost his wife, he did not have a
telephone, life was hard enough. It just seems to me that at
some point unless they are multi-billionaires they should not
have to go through all that confusion of copays and all the
rest. So I just thought I would mention that while you are here
before us today. You do not have to comment.
Mr. Filner. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. But I am sure you as well as I and other
members have confronted this. Secondly, congratulations to you
on your understanding of the needs of our homeless vets and
those who will face neuropsychiatric damage as a result of
deployment. I want you to know you have a total ally in that
cause in this member. And when I began my service in Congress
as a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, it was very
troubling to look at how many individuals in our VA Hospitals
were there with chronic mental illness and substance abuse. And
yet, if one looked at the peer review groups for research
within the VA and the types of docs and nurses we were bringing
on, how understaffed we were in terms of neuropsychiatry and
psychiatric nursing, as a member of the Appropriations
Committee I am there to help you. On research, on staffing, I
want to do the same with DOD, to really finally grapple with
this in a proper way.
I would mention that there are several members, including
Congressman Moran, Congressman LaHood, who have introduced a
bill dealing with mental illness. At least it is a step
forward. Dealing with PTSD, other psychiatric conditions that
onset, I think we have to go way beyond that in terms of
dedicating research dollars, which I would like to do as a
member of the DOD Appropriations Committee in this arena.
Perhaps you might consider some type of convening for members
who hold deep interest in this. It is quite deep in this
Congress and we have never been able to meet with one another
on that subject. Perhaps not as a member of the Budget
Committee but to invite members on this subject before your
Committee, I would certainly be one that would show up.
And then finally, in a very provincial way, I just wanted
to mention that I represent one of the two VA clinics in the
country that is not in the state of its mother hospital. This
is unbelievable. And it causes so many problems because it is a
cost center for a hospital located about an hour away for us in
Michigan. We are from the State of Ohio. I would just prevail
upon you, if you have staff that could work with us so we could
figure out how to get an independent affiliation or an
affiliation with our own medical center so our vets do not have
to travel such a distance. I think this is the time to do it,
especially with all these returning vets and everything that we
are being faced with in our region. This particular
administrative complexity is quite vexing and one that we need
to fix.
Mr. Bishop of New York. Thank you very much, Congressman
Filner.
Mr. Filner. Thank you. But just on PTSD again, thank you
for your incredible support of that. You know, if I was the
President right now, when he asked for support of our troops, I
would be saying every community, every family, children, must
know what PTSD is so we can envelop these young kids when they
come back and recognize the symptoms and help direct them.
Because the major problem is, they cannot talk to anybody about
it, they feel. And there needs to be an understanding and not a
turning away. I would like to, I am trying to get someone to
make a film, by the way, for the children. There must be a
million kids of those who are deployed now, recently deployed,
will be deployed. If you had a Sesame Street thing for kids, so
if Mom or Dad came home and there was some domestic violence
and Johnny said, ``Dad, you have got PTSD. You had better get
to the clinic.''That would have enormous impact. But we have
got to have that outreach to families, to children.
So I hope we can do that, and as you suggest, a summit
meeting as it were. We should have that. I need to ask one more
thing. I am thinking about other means of financing given these
tight budgets. Do you know that we do not have a way within the
VA to do a rapid canvass of whether a veteran has private
insurance that ought to pay? We do not have a way to do that,
yet there are systems today I could do that with five seconds
through a computer, have access to what the private insurance
that anybody has. We have to tap into that far more.
By the way, Medicare does not pay for veterans if they go
to the VA. And that is, from your perspective that is just a
shift of resources. But for the VA it could be meaningful if, I
don't know, if Medicare paid fifty cents on the dollar, twenty
cents on the dollar, whatever, to help. Because VA does things
in a very cost effective manner, it would save Medicare money
to do that.
And lastly, the NIH does a lot of research through the VA
but does not reimburse for what they call indirect costs.
Multi-million dollars of stuff there that ought to be helping
our veterans, and yet are in other parts of the budget.
So I will continue to work with this. I know we have
tremendous, you guys have a tremendous difficulty. You know, we
have got to meet the demands that our constituents have and
they have not been met for, you know, almost a decade. And yet,
we want to balance the budget too. So we will be working with
you to do it.
Mr. Etheridge [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you for being
here, and thank you for your testimony. As someone who
represents one of the largest military bases in this country,
Fort Bragg, and a lot of veterans, we thank you for your
service. Thank you.
Mr. Filner. Thanks.
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Chairman, we are going to talk
transportation. Mr. Oberstar, thank you for being here, sir.
You are recognized for ten minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM OBERSTAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the
opportunity to come once again before the Budget Committee. It
is a very familiar room. This once was the hearing room of the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, when I started here
in the Congress in 1975. And there was only that upper tier of
desks. It was not this fancy. And there was a little plywood
table added to the end for me. I had the lowest seniority on
the Committee at the time. Then years later, this was converted
into the Budget Committee.
I thank all of you who serve on the Budget Committee for
your tedious work. And it is tedious, time consuming, to pay
attention to the respective needs of committee chairs and
individuals members on the effect of the budget on our
respective programs.
After careful review of the administration's budget for the
programs under the jurisdiction of our Committee, we have
concluded on a bipartisan assessment that there are not only
serious shortcomings but it greatly under funds much of the
nation's critical infrastructure in aviation, public transit,
Amtrak, waste water treatment. It is not a step forward but a
step back. For example, in the FAA, the AIP Program is
authorized at $3.7 billion but the administration requests
$2.75 billion. So it is roughly a billion dollars low.
That is serious for the AIP. AIP is the construction of
runways, taxiways, parking aprons, the hard side of the air
operations of airports. It is serious because in the three
years after September 11th, airports diverted their capacity
construction funding from taxiways, runways and parking aprons
to security needs in the terminal to accommodate stationing of
and security needs of explosive detection systems and of the
baggage clearing process that is hidden from passengers
underneath the airport terminal itself. They spent $3 billion
of AIP funds on security projects and have not been compensated
for that by the Homeland Security Department or by the general
revenues of the federal government.
Now, air traffic is up, inplanements are up, air operations
are up, they are reaching pre-2001 service levels. Worldwide
last year a billion people traveled by air, 750 million of
those traveled in the U.S. airspace. We are 70 percent of all
the aviation travel in the entire world. We need now to expand
runway capacity and yet this administration under funds the AIP
Program. You are not going to be able to add capacity or
accommodate the growth needs of airlines if we do not invest in
the hard side of airport investment needs.
In the modernization of air traffic control, the F and E
Account, Facilities and Equipment Account as it is called, our
authorization for the next fiscal year, which would have, I
mean it is for the current fiscal year but it would have been
for next year, the program expires, we have to reauthorize it
this year. But it would be at a level of $3.1 billion. The
administration request is $600 million below that, $2.5
billion.
Now, you do not just go and buy air traffic control
equipment off the shelf at Radio Shack. You do not go sign up
with Dell Computers and say, ``Send us a standard terminal
automation replacement system.'' These are highly
sophisticated, real time computers that are almost the size of
that television screen down here. They track aircraft real
time. It is not data retrieval. You need highly sophisticated
computer programming. For example, in going from the previous
TRACON technology of 300,000 computer lines, FAA had to
increase capacity 1,300,000 computer lines of code. That took
years in development, and it has to be continually revised as
the system evolves and more traffic moves.
But the air traffic controller is managing aircraft that
are moving ten miles a minute at seven miles in the air. They
have to make instantaneous judgments. They have to have
instantaneous feedback. That takes huge capital investment to
continue the modernization of the air traffic control, keep it
current with developments in aviation. We are seeing more
aircraft in the skies today than in 2001. Airlines are
increasing using point to point service, using regional jet
aircraft. That means more work load at air traffic control
facilities, both in the end route centers, that is where
aircraft are managed at altitude above 29,000 feet, and then
the airport environment, forty miles out from the airport. That
system needs to be connected now to satellites, so that
satellite technology will relieve the air traffic controller of
a great deal of the tedium of managing air traffic on a moment
to moment basis. That will take huge investments in the future,
not a decrease in funding as this administration is proposing.
In the surface transportation we had quite a success in the
C.R. where the Appropriations Committee fully funded to the
level of the authorized amount of $39 billion. But in the
administration's submission for the 2008 budget, at the very
time that this administration is launching with big ballyhoo a
Congestion Reduction Initiative, they propose to cut $300
million out of the transit account of the Highway Trust Fund,
$300 million below the amount we authorized and you voted for
in 2005. If you want to deal with congestion you have to invest
more, not less, in transit.
In Amtrak, the administration proposes an $800 million
budget. Well, two years ago David Gunn, the President of
Amtrak, said if this administration requests the $1.2 billion
budget for Amtrak we shut it down. We need more than that. This
administration, now again, as they do every year, comes in with
a low number for Amtrak, expect Congress to make up the
difference, and then talk about, ``Well, we need reforms.''What
they mean by reform translates to abolish. That is really what
they want to do, is abolish Amtrak. I can only say that because
they have been working on it for six years.
All around the world other countries are investing in high
speed, inter-city passenger rail. The French, with their highly
successful TGV have already committed $6.5 billion to upgrade
their system and add new lines, add more service. Italy
invested $6.8 billion. Denmark, little Denmark is about the
size of three counties in my district, has invested $9.5
billion in high speed rail systems. We ought to do, we ought to
at least keep Amtrak afloat and that means a budget of at least
a $1.3 billion.
In the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Revolving
Loan Funds have averaged $1,350,000,000 over the last ten
years. That is to build waster water treatment facilities,
water lines, sewer lines, interceptor sewers. And this current
budget is half that amount. It is $687.5 million. We have a
bill that we reported from Committee, we are ready to bring it
to the House floor, to replenish the State Revolving Loan Funds
at $20 billion over the next five years. That is doubling the
existing amounts. States are falling behind. Sewage treatment
plant capacity is inadequate to meet current demand. Most of
these plants are thirty-plus years old. They need to be
upgraded. We are discharging waste in combined sewer overflows,
combined sanitary and storm sewer overflows, polluting creeks
and rivers and streams and lakes, and this administration at
that very moment proposes to cut the funding for the State
Revolving Loan Fund. I urge you not to do that.
Finally, in the Corps of Engineers the administration
proposes a 45 percent cut in what we call the Investigations
Account. That is authorizations and directions Congress has
given to the Corps of Engineers to go and study this levy,
study that dam, study this water retention facility. And they
are proposing to make nearly a 45 percent cut. And in the
Construction Account they propose a 35 percent cut. Well, what
that means is, I will say it to the gentlewoman from Ohio, on
the Great Lakes as we come to the opening of shipping season
this end of March, early April on the Great Lakes, Lake
Superior will be down ten inches because of drought over the
last three years in the watershed of Lake Superior. The Great
Lakes watershed is similarly in drought. Lower lakes will be
down as much as seventeen inches. Lake Superior is equal to the
volume of all the other four Great Lakes combined. So if its
flow is down the flow in the other, the volume in the other
lakes will be down substantially more. Harbors in the lower
lakes are down as much as fifty-four inches. Our taconite
ships, that is iron ore carrying vessels, in the seventies,
eighties, and early nineties were going out with 73,000 tons
are now going out 6500 tons light. That means, in the course of
a season, two or three more voyages per vessel. That means
higher cost to the steel mills, higher transportation costs. We
need accelerate the dredging in the interconnecting channels in
the Great Lakes and on the harbors in the lower lakes to
accommodate those vessels that were built for twenty-seven foot
draft and we do not have it now. The Corps has avoided the
dredging costs on that Great Lakes over the last five years
because we have had high water levels. Now we have to come back
and do that dredging.
So those are just a few of the highlights of what we need
to do in this budget that is under your direction. I would be
glad to respond to any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oberstar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James L. Oberstar, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Minnesota
Thank you Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan for this
opportunity to testify before you on the Fiscal Year 2008 budget
resolution as it relates to programs within the jurisdiction of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
After reviewing the Administration's budget proposal, I have
concluded that it contains serious shortcomings with regard to our
nation's critical infrastructure needs, particularly in the areas of
aviation, public transit, Amtrak, and wastewater treatment. In these
important areas, the Administration's proposed budget is not a way
forward, but a step backwards.
Funding for the capital needs of the Federal Aviation
Administration is still headed in the wrong direction. In 2003, the FAA
requested and received from Congress an authorization of approximately
$3 billion per year for its Facilities and Equipment program. Yet for
the past three years the Administration has requested roughly $2.5
billion per year for this program. For FY 2008, the Administration is
once again requesting $2.46 billion to meet FAA's capital investment
needs.
The Department of Transportation Inspector General has stated that
FAA cannot achieve its goal of technologically transforming the
National Airspace System with a $2.5 billion (or less) capital budget,
since a $2.5 billion funding level goes primarily toward sustaining the
existing system, not new initiatives. The FAA's own preliminary Next
Generation Air Transportation System cost estimate supports the IG's
finding.
I am concerned that by starving the FAA's capital programs, the
Administration is slowly setting its Next Generation Air Transportation
System effort--and ultimately the aviation system as a whole--up to
fail.
Similarly, the Administration is proposing a significant cut in
funding for the Airport Improvement Program. The Administration's
budget request provides $2.75 billion for the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) in FY 2008--$950 million less than the level authorized
for FY 2007, and $765 million less than the House-passed FY 2007
Continuing Resolution, H.J. Res. 20.
The $2.75 billion proposed funding level would significantly reduce
entitlement funds for virtually every airport currently receiving such
funds. Small airports could be particularly hard hit by the proposed
funding cut because AIP grants are a larger source of funding for
smaller airports.
Although we are just beginning the process of reauthorizing the
FAA's programs for fiscal year 2008 and, therefore, do not have exact
figures to recommend to you today, the fiscal year 2007 authorized
levels provide a useful benchmark. To ensure that our aviation system
remains safe, reliable, efficient, and able to accommodate the
increased number of passengers anticipated in the near future, fiscal
year 2008 funding for aviation capital programs should be no less than
the fiscal year 2007 authorized levels of $3.7 billion for AIP and
$3.11 billion for Facilities and Equipment.
In the area of surface transportation, achieving full funding of
the amounts guaranteed by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) has been,
and will remain, one of the Committee's highest priorities. I am
disappointed that the Administration has chosen not to honor the
transit funding levels that it agreed to in negotiations on SAFETEA-LU
less than two years ago. With congestion as the number one crisis
facing our transportation system, the Administration's proposal to cut
transit funding by more than $300 million below the level agreed to in
SAFETEA-LU defies logic.
Regarding Amtrak, the $800 million proposed by the Administration
is a shut-down figure, and the fact that the budget proposes to have
Amtrak develop a plan to sell-off portions of its business is
tantamount to forcing Amtrak to bankrupt itself.
Railroads throughout the world receive substantial government
support to supplement the revenues paid by passengers. The U.S. has
refused to do that, which is why we lag behind the rest of the world
when it comes to passenger rail. According to the European Commission,
in 2001 alone, France invested $6.5 billion in its rail system. Italy
invested $6.8 billion. Denmark invested $9.5 billion. Even Great
Britain invested $3 billion in its rail network in 2001.
We need to stop nickel-and-diming Amtrak to death, and provide
Amtrak with an adequate level of funding to address its needs. The
Amtrak Board will be sending its fiscal year 2008 budget request to
Congress shortly. In the meantime, it is safe to say that Amtrak will
need at least the fiscal year 2007 funding level of $1.3 billion.
The Administration's budget request for the Environmental
Protection Agency also falls far short of what is needed.
In 1972, only one-third of the nation's assessed waters met water
quality goals. At present, two-thirds of those waters meet these goals.
Although these achievements show incredible progress in the protection
of our environment and public health, it is important to remember that
one-third of the nation's waters still fail to meet these water quality
goals that were first established more than 30 years ago. Without a
strong commitment from both the Administration and the Congress to
continued water quality protections, we run the risk of losing all the
gains that we have made in recent decades.
Despite a recognized need for increased federal investment to
address an aging wastewater infrastructure, the Administration's budget
request significantly undermines the federal commitment to the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund. The budget requests $687.5 million in
capitalization grants for State Clean Water programs--the lowest level
requested by any administration since the creation of the program. This
amount of funding is down from the likely fiscal year 2007
appropriation of $1.084 billion and is close to a 50 percent cut from
the long-term average of $1.35 billion for the program.
Finally, under-funding of the Army Corps of Engineers has been a
chronic problem that has resulted in an outdated and aging
infrastructure. The Administration's budget significantly reduces the
overall budget for the Corps' investigation and construction accounts
(by 45 percent and 35 percent respectively) compared to the House-
passed fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution. 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 larger sums for disaster relief will be needed in
the future.
More comprehensive information on the Committee's recommendations
will be provided once the Committee's Views and Estimates are formally
adopted. 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.
I urge your support for the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee's recommendations as you develop the FY 2008 budget
resolution.
Mr. Etheridge. I thank the gentleman for his testimony and
his full written statement. Does any member have questions?
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the
distinguished Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee for coming before us today. And I have said to many
audiences we could not have a better American in place today
for what we face in terms of these investments than yourself.
You are so ready for this. I am just happy. I am just happy you
are in place. And I can tell you as a member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing, we
look forward to your recommendations. And as a designee to this
Committee from the Appropriations Committee, to try to do the
best that we can in view of the war costs that we are amassing,
and straining all of the other accounts. So, Chairman Oberstar,
you will be highly regarded in terms of your recommendations
and we thank you very much for coming today.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you.
Mr. Etheridge. I thank the gentle lady, and we thank the
gentleman from Minnesota for all his hard work and his great
leadership. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, sir. The next member to testify
is the gentleman from California, Mr. Honda. Welcome. And we
are pleased to receive your testimony, Mr. Honda, and you are
now recognized for ten minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL M. HONDA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure to
be back in the room that I spent two years in. Mr. Chairman,
thank you for this opportunity to express the budget priorities
for my Silicon Valley district. As a former member of this
distinguished Committee it is a great pleasure to speak before
you.
I would like to spend a few minutes today to discuss the
important priorities on education that you know very well,
justice, healthcare, and innovation and competitiveness which
is a hallmark of Silicon Valley.
Mr. Chairman, as a former teacher and principal promoting
quality education continues to be a top priority for me. I
supported the No Child Left Behind with great trepidation.
While I support setting higher standards for our nation's
schools, I feared that without the necessary resources the
legislation would impose unfunded mandates on our schools, our
teachers and our students and unfortunately that fear has
become a reality. And today I hear from countless educators who
are struggling with the mandates set out by NCLB while facing
severe budgetary cuts. In Santa Clara County there are teachers
who have been given one box of paper for their students for the
entire year, and there are teachers who do not have access to
even copy machines anymore because the schools have shut them
down. So we must increase our investment in education to fund
vital programs and services.
For the last four budget cycles we have seen very little
increase in education spending. The President's budget proposes
$1.5 billion below the fiscal year 2007 request for the
Department of Education. Yet the demands on our students and
schools have increased due to the increased costs of providing
services and the difficulty of meeting the requirements of
NCLB. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2008
eliminates forty-four education programs and makes drastic cuts
to others. The rationale for eliminating many of these programs
is that they are ``ineffective.'' But the programs never
received the funding necessary to allow them to succeed.
Four of these programs are designed to specifically target
and assist some of our neediest students, Hawaiian and Alaskan
natives. Other cuts include education and education technology.
The reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
the so-called No Child Left Behind Act, has already left many
students behind. We have a long ways to go to fix this law to
give schools the help they need.
If nothing else, the data from No Child Left Behind has
clearly demonstrated that America's education system is
fundamentally inequitable. We have set high standards for
students but we have not matched those goals with the resources
they need. The achievement gap remains and the funding gap
remains also. Without increased funding, we will not be able to
provide the teacher training, instructional services, and
materials that schools need to improve student learning.
Significantly, the President's budget fails to fully fund
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. In
1975 the federal government made a commitment to provide 40
percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities.
Congress has failed to meet these commitments for over twenty-
eight years. This is simply, as you understand, simply
unacceptable. Federal programs such as IDEA, Title I, and Pell
Grants exist to level the playing field for disadvantaged
students. But we have failed to provide the funding to allow
them to have their full effect. Public education should be the
great equalizer, providing the opportunity for a better life
for all Americans.
Today I urge the Committee to make education a top priority
by fully funding IDEA and increasing funding for the No Child
Left Behind Act. Just a sidebar, the State Superintendent of
Education for the State of California, Mr. O'Connell, has asked
that in your wisdom that when the bill comes through that there
will be flexibility allowed by each state so that they can have
the flexibility and the ability to adjust the evaluation
criteria.
Mr. Chairman I am also here today to oppose the President's
attempt once again to eliminate the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program in this budget. SCAAP reimburses state and
local governments for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens
and is vital to border states such as California which
incarcerate a disproportionate high share of undocumented
criminal aliens. Securing our nation's border is the exclusive
jurisdiction of the federal government. Congress has
consistently legislated that the federal government must either
take criminal aliens into federal custody or reach an agreement
to compensate state and local jurisdictions for their
incarceration. The President's budget request, which provides
no funding for SCAAP, would abandon state and local
jurisdictions and devastate my home state of California, which
receives 40 percent of SCAAP funding.
In addition, the President's budget would eliminate several
crucial programs that will affect the health and well-being of
my constituents as well as our nation. The President proposes
to eliminate the Urban Indian Health Program, which provides
unique services for those Native Americans living outside of
reservations as a result of federal relocation policies and the
unfortunate socio-economic realities that persist on
reservations. The President claims that urban Native Americans
can access healthcare services through other providers, but
UIHP participants offer needed holistic care as well as
culturally and linguistically competent care, including
diabetes treatment and cultural activities. They estimate they
will lose ten staff members and that about 1550 clients will be
terminated from the services under the President's budget and
this is not acceptable.
The President's budget also nearly completely cuts funding
for Title VII Health Professions Programs, proposing just $9.7
million, a 94.7 percent cut from 2007. These programs aim to
increase the diversity of our healthcare workforce, as well as
improve the quality of healthcare in low income and racial and
ethnic minority populations. The Centers of Excellence Program
enables Health and Professionals Training Programs to enlarge
their applicant pools, enhance the academic performance of
under represented minority students, improve the recruitment
and retention of under represented minority faculty, and in
other ways enhance the capacity of their graduates to provide
healthcare services to people who are medically under served.
In 2005 there was only one Center of Excellence dedicated to
studying the unique needs of the Asian Pacific Islander
community. As a result of a 67 percent cut to the Centers of
Excellence Program in 2006, that one center lost its funding.
Other Centers of Excellence for Latinos, Native Americans and
African Americans also lost their funding. The President's
budget not only continues to radically underfund the Centers
Program, but makes drastic cuts to Title VII as a whole.
I am also troubled by the President's proposal to eliminate
other programs that serve our most frail and vulnerable
populations, such as the Community Service Block Grants and
Preventative Health and Health Services Block Grants. In 2005
California received nearly $56.5 million in CSBG funding and
used it to serve almost half of the state's residents
identified as low income.
Now, I am encouraged by some aspects of the President's
budget request. He proposes an increase in funding for
expansion of treatment capacity for drug courts, which have
been chronically underfunded in his prior requests and by the
Congress. Drug courts are an effective and popular method for
the judicial system, mental health and social service, and
treatment communities to intervene and break the cycle of
substance abuse, addiction and crime. The President's budget
requests $31.8 million for this program, a $21.7 million
increase over the funding level for 2007. I am also glad to see
that the President has included some important funding
increases for scientific research that will help our nation
maintain its competitive position in the global marketplace.
Unfortunately, he has once again chosen to rob Peter to pay
Paul by proposing to eliminate programs that have a proven
track record of aiding small businesses and creating new jobs,
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced
Technology Program. And he has not provided the funding NASA
will need to achieve the Challenge in Exploration goals he has
set for the agency while performing its core science and
aeronautics activities.
I understand that the Budget Committee is being asked to
make these funding decisions in the context of a deficit
environment. However, the federal government has an obligation
to invest in future growth. Our nation's historical commitment
to education, healthcare, and innovation and competitiveness
has served us well and we must reaffirm that commitment in the
2008 budget resolution.
And I would respectfully ask that the Committee fully fund
IDEA and provide substantial increases for the No Child Left
Behind Act, allocate sufficient funding for vital health
programs, and ensure that we can maintain our international
competitiveness in science and innovation. And I yield back the
remainder of my time and I appreciate the Committee's
indulgence in allowing me to put on record that which is
important not only Silicon Valley but also this nation.
Mr. Etheridge. I thank the gentleman for his testimony and
for his commitment in making sure that his message is placed on
the record for his people. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael M. Honda, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan, and Members of the House
Budget Committee, thank you for this opportunity to express the budget
priorities for my Silicon Valley district. As a former Member of this
distinguished committee, it is a great pleasure to speak before you.
Mr. Chairman, as a former teacher and principal, promoting quality
education continues to be a top priority for me. I supported the No
Child Left Behind Act with great trepidation. While I support setting
higher standards for our nation's schools, I feared that without the
necessary resources, the legislation would impose unfunded mandates on
our schools, our teachers, and our students. Unfortunately, that fear
has become a reality.
Today, I hear from countless educators who are struggling with the
mandates set out by the No Child Left Behind Act while facing severe
budgetary cuts. In Santa Clara County, there are teachers who have only
been given one box of paper for their students for the entire year.
There are teachers who do not have access to copy machines anymore
because the schools have shut them down.
We must increase our investment in education to fund vital programs
and services. For the last 4 budget cycles, we have seen very little
increase in education spending. The President's budget proposes $1.5
billion below the Fiscal Year 2007 request level for the Department of
Education. Yet the demands on our students and schools have increased,
due to the increased cost of providing services, and the difficulty of
meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behind.
The President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2008 eliminates 44
education programs, and makes drastic cuts to others. The rationale for
eliminating many of these programs is that they are ``ineffective,''
but the programs never received the funding necessary to allow them to
succeed. Four of these programs are designed to specifically target and
assist some of our neediest students, Hawaiian and Alaska Natives.
Other cuts include family literacy, physical education, and education
technology.
If nothing else, the data from No Child Left Behind has clearly
demonstrated that America's education system is fundamentally
inequitable. We have set high standards for students, but we have not
matched these goals with the resources they need. The achievement gap
remains, and the funding gap remains. Without increased funding, we
will not be able to provide the teacher training, instructional
services, and materials that schools need to improve student learning.
Significantly, the President's budget once again fails to fully
fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. In 1975,
the Federal government made a commitment to provide 40% of the cost of
educating children with disabilities. Congress has failed to meet that
commitment for over 28 years. This is simply unacceptable.
Federal programs such as IDEA, Title I, and Pell Grants exist to
level the playing field for disadvantaged students, but we have failed
to provide the funding to allow them to have their full effect. Public
education should be the great equalizer, providing the opportunity for
a better life for all Americans. Today, I urge the committee to make
education a top priority by fully funding IDEA and increasing funding
for the No Child Left Behind Act.
Mr. Chairman, I am also here today to oppose the President's
attempt, once again, to eliminate the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program in this budget. SCAAP reimburses state and local governments
for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, and is vital to border
states such as California which incarcerate a disproportionately high
share of undocumented criminal aliens.
Securing our nation's borders is the exclusive jurisdiction of the
federal government. Congress has consistently legislated that the
federal government must either take criminal aliens into federal
custody or reach and agreement to compensate state and local
jurisdictions for their incarceration. The President's budget request,
which provides no funding for SCAAP, would abandon states and local
jurisdictions and devastate my home state of California, which receives
40 percent of SCAAP funding.
In addition, the President's budget would eliminate several crucial
programs that will affect the health and well being of my constituents,
as well as our nation. He proposes to eliminate the Urban Indian Health
Program, which provides unique services for those Native Americans
living outside of reservations as a result of federal relocation
policies and the unfortunate socio-economic realities that persist on
reservations. The President claims that urban Native Americans can
access health care services through other providers, but UIHP
participants offer needed holistic care, as well as culturally and
linguistically competent care unavailable through other providers.
In my district, the San Jose Indian Health Center will face
significant decreases in medical and dental services, case management,
substance abuse treatment, diabetes treatment, and cultural activities.
They estimate they will lose 10 staff members and that about 1,550
clients will be terminated from services under the President's budget.
The President's budget also nearly completely cuts funding for the
Title VII Health Professions Programs, proposing just $9.7 million, an
94.7 percent cut from FY 2007. These programs aim to increase the
diversity of our healthcare workforce as well as improve the quality of
health care in low-income and racial and ethnic minority populations.
The Centers of Excellence program enables health professions training
programs to enlarge their applicant pools, enhance the academic
performance of under-represented minority students, improve the
recruitment and retention of under-represented minority faculty, and in
other ways enhance the capacity of their graduates to provide health
care services to people who are medically underserved.
In 2005 there was only one Center of Excellence dedicated to
studying the unique needs of the AAPI community. As a result of a 67%
cut to the Centers of Excellence program in FY 2006, that one center
lost its funding. Other Centers of Excellence for Latinos, Native
Americans, and African-Americans also lost their funding. The
President's budget not only continues to radically underfund the
Centers program, but makes dramatic cuts to Title VII as a whole.
I am also troubled by the President's proposal to eliminate other
programs that serve our most frail and vulnerable populations, such as
the Community Services Block Grants and Preventative Health and Health
Services Block Grants. In 2005, California received nearly $56.5
million in CSBG funding and used it to serve almost half of the state's
residents identified as low-income.
I am encouraged by some aspects of the President's budget request.
He proposes an increase in funding for drug courts, which have been
chronically underfunded in his prior requests and by the Congress. Drug
courts are an effective and popular method for the judicial system,
mental health, social service, and treatment communities to intervene
and break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, and crime. The
President's Budget requests $31.8 million for this program, a $21.7 M
increase over the funding level for FY 2007. While the drug courts
program would benefit from even greater funding of $40 million, I am
pleased to see the increased budget request for this important program.
I am also glad to see that the President has included some
important funding increases for scientific research that will help our
nation to maintain its competitive position in the global marketplace.
Unfortunately, he has once again chosen to ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' by
proposing to eliminate programs that have a proven track record of
aiding small businesses and creating new jobs, the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program, and he has
not provided the funding NASA will need to achieve the challenging
exploration goals he has set for the agency while still performing its
core science and aeronautics activities.
I understand that the Budget Committee is being asked to make these
funding decisions in the context of a deficit environment. However, the
federal government has an obligation to invest in future growth. Our
nation's historical commitment to education, health care, and
innovation and competitiveness has served us well, and we must reaffirm
that commitment in the FY 2008 budget resolution. I respectfully ask
the committee to fully fund IDEA and provide substantial increases for
the No Child Left Behind Act, allocate sufficient funding for vital
health programs, and ensure that we can maintain our international
competitiveness in science and innovation.
Thank you.
Mr. Etheridge. Without objection, I would ask that my
statement be entered into the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Etheridge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Etheridge, a Representative in Congress
From the State of North Carolina
Thank you, Chairman Spratt, for the opportunity to address the U.S.
House Budget Committee about the budget for the federal government of
the United States. I commend you for your leadership on this vitally
important issue, and I look forward to serving with you on the Budget
Committee.
I sought appointment to this committee assignment because with
Democrats in the new Majority, I understand how important the job of
this committee is to draw up a budget that is consistent with America's
priorities. After a career in business, service as a county
commissioner and chairman, ten years in the state legislature,
including four as chairman of the appropriations committee, eight years
as the elected schools superintendent for the nation's tenth largest
state, and ten years in the minority of this body, I bring a unique
perspective to the table.
In my first few weeks on this committee, I have already learned
some important lessons. The first lesson I learned was this: there
isn't any money. None. The former Majority blew up the budget and then
blew town. Chairman Obey did the best he could in cobbling together an
appropriations continuing resolution to get us through the year, but
we've all had to go through the painful process of informing our
constituents that they cannot expect a lot of federal largess any time
soon.
Unfortunately, the President chose to continue the political
gamesmanship when submitting the Administration's budget proposal
earlier this month. The Administration had the temerity to claim that
the budget proposal would reach balance by 2012 while maintaining the
President's tax cuts. Let me be perfectly clear: that claim is untrue.
It is a falsehood. It is a lie. I usually avoid using such strong
language, but this widespread claim is so outlandish, it must be
thoroughly discredited.
The President's budget assumes that beyond the first year, all the
revenues currently projected to be collected from the Alternative
Minimum Tax will still go into the U.S. Treasury. That would amount to
a massive tax increase on middle class American families in the range
of $800 billion to $1.2 trillion over ten years. The vast majority of
Americans have never heard of the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT, and
I am very disappointed that the President failed to exert the
leadership necessary to educate our citizens and lay the predicate for
cooperative solutions to his huge challenge. In testimony before this
committee, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson admitted the Administration
has no plan to fill this gaping hole in the budget. It is fuzzy math at
its worst and a continuation of the political gamesmanship that has
characterized this White House. In fact, when Budget Director Rob
Portman appeared before this committee earlier this month, he taunted
Chairman Spratt with the challenge to ``pull a rabbit out of your hat''
in crafting a budget of our own. Such political gamesmanship must end.
I am concerned that the Administration's budget proposal assumes an
unrealistic level of incoming revenues to the extent that it really is
the rosy scenario. I would like to think that economic growth will
remain robust and tax receipts would continue to pour in, but even as
we hope for the best, it is our responsibility to plan for the worst.
Any carpenter can tell you it's best to fix the roof while the sun's
still shining.
Not only does this budget proposal not fix the fundamental
imbalance in the federal books, it makes drastic cuts to important
domestic priorities like Medicare and Medicaid, children's health,
veterans, first responders, education and the environment. As a former
North Carolina small businessman, I learned long ago to be tight with a
buck, and I have always worked to be a watchful steward of the
taxpayers' money. But I strongly believe we will cease to be a great
country if we continue to neglect the many unmet needs our citizens
have for critical services only the federal government can provide. For
example, the budget request cuts education funding by $1.5 Billion and
eliminates 44 education initiatives entirely. A society that cuts
education is like a farmer who eats his seed corn; neither one is going
to have much of a future. I strongly believe we must invest in the
future, and I will work to reverse these misguided budget cuts.
Finally, I am very concerned about the record national debt and the
interest that must be paid to service that debt. In fact, interest is
the fastest growing segment of the federal budget. Nearly all the new
debt is held by foreign creditors, and many of them in regimes such as
China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Libya. When I asked Secretary Paulson
about this problem, he responded by stating that it is not near the top
of the things that worry him. Let me state that it is near the top of
the list of things that worry me, and I think it should be near the top
of the list of the things that this committee and this Congress aim to
tackle. Anyone who has ever gotten behind on a credit card account
knows that paying interest gets you nothing. It is time for this
Congress to reverse the budget priorities of the federal government,
pay off the national debt and lift that burden from our children and
grandchildren.
In conclusion, it will take bipartisan cooperation and leadership
to reverse the reckless policies that have gotten us into this mess. I
am willing to get to work to help provide that leadership, and I am
hopeful we can obtain bipartisan cooperation in doing so. The American
people deserve no less.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota is
recognized. Mr. Walz, welcome and we are pleased to receive
your testimony. You are recognized for ten minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Walz. Well thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I truly
appreciate the opportunity to come here and speak to you. And
even in absentee, a thank you to all the members of this
Committee. I know that this may be one of the most thankless
but the most important job that is being done this year and
your work is truly appreciate by all of us. And I say that, not
just members but my constituents.
I am here today, Mr. Chairman, to talk to you about this
budget as it affects our veterans. And I do not think in the
environment that we are in right now, in the discussion that we
are having on the floor of the House of Representatives
anything could be more important. I come to you, Mr. Chairman,
to discuss these as a twenty-four year veterans of the Army
National Guard and the son of a Korean War era veteran.
Last week the President's proposal showed some promise but
in many cases fell far short of the expectations that we need
to fill. During his 2002 State of the Union the President spoke
of the need to care for our nation's veterans, and he asked for
a statement that had me heartened at the time, to approve a
historic increase in spending for veterans healthcare.
Unfortunately, over the last five years we have seen just the
opposite. Without taking you through all the details and using
your precious time, Mr. Chairman, I would just pass along to
you a couple of things that I think are critical for me.
In looking at the independent budget created by veterans
for veterans, there are some critical issues being addressed.
And one of the things that the President's budget does is in
trying to make the budget balance they give us a choice of
cutting off access of services to our veterans, especially of
previous wars, in the name of balancing the budget, at the same
time underestimating the need of our veterans that are
returning. We as a nation have an obligation to make sure that
we are honest with the public, honest with our veterans. If the
need is there, the need needs to be fulfilled.
And I spent the afternoon with some of my soldiers from my
old unit, the 34th Division out at Walter Reed this afternoon.
And both of these soldiers lost limbs in this War in Iraq.
These are good soldiers. They believe in their mission and they
are doing everything they can to accomplish what they have been
sent to Iraq to do. But one of the interesting things was, is
one of these young men is still in the process of preparing to
get his prosthetics fit and another one has had his prosthetics
fit. When we look at the President's budget we see that the
money spent for, or allocated for, prosthetic limb research has
been cut in half. And I would challenge and ask Mr. Chairman,
and I do not know if it is possible, for each of the members of
this Committee to get out there and get a chance to talk to
these young men. To talk to Tony Larson and ask him, and tell
him what a quality of life issue it is. His prosthetic leg, he
calls it the cheetah foot, is bouncer on and he has taken up
running now. And this is a brand new thing that is happening
and it is coming from the research dollars that this Congress
puts into that. So I would encourage that, for people to think
about the impact that these make.
Fulfilling the budget request as the President would have
us will leave us far short, Mr. Chairman. We have got an
opportunity, we understand that there are tight budget
restraints, but we have an opportunity to do right by these
people. I ask for you to consider the testimony that is coming
in from the veterans group. I ask for you and the rest of the
group to look closely at this, and I ask for us to keep our
commitments to our veterans and to ensure that future
generations know that that commitment will be there. So I would
entertain any questions, Mr. Chairman. If not, I'll give back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Etheridge. I thank the gentleman, and without objection
your full statement will be entered into the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Timothy J. Walz, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Minnesota
Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan, and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on some of the budgetary
matters facing America's veterans today. Your willingness to hear
testimony from me, as well as so many of my colleagues and other
concerned citizens demonstrates your strong commitment to writing a
fiscally sound budget that fulfills the needs of our veterans. I hope
that my testimony today can aid you in your work.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to discuss veterans' priorities
within this budget from my perspective as a 24 year veteran of the Army
National Guard and the son of a Korean War veteran. Last week, the
President released his FY2008 budget request for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and while I am pleased to see at least slight
increases in some important areas, the majority of his budget request
leaves me deeply concerned. During his 2002 State of the Union speech,
this President spoke of the need to care for our nation's veterans. He
went so far as to ask Congress to ``approve an historic increase in
spending for veterans' health.''
Since then, Mr. Chairman, the President has not followed through on
his promises to America's veterans. In fact, President Bush has not
mentioned veterans' issues in his last four State of the Union
addresses. And in 2005, only a few short years after his 2002 promise
to fund an historic increase in veterans' health care, the Department
of Veterans Affairs was left so dangerously underfunded that Congress
had to appropriate an emergency fund of $1 billion to keep the doors of
our VA clinics and hospitals open.
This year, in his FY2008 budget request, the President has again
placed veterans far too low on his list of priorities, underfunding VA
medical care by $3.5 billion over five years. The President has
requested a 6 percent increase in funding for VA medical care which is
wholly inadequate. While certainly an improvement over his .4 percent
increase request in FY2006, the FY2008 request does not meet the needs
of a rapidly growing number of new veterans needing VA medical care,
coupled with rapidly escalating health care costs. As a practical
matter, that means that the VA will not be able to provide the care
that our nation's former servicemen and women are entitled to. You
don't have to take my word for it: this request is a full 6.7 percent
below the recommendation of the Independent Budget, a report put out by
a group of veterans' service organizations.
Mr. Chairman, you don't need me to read you the statistics. What I
need to express to this committee is the human impact of these
budgetary decisions. It is not acceptable for us to exclude entire
classes of veterans from the VA system. The men and women we call
Priority 8 veterans served this country in the same ways other veterans
did. The lack of a combat injury is no excuse for excluding them from
the health care system they were promised access to. Barring 1.6
million veterans from their own health care system is unfair and
unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, the President's budget request proposes increased co-
payments on prescription drugs and new enrollment fees for priority 7
and 8 veterans. These fees will drive out the veterans who need the
system most, adding to the 47 million Americans who now lack health
insurance.
If fees don't drive our veterans out, access to care just might. In
my district, there are less than a half dozen primary care veterans
clinics in operation. Mr. Chairman, my district is 300 miles wide--it
stretches from the border of South Dakota to the border of Wisconsin.
Veterans from my district who need more than a regular physical must
charter vans through their Veterans Service Officers in order to make
the drive to the VA Hospital in Minneapolis. A three hour ride is an
excessive hardship, only made worse by the fact that this President is
asking our veterans to pay more for those services when they finally
arrive at the hospital. We can do better.
Mr. Chairman, the President's FY2008 budget request for the
Department of Veterans Affairs represents the wrong priorities for our
nation's veterans. However, the responsibility to do right by veterans
does not lie with the President alone. We, the United States Congress,
have the solemn responsibility and duty to create a budget that
fulfills the promises we made to those who served.
We are responsible for caring for those who gave of themselves in
years past and to care for those who are returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan in the future. The President's budget asks for only minimal
increases in mental health services for Iraqi veterans despite recent
studies that show 1 in 6 soldiers in Iraq report symptoms of
depression, serious anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder. At a
time when the VA expects to treat 5.8 million patients, including
263,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming year, it is
Congress' duty to increase funding for the Department of Veterans
Affairs and specifically to increase funding for both research into and
treatment of the mental health conditions that plague many of our
veterans.
At a time when Harvard University and the American Customer
Satisfaction Index are recognizing the VA for its quality medical care,
it is Congress' duty to ensure the VA does not veer from this upward
trend and that it continues to improve not only quality of care but
access to care.
At a time when our VA system is straining under the weight of both
an aging veterans population and an entirely new group of veterans
returning from the War on Terrorism, we must ensure funding matches not
just monetary inflation but also the inflation in the number of
veterans eligible for service.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to ask you to help fulfill this duty
by increasing the President's request for veterans' programs. The
President's $86.75 billion request is simply not enough. As a veteran
and the descendent of a long line of men who served this country, I can
say with authority that properly funding our VA system does more than
just provide veterans with the health care they were promised. Properly
funding our VA ensures a new generation of soldiers will enlist and it
helps to keep our communities both physically and economically healthy.
Thank you.
Mr. Etheridge. Let me thank you. I visited both Walter Reed
and Bethesda. And a number of my friends from my district are
there. I happen to represent Fort Bragg and Pope, and so a lot
of young men and women from that area have been there and they
wind up here. But let me thank you for your commitment, for
keeping the focus as it should on the men and women who are on
the front line and their families who are coming back now. And
they are going to need care, not just when they get back, for
years to come. We thank you for your testimony, your time, and
your commitment.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you. The next member to testify is the
gentleman from Indiana, Representative Brad Ellsworth. Welcome,
we are pleased to receive your testimony. And you are now
recognized for ten minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD ELLSWORTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me
this opportunity to address the Committee on issues that are of
special interest to me and the voters of Indiana's eighth
district.
My career in law enforcement, my time listening to
constituents back home, and my limited experience in Congress
so far have given me some unique insights into the importance
of promoting our nation's priorities while maintaining our
dedication to fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Etheridge. Excuse me, let me interrupt just a minute.
Without objection, your full statement will be entered into the
record.
Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To continue, during
my twenty-four year career as a law enforcement officer with
the local sheriff's office, I saw first hand the bravery and
sacrifice of our community's police officers and firefighters.
Even before the terrorist attack became a concern, these public
servants had their hands full keeping the peace and protecting
America's families at the local level. Our law enforcement
deals with domestic violence, theft, suicide threats, drug
crimes, and a host of other challenges as they step into their
patrol cars each and every day. The efforts of these men and
women allow the rest of us to feel secure in our cities, our
neighborhoods, and in our homes.
In the early 1990's the federal government provided local
law enforcement with the ability to fulfill their duties in the
midst of growing crime rates and drug use. The COPS Program
lowered the cost to local governments of hiring new officers
and put more than 120,000 additional policemen on the streets.
This year, the President's budget contains a funding cut for
the COPS Program from $558 million in fiscal year 2007 to $32
million in fiscal year 2008. This would amount to a 94 percent
in the program in a single year.
There is no doubt communities across the nation will suffer
from such cuts. Fewer cops on the streets result in more crime
and more insecurity for American communities. After 9/11 it
became quite clear that the foreign terrorists had the ability
to attack us on our own soil, not only on the coast but also in
the heartland. Overnight, our nation's community police and
firefighters, our first responders, and were suddenly thrust
into the battle lines in this War on Terror. Now I can attest
that these brave men and women did not expect this latest
responsibility, but they proudly accepted it.
As these new challenges strained an already overwhelmed
local budget, the federal government stepped up to help the
municipalities and these agencies face this new threat. Federal
programs provided grants, training, and other assistance to the
community agencies charged with responding in these local
terrorist attacks. Without such programs, local officials would
be unable to confront this new threat.
Once again, the President's budget proposal, the massive
cuts in funding to homeland security initiatives target the
equipping of America's first responders. Law Enforcement
Terrorism Prevention Grants, cut by 30 percent. Firefighter
Assistance Grants, cut by 55 percent. State Homeland Security
Grants, cut 64 percent. Federal assistance to community
policing and security has already been cut in half in the last
decade. This 42 percent cut in overall Homeland Security
assistance combined with the virtual elimination of the COPS
Program would hinder the ability of the American community
police officers and firefighters to respond daily to the
catastrophic emergencies that hit us every once in a while.
The President of the International Association of
Firefighters may have put it best, and I quote, ``Make no
mistake, this budget proposal puts the safety and security of
the American people at risk.'' In our efforts toward a common
goal of a balanced budget we must not forget our duty to
protect America's communities. It is a priority and our budget
must reflect its importance.
Constituents throughout the eighteen counties in my
district share another common concern, the skyrocketing cost of
healthcare in America. The cost of healthcare is forcing the
elderly to choose between groceries and prescription drugs that
they need to survive. It is squeezing the bottom lines from
Hoosier small businesses. It is depriving many of our children
the opportunity to fulfill their potentials in the classroom.
Of course, it is no secret to Hoosiers that the federal
government is not here to solve every one of our problems and
they do not expect us to. But they do understand that
government has a responsibility to help the neediest among us,
those who cannot help themselves.
Few programs have been as successful in providing for those
in need more than States Children's Health Insurance Program,
referred to SCHIP. When a Democratic president and a Republican
Congress came together in 1997 to write SCHIP into law they
were united with one purpose: to provide access to healthcare
to those children who had fallen through the cracks. Their
parents had jobs, but like many Americans they did not get
health insurance while they worked. They made just enough to
disqualify from the Medicaid Program and not enough for them to
purchase private insurance. Ten years later, over six million
children across this country have access to quality healthcare
through the SCHIP Program. These children enjoy a level playing
field at school and have a better chance to succeed.
Yet despite the successes of this program we are still
faced with many challenges. In my state alone, 161,000 are
without health insurance. Nationwide, the number is closer to
nine million. And while these numbers increase, the President's
budget proposed to shrink SCHIP. In fact, the President's
request to Congress underfunds SCHIP by about $10 billion as it
reauthorizes the program this year. His proposal would plunge
many of these children back into the ranks of the uninsured.
Fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget in particular, is
a goal that we share on both sides of the aisle. But we can all
agree that our nation's budget should illustrate our nation's
values and priorities. As we consider our options and make the
difficult choices that lead to fiscal responsibility, we need
to address one of the most unnecessary obstacles to reaching a
balanced budget: taxpayer dollars lost to waste, fraud, and
abuse.
There are too many instances to list in such a short time,
but I have been here long enough to see the instructive
examples. In my seat on the House Armed Services Committee I
have seen multiple reports already of waste and abuse that are
robbing our troops in Iraq of the support of Congress and
provided them in previous budgets. A recent Defense Department
Inspector General's report showed that 15 percent of the
American taxpayer dollars devoted to Iraq reconstruction
projects, nearly $3 billion, has been wasted. That same report
indicated that the State Department may have spent over $36
million on weapons and equipment that cannot be accounted for.
Another audit discovered that 14,000 weapons supplied to Iraqi
security forces have now shown up missing. Not only do errors
like this waste taxpayer dollars meant to be for U.S. troops in
harm's way, they may further endanger our fighting men and
women by arming violent militias.
The funds and weapons unaccounted for in Iraq are not the
only examples of waste and fraud that I have seen. In my seat
on the Small Business Committee I have heard the numerous
budget problems faced by government agencies, such as the Small
Business Administration where resources are so scarce that
oversight is halted altogether, opening the door for fraud and
abuse. This past weekend, a local nightly news report from
Houston, Texas illustrated the waste that results from improper
oversight. After the 9/11 attacks by terrorists the federal
government authorized the Small Business Administration to
provide loans to small businesses suffering an economic toll
from the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. This news
report found nearly $100 million in 9/11 loans had been awarded
in the Houston area, businesses such as a car wash, a dry
cleaner, a preschool, and a yogurt shop.
To prevent such waste, fraud and abuse Congress and the
President must work together. It is unacceptable for billions
of taxpayer dollars to be thrown away due to improper
accounting and scant oversight. As we work together to balance
our nation's budget, our priority must be reducing waste. Not
only will efforts stem the tide of waste and move us closer to
our goal of balancing the budget, but they will also
demonstrate to the American people that their elected
representatives are spending their money wisely.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the people back home in Indiana
sent me here and expect us to work together every day to
achieve a balanced budget that reflects our values and our
priorities. Fiscal responsibility is not a Democratic goal, it
is not a Republican goal, it is what our constituents expect of
both parties. As their representatives it is our responsibility
to put in the long hours, make the tough decisions, and get our
country back on the right track.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time and
I yield back any balance I might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellsworth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brad Ellsworth, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Indiana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to address
this committee on issues of special importance to the people in
Indiana's 8th District. My career in law enforcement, my time listening
to constituents, and my experience here in Congress have given me some
unique insights into the importance of promoting our nation's
priorities while maintaining our dedication to fiscal responsibility.
During my 24-year career as a law enforcement officer with the
local Sheriff's Office, I saw firsthand the bravery and sacrifice of
our community police and firefighters. Even before terrorist attacks
became a concern, these public servants had their hands full keeping
the peace and protecting America's families at the local level.
Our community police deal with domestic violence, theft, suicide
threats, drug crime, and a host of other challenges as they step into
their patrol cars each day. The efforts of these men and women allow
the rest of us to feel secure in our cities, our neighborhoods, and our
homes.
In the early 1990s, the federal government provided local law
enforcement with the ability to fulfill their duties in the midst of
growing crime rates and drug use. The COPS program lowered the cost to
local governments of hiring a new officer and put more than 120,000
additional cops on our streets.
This year, the President's budget contains a funding cut for the
COPS program--from $558 million in fiscal year 2007 to $32 million in
fiscal year 2008. This would amount to a 94% cut in the program in a
single year. There is no doubt communities across the nation will
suffer from such cuts. Fewer cops on the street results in more crime
and more insecurity for America's communities.
After 9/11, it became clear that foreign terrorists had the ability
to attack us on our own soil--not only on the coasts, but also in the
heartland. Overnight, our nation's community police and firefighters
became our ``first-responders,'' and were suddenly thrust onto the
battle lines of the new War on Terror. I can attest that these brave
men and women did not expect this latest responsibility, but they
proudly accepted it.
As these new challenges strained already overwhelmed local budgets,
the federal government stepped in to help municipal agencies face this
new threat. Federal programs provided grants, training, and other
assistance to community agencies charged with responding to a local
terrorist attack. Without such programs, local officials would be
unable to confront this new threat.
Once again, the President's budget proposes massive cuts in funding
to homeland security initiatives targeted at equipping America's first-
responders
<bullet> Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants are cut by 30
percent.
<bullet> Firefighter assistance grants are cut by 55 percent.
<bullet> State Homeland Security Grants are cut by 64 percent.
Federal assistance to community policing and security has already
been cut in half in the last decade. This 42 percent cut in overall
homeland security assistance, combined with the virtual elimination of
the COPS program, would cripple the ability of America's community
police and firefighters to respond both to daily challenges and to
catastrophic emergencies.
The President of the International Association of Fire Fighters may
have put it best. And I quote: ``Make no mistake, this budget proposal
puts the safety and security of the American people at risk.'' Un-
quote. In our efforts toward our common goal of a balanced budget, we
must not forget our duty to protect America's communities. It is a
priority, and our budget must reflect its importance.
Constituents throughout the 18 counties of my district share
another common concern: the skyrocketing healthcare costs in America.
The cost of health care is forcing the elderly to choose between their
groceries and the prescriptions they need to survive. It's squeezing
the bottom line of Hoosier small businesses. It's depriving many of our
children the opportunity to fulfill their potential in the classroom.
Of course, it's no secret to Hoosiers that the federal government
can't solve all of their problems, and they don't expect us to. But,
they also understand that government has a responsibility to help the
neediest among us--those who can't help themselves.
Few programs have been as successful in providing for those in need
more than State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP. When a
Democratic President and a Republican Congress came together in 1997 to
write S-CHIP into law, they were united with one purpose: to provide
access to healthcare to those children who had fallen through the
cracks. Their parents had jobs, but, like many Americans, they didn't
get health insurance at work. They made just enough to disqualify them
from Medicaid and not enough for them to buy private insurance.
10 years later, over 6 million children across the country have
access to quality healthcare through the S-CHIP program. These children
enjoy a level playing field at school and have a better chance to
succeed.
Yet, despite the successes of this program, we are still faced with
many challenges. In my state alone, 161,000 children are without health
insurance. Nationwide, the number is closer to 9 million. And, while
these numbers increase, the President's budget proposes to shrink S-
CHIP. In fact, the President requests that Congress under-fund S-CHIP
by about $10 billion as it reauthorizes the program this year. His
proposal would plunge many of these children back to the ranks of the
uninsured.
Fiscal responsibility--and a balanced budget in particular--is a
goal that we share on both sides of the aisle. But, we can all agree
that our nation's budget should illustrate our nation's values and
priorities.
As we consider our options and make the difficult choices that lead
to fiscal responsibility, we need to address one of the most
unnecessary obstacles to reaching a balanced budget: taxpayer dollars
lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. There are too many instances to list
in such a short time, but I have been here long enough to see some
instructive examples.
In my seat on the House Armed Services Committee, I have seen
multiple reports of waste and abuse that are robbing our troops in Iraq
of the support Congress provided them in previous budgets. A recent
Defense Department Inspector General report showed that 15 percent of
American taxpayer dollars devoted to Iraq reconstruction projects--
nearly $3 billion--has been wasted.
The same report indicated that the State Department may have spent
over $36 million on weapons and equipment that cannot be accounted for.
Another audit discovered that 14,000 weapons supplied to Iraqi Security
Forces have gone missing. Not only do errors like this waste taxpayer
dollars meant to support US troops in harms way, they may further
endanger our fighting men and women by arming violent militias. The
funds and weapons unaccounted for in Iraq are not the only examples of
waste and fraud I've seen.
In my seat on the Small Business Committee, I have heard the
numerous budget problems faced by government agencies, such as the
Small Business Administration--where resources are so scarce that
oversight is halted altogether, opening the door to fraud and abuse.
This past weekend, a local nightly news report from Houston, Texas
illustrated the waste that results from improper oversight. After the
terrorist attacks on 9/11, the federal government authorized the Small
Business Administration to provide loans to small businesses suffering
from the economic toll of the attacks in New York and Washington, DC.
This news report found nearly $100 million in 9/11-loans had been
awarded to Houston area businesses, such as a carwash, a dry cleaner, a
pre-school, and a yogurt shop.
To prevent such waste, fraud, and abuse, Congress and the President
must work together. It is unacceptable for billions of taxpayer dollars
to be thrown away due to improper accounting and scant oversight.
As we work together to balance our nation's budget, our priority
must be reducing waste. Not only will efforts to stem the tide of waste
move us closer to our goal of a balanced budget, but they will also
demonstrate to the American people that their elected representatives
are spending their money wisely.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the people back home who sent us here
expect each and every one of us to work together to achieve a balanced
budget that reflects our values and priorities.
Fiscal responsibility is not a Democratic goal, and it's not a
Republican goal. It's what our constituents expect. As their
representatives, it's our responsibility to put in the long hours, make
the tough decisions, and get our country back on the right path.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Becerra [presiding]. We thank the gentleman for his
testimony. And before, Congressman Ellsworth, you leave perhaps
I could ask you a question. Having served in law enforcement, I
am wondering if you could tell us whether or not your former
colleagues in law enforcement back home are familiar with the
President's budget and its impact on a number of law
enforcement programs that you mentioned? COPS Program, for
example, and are they getting back to you on any comments they
may have?
Mr. Ellsworth. They are very aware of it, Mr. Chairman. I
have been called and visited by both law enforcement and
firefighters, and they have been telling me every trip home the
impact. And sometimes the larger agencies can absorb this. It
is the smaller agencies that are really being hit. When we are
talking about four and five men departments who rely on that
just to run a third shift of patrol, that they rely on these
type of programs. And they are going to have to cut that
altogether. So having no police officer, no fire protection on
a second and/or third shift. We are hearing that, and it is
disturbing.
Mr. Becerra. Well, we appreciate your testimony and the
work that you are doing for the folks back home in Indiana. And
we look forward to hearing from you again on the issues of the
budget. So thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Becerra. At this time the Committee will recess until
further members are present.
[Recess.]
Mr. Becerra. The Committee will resume hearing, and we will
be back in order. We would like to now invite our next member
to testify. We have Mr. John Boozman from Arizona.
Mr. Boozman. Arkansas.
Mr. Becerra. Arkansas, excuse me.
Mr. Boozman. That is a very familiar mistake.
Mr. Becerra. I apologize for that, Mr. Boozman. And we are
allotting ten minutes for members to address the Committee and
to respond to any questions if there is any time remaining. So
with that, Mr. Boozman please move forward.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for listening to my
testimony. And do not worry, it will not take ten minutes. I
know you all have had a tough day and I really do appreciate
the opportunity myself and the other members who have come up
here and actually testified concerning things that they had
concerns about. And this is really, you know, this is my third
term in Congress and this is the first time that I have really,
actually I guess a little bit longer than that. But actually, I
won a special election so it is confusing. But anyway, this is
the first time I have really afforded myself the opportunity to
come and talk about something when I thought it was really
important.
But what I would like to visit with you about is a project,
the Ozark-Jeta Taylor Powerhouse which happens to be located in
the third district of Arkansas. The project is of fundamental
importance to the citizens of my district, the State of
Arkansas, and indeed the surrounding states of Oklahoma,
Missouri, Texas, Kansas, and Louisiana. In all, over six
million people will directly benefit from the clean, renewable,
and efficient hydropower generated at Ozark Powerhouse once it
is fully rehabilitated.
Recognizing the importance of this project, the President's
administration allocated $17.3 million to this project in its
current budget proposal under its priority projects for the
Corps of Engineers. I sincerely hope that the Committee will
give the Ozark Powerhouse Project the same consideration and
authorize at least the President's recommended amount in the
budget proposal.
There are five turbine generator units at Ozark, three at
its counterpart facility the Webber Falls Powerhouse in
Oklahoma. From 1999 through 2004, 2.4 generating units on
average were unavailable at the Ozark Powerhouse from Webber
Falls due to major failures resulting from significant design
flaws. The damage sustained by one of the units at Ozark is so
extensive that it will remain unavailable for service until it
is rebuilt. And another unit is currently in imminent danger of
failure.
The benefits of completing this project continue to
increase with the rising cost of energy and the increasing cost
of repairing units which remain repairable. Every year these
units remain out of service the government loses nearly $1
million in energy sales revenues that otherwise would be
returned to the U.S. Treasury. Furthermore, it costs
Southwestern Power Administration's wholesale power customers
an estimated $9 million to replace this lost energy with more
expensive, less environmentally friendly sources. If we fail to
act, we can expect higher life cycle maintenance costs at a
higher rate than has been experienced in the past.
In the past Congress has shown a major commitment to the
project. In fiscal year 2003 Congress appropriated $2.5 million
to begin the rehabilitation of Ozark. In 2005 the
administration requested and Congress appropriated another $5
million to begin the turbine acquisition contract for Ozark.
Additionally, the power customers have shown a major commitment
by providing more than $24 million to continue these
rehabilitation projects. So it is a great public/private
enterprise. However, this non-traditional funding method is
merely a stop gap measure and diverts money from other
maintenance and replacement projects at the Corps of Engineers
hydropower plants that are funded by customers.
Finally, it should be noted that every dollar spent on
rehab of the Ozark Powerhouse will be returned to the Treasury
with interest, meaning that the long term budgetary impact of
complete rehabilitation is zero. Appropriating the
administration's recommended $17.3 million will allow the Ozark
Powerhouse to complete rehabilitation, allowing the facility to
run more efficiently and reliably. While the Corps of Engineers
expects its hydroplants to be available 96 percent of the time,
during the past twenty years Ozark Powerhouse has only been
available 90 percent of the time at best, dropping as low as 31
percent availability in 2001.
The Ozark-Jeta Taylor Powerhouse Rehab Project is a highly
beneficial, revenue producing, self-sustaining, environmentally
friendly, job creating project that will reduce our dependence
on foreign energy. Failure to complete this project in a timely
manner will result in the expansion of less environmentally
friendly alternatives. Furthermore, this project will provide a
positive return on the taxpayers' dollars. Funding this project
will provide tremendous benefits for our nation's environment
and economy. Our local communities will be thankful when the
Corps of Engineers completes its work on this project.
I again urge the Committee to conclude the Ozark Powerhouse
Rehab in the House of Representatives fiscal year 2008 budget,
and I certainly thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing, again,
members like myself to come and testify.
I was talking to the other Chairman, and explained that
this, you know, was the first time that I had appeared before
the Budget Committee to actually really, you know, ask
consideration that we really look at a project. And certainly
all of us, all of the members of Congress have things that they
very much believe in. But this is a situation, you know we talk
about renewable energy, we talk about reducing our dependence
on foreign oil, we talk about all of these things. And yet, we
have a situation in Ozark where the turbines are not working.
They are slack water turbines, so they can be used when the
river is very low. And when they are working they are very,
very efficient. They were installed many years ago and it was
kind of a, they were the first of their kind in the country.
And because of that, you know, they have had some problems with
them. All of that has been worked out. A lot of this type of
turbine now is being used in Europe. But it really does make
sense. The cost/benefit ratio is very, very good. It is a unit
that not only does it benefit my district in the sense of
producing power there, but produces power throughout the
surrounding states.
So again, you know, it is one of those things that if we do
not get it done now the other thing that we run into is the
projects drop down, and they do not have enough money to
continue the budget in the contract. Then you wind up, you
know, paying much, much more money in the future. You know, as
somebody rediscovers how this really is a great project, we
need to get it done. So, like I said, it is in the President's
budget. It is something that I think everyone agrees is a very
worthwhile project and we really would appreciate the
Committee's ability to keep the project in as you make very
difficult decisions concerning the budget, and I certainly
understand that also.
So if you have any questions, fine. I know it has been a
very, very long day for you all and I am glad you are getting
done a little bit early.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boozman follows:
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Arkansas
Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan and members of the House
Budget Committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity today to
express to you the importance of authorizing funds for the Ozark-Jeta
Taylor Powerhouse in the 3rd District of Arkansas.
This project is of fundamental importance to the citizens of my
district, the state of Arkansas and indeed the surrounding states of
Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, Kansas and Louisiana. In all, over 6 million
people will directly benefit from the clean, renewable and efficient
hydropower generated at Ozark Powerhouse once it is fully
rehabilitated. Recognizing the importance of this project, the
President's Administration allocated $17.3 million to this project in
its current budget proposal, under its priority projects for the Corps
of Engineers. I sincerely hope that this Committee will give the Ozark
Powerhouse project the same consideration and authorize at least the
President's recommended amount in the House Budget Proposal.
There are five turbine-generator units at Ozark and three at its
counterpart facility, the Webbers Falls Powerhouse in Oklahoma. From
1999 through 2004, 2.4 generating units, on average, were unavailable
at the Ozark Powerhouse and Webbers Falls, due to major failures
resulting from significant design flaws. The damage sustained by one of
the units at Ozark is so extensive that it will remain unavailable for
service until it is rebuilt, and another unit is currently in imminent
danger of failure.
The benefits of completing this project continue to increase with
the rising cost of energy and the increasing cost of repairing the
units which remain repairable. Every year these units remain out of
service, the government loses nearly $1 million in energy sales
revenues that otherwise would be returned to the U.S. Treasury.
Furthermore, it costs Southwestern Power Administration's wholesale
power customers an estimated $9 million to replace this lost energy
with more expensive, less environmentally-friendly sources. If we fail
to act, we can expect higher life-cycle maintenance costs and a higher
failure rate than has been experienced in the past.
In the past, Congress has shown a major commitment to this project.
In FY2003, Congress appropriated $2.5 million to begin the major
rehabilitation at Ozark. In FY2005, the Administration requested, and
Congress appropriated, another $5 million to begin the turbine
acquisition contract for Ozark. Additionally, the power customers have
shown a major commitment by providing more than $24 million to continue
these rehabilitation projects. However, this non-traditional funding
method is merely a stop-gap measure, and diverts money from other
maintenance and replacement projects at Corps of Engineer hydropower
plants that are funded by customers. Finally, it should be noted that
every dollar spent on rehabilitation of the Ozark Powerhouse will be
returned to the Treasury with interest, meaning that the long-term
budgetary impact of completing the rehabilitation is zero.
Appropriating the Administration's recommended $17.3 million will
allow the Ozark Powerhouse to complete rehabilitation, allowing the
facility to run more efficiently and reliably. While the Corps of
Engineers expects its hydroplants to be available 96% of the time,
during the past twenty years, Ozark Powerhouse has only been available
90% of the time, at best--dropping as low as 31% availability in 2001.
The Ozark-Jeta Taylor Powerhouse Rehabilitation project is a highly
beneficial, revenue producing, self-sustaining, environmentally
friendly, job-creating project that would reduce our dependence on
foreign energy. Failure to complete this project in a timely manner
will result in the expansion of less environmentally-friendly
alternatives. Furthermore, this project will provide a positive return
on the taxpayers' dollars. Funding this project would provide
tremendous benefits for our nation's environment and economy. Our local
communities will be thankful when the Corps of Engineers completes its
work on this project. I again urge you to include the Ozark Powerhouse
Rehabilitation in the House of Representative's FY2008 Budget. I thank
the Chairman, the Ranking Member and all the members of the Committee
for their time and thoughtful consideration.
Chairman Spratt. Well listen, we very much appreciate your
coming, your testimony which you have offered is something that
we probably would have otherwise overlooked. So I feel like it
has made a difference and we will see what we can do.
Mr. Boozman. Well, thank you very much. And again, thank
you for the opportunity.
Chairman Spratt. Sure, thank you for coming.
Mr. Boozman. Yes, sir.
Chairman Spratt. Ms. Watson?
Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this
opportunity.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you so much for coming.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANE WATSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Watson. And I am going to make it real quick for you. I
saw Representative Becerra sitting in his seat, and he would
recognize this problem that I am bringing to your attention. I
want to talk about an urgent issue in my own hometown in Los
Angeles that would be really negatively impacted with the cuts
in the President's budget.
Mr. Chairman, our children are killing one another at an
appalling rate. The Los Angeles Police Department recorded
7,714 gang crimes in 2006, a 14 percent jump over the previous
year. The most disturbing new element in this wave of violence
is that a growing number of these crimes have a racial or
ethnic character as some gangs try to ethnically cleanse their
neighborhoods.
I believe we need to take a comprehensive approach to
combating gang violence. We need to ensure that our youth have
safe, quality schools that give them an alternative to the
streets. We need to make sure our kids have job opportunities
once they leave school. But there is one action that we can
take right now that will immediately reduce the level of
violence and protect our kids and that is to put more police on
the streets.
We have a program that will do just that, and I think you
are familiar, Mr. Chairman, with the COPS Program, the
Community Oriented Policing Program. And it has been a beacon
of light in urban communities where crime is high and police
presence is low. This program has been a central part of
keeping our streets safe. Since its inception the COPS Program
has put almost 150,000 police officers on the street. In my
hometown of Los Angeles, that meant almost 250 new officers in
the year 2005 alone.
Unfortunately, the President's 2008 budget would reduce
essential funding for programs that assist state and local
governments in combating this violent crime. The budget
provides only $32 million in new funding for the COPS Program
compared with 2007 funding of more than $542 million. The
program also cuts $87 million of the programs existing
resources and this is unacceptable. Despite all the talk about
supporting local police from the administration, the
President's budget starves the COPS Program of its funds.
Because of the administration's marriage to big tax cuts, this
budget proposes cutting this program by $87 million. And that
$87 million could pay for over 1700 new local police officers
helping Los Angeles and other cities big and small across the
U.S. deter and fight this street crime.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to restore full funding
for COPS. Our citizens deserve to feel safe in their own
neighborhoods, and cutting funds to programs that serve these
purposes is not the answer. We have a responsibility with the
new majority in our Congress to put our citizens first. And Mr.
Chairman, the President's budget simply does not do that.
So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and if you have any
questions I would be happy to answer them. And I do have an
article from the L.A. Times that underscores my presentation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the
Committee today and discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2008 budget. I
hope that the Committee will work together to develop a federal budget
that is fiscally smart and serves the needs of all Americans.
Mr. Chairman the President's budget for Fiscal Year 2008 imposes
cuts to several mandatory and entitlement programs that are important
to the domestic fabric of America. Healthcare, education, social
security, the environment, transportation, and energy are issues that
impact our citizens every single day. The President has made major cuts
in these areas in his 2008 budget. This budget, again this year, does
not meet the needs of the American people.
But today I want to talk about an urgent issue in my own hometown
of Los Angeles. And that is the rising level of violence on our
streets.
Mr. Chairman, our children are killing one another at an appalling
rate. The Los Angeles Police Department recorded 7,714 gang crimes in
2006, a fourteen percent jump over the previous year. The most
disturbing new element in this wave of violence is that a growing
number of these crimes have a racial or ethnic character, as some gangs
try to ethnically cleanse their neighborhoods.
I believe we need to take a comprehensive approach to combatting
gang violence. We need ensure that our youth have safe, quality schools
that give them an alternative to the streets. We need to make sure our
kids have job opportunities once they leave school.
But there is one action we can take right now, that will
immediately reduce the level of violence and protect our kids. And that
is put more police on the streets. We have a program to do just that;
the COPS program.
The Community Oriented Policing program known as COPS, has been a
beacon of light in urban communities where crime is high and police
presence is low. This program has been an essential part of keeping
streets safe. Since its inception, the COPS program has put almost one
hundred and fifty thousand police officers on the street. In my home
town of Los Angeles, that meant almost two hundred fifty new officers
in 2005 alone.
Unfortunately, the President's 2008 budget would reduce essential
funding for programs that assist state and local governments in
combating violent crime. The budget provides only $32 million in new
funding for the COPS program for 2008, compared with 2007 funding of
more than $542 million. The program also cuts $87 million of the
programs existing resources. This is unacceptable.
Despite all the talk about supporting local police from the
Administration, the President's budget starves the COPS program of its
funds. Because of the Administration's marriage to big tax cuts, this
budget proposes cutting this program by $87 million. That $87 million
dollars could pay for over seventeen hundred new local police officers
helping Los Angeles and other cities, big and small, across the United
States, deter and fight crime.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to restore full funding for
COPS. Our citizens deserve to feel safe in their own neighborhoods.
Cutting funds to programs that serves these purposes is not the answer.
We have a responsibility with a new majority in Congress to put our
citizens first. The President's budget does not.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[From the Los Angeles Times, February 13, 2007]
Residents Demand Action Over Gang Violence
About 200 meet with Councilman Garcetti and police in Glassell Park,
where a teen was shot to death last week.
By J. Michael Kennedy
Just outside, children were playing soccer. But inside a Glassell
Park gym Monday evening, the mood was somber as people demanded to know
why a young woman had been killed in a seemingly senseless act of
violence, and what the city was doing about it.
Franklin High School student Melissa Paul, 16, was shot to death
Feb. 6 as she walked with two friends near the Glassell Park Recreation
Center in Los Angeles.
Police said the assailant was a passenger in a white minivan that
had driven past the three youths.
A 16-year-old boy, allegedly part of a local gang, was later
arrested on weapons charges and is under investigation in the shooting,
said Jose Carrillo, a homicide detective with the Los Angeles Police
Department.
Paul was apparently the victim of a shot aimed at a gang rival,
authorities said.
Glassell Park is a largely Latino community of modest stucco homes
northwest of downtown L.A., near Glendale. With fear and anger in the
community rising, City Councilman Eric Garcetti called the meeting
Monday, drawing a crowd of about 200.
Most of the discussion focused on general fears about gang
violence.
The mood was summed up by resident David Mukogawa, who tossed an
American flag onto the table in front of Garcetti and other city and
police officials. The flag had flown in front of Mukogawa's house until
last week, when it was spray-painted with orange gang signs.
``I want to know what's going to be done about something like
that,'' Mukogawa said, adding that his home had been tagged three times
in the same week--once on the flag, once on his fence and once on his
mailbox.
In response, Garcetti urged people to come forward and report such
signs of gang activity. ``If we are silent, then we become numb,'' he
said.
Echoing that plea was Felix Hernandez, an official with the Anahuak
Youth Soccer Assn., who called for more frequent community meetings and
greater involvement to give police the information they need.
``If we don't report incidents, they won't put a dot on their map,
and next month there won't be as many cops in the area,'' he said.
Chairman Spratt. Well, you were the beneficiary of 250 new
officers in the year 2005. In the five or six-year period when
this program was at its highest level we were able to add 125
policemen all over the fifth district of South Carolina where I
live. So I can bear testimony to the same results that you have
just talked about. I have seen it throughout my neighborhoods.
And furthermore, we have sold the idea of community policing by
example, by putting the money out to support what we were
saying about community policing. It has worked. I have seen it
work. I have heard people talking about it, and I have heard
police officers say it is a good program. There are other
programs that we have to be concerned about, too: The Byrne
Grants, Law Enforcement Block Grant.
So full restoration of the COPS Program is probably not
possible in this budget. We certainly want to restore some of
it above the existing level, which basically is a maintenance
of effort level to pay for the COPS who were originally hired
under the program and have not quite yet served out that three
or four-year commitment, that three or four-year funding
commitment from the federal government. We definitely want to
do something in this area of the budget if we at all can.
But having you to back us up from L.A. to a very different
perspective than I have got, but it is working in both places.
Something that works in York, South Carolina and Los Angeles,
California has got to be a good program.
Ms. Watson. Well, I appreciate your sensitivity and your
experience with the program. I would like to leave this article
with your staff. It just describes a recent killing of a very
young girl, sixteen years old, because of out of control gang
violence. And we are so understaffed in our police department
in Los Angeles, the need is desperate. And you understand it.
And if we can just address it in any way we can I think that
will be a step in the right direction.
So thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you for coming, and thank you for
your excellent testimony. We will take it to heart. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if you have
one of these with you?
Chairman Spratt. I do not believe I do, Rob. Welcome to the
Committee. We look forward to your testimony, the floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop of Utah. Well, I apologize for making you stay
here but you wanted to be Chairman. And I understand I am the
last one you have to go through so I will try to be as brutally
brief as I possibly can. I appreciate having Members' Day here.
We have submitted our testimony to you. I think there is a typo
on work number twenty-two but I hope you will overlook that
one.
I am here as the Communication Chairman for the Western
State Caucus as well as the Ranking Member on the Parks, Public
Lands and Forest Subcommittee of Resources so land issues
obviously are extremely important. I recognize also that this
is the time of year when everyone and their third cousin comes
to Washington. They all come into our office and say, ``You
know, the budget is terrible. You need to control things. But
my program is special.'' In some respects I am doing the same
thing to you here today. Except I do think I can make a case
that there is something different. There are about three
programs in the President's budget that I would like to talk to
you about.
Very quickly, the first and the most important is Payment
in Lieu of Taxes. This program has been around since 1976. We
are in the fourth decade and it seems like every year we play
the same game where the OMB cuts the funding for it, this
Committee recommends that it should be looked at by the
Appropriators and increased in some way. The Appropriators
increase it on the House side, and the Senate cuts it down in
conference. And then we repeat the same game the next year.
Which I have to admit I am very tired of the game and where it
starts, and I am not blaming you for that one. Because actually
this Committee has been very favorable to this program and very
helpful in years past. But there is that political waltz we
play of two steps forward, one step back, and then you side
step a bit. And we seem to be in that.
PILT is difficult, I realize, especially on the
administration level because it has no Washington officers.
There is no executive branch to push for it. The only people
that get this are the people on the local levels where the
money goes directly, and they are using it very wisely. Every
state but one has federal land that benefits from PILT. But it
obviously has a greater impact in the mountain west than in
other areas. And sometimes what we take for granted in the west
in understanding this issue is difficult for those unless you
have a public land state or county in the process.
The PILT funding is there for three basic reasons. The
federal government does not pay taxes on the land it owns. It
does pay royalties and fees, but the distribution process of
that does not guarantee that it is equitably given to the
counties where the services were mandated. Also, the public
lands decreases the economic opportunities of those who have
public lands. If you have 92 percent, as many of my counties in
my state have, owned by the federal government, you have to
build a base for your services and county government on the 8
percent that is left. Ironically, two years ago the Washington
Post sent forth an editorial talking about the same problems
that Washington, D.C. had when they wrote about the fact that
the federal government is the largest land owner in Washington.
Since this land cannot be taxed, the federal government is a
principal contributor to the District's chronic fiscal
imbalance. I agree with them. Because that is the same argument
that we have been making year after year dealing with federal
lands, especially in the west where the definition is higher.
Also, the federal government seems to treat the west a
little bit different because of that factor with only
Washington, D.C. coming in there. I can do this very quickly. I
am trying to walk through that again. If you look at the first
page, you see the growth in PILT funding as a percentage of the
spending that has been done on Interior budgets altogether.
Basically, PILT was flatlined from its inception to about the
year 2000. In recent years Congress has been doing a better job
because they have realized the significance of this program on
the counties where the impact is felt. However, the bottom line
of the numbers are this year the administration suggested $190
million. That is $8 million less than they suggested for this
program last year in their budget. Last year this Congress
funded it at $232 million, even though the House passed one
that was I think--pick out the number for that last one, I do
not know what it is.
The House has been very popular, has been very positive to
this program. The Senate has usually cut it down, and we are
significantly more than the administration. I have to admit, I
feel a great deal of frustration with my administration for how
they play this game, cut and expect Congress to boost up this
program of significance.
If I could also have you look carefully at the second page
that is there, once again the distribution of public lands is
picked up in the pictures in the number of, the stuff that is
blue is how much federal land is owned in each of those states.
Chairman Spratt. It is a very effective chart.
Mr. Bishop of Utah. It is frustrating for me, too.
Chairman Spratt. I am sure.
Mr. Bishop of Utah. Because I am one of those. And that is
the problem and the basis that we have. I want to add one other
thing to you, and then if there is any questions you have. One
of the phenomena that we have also found, if you look at the
last chart, PILT has absolutely nothing to do with funding of
education in western states. But PILT's issue is the same thing
education faces. One of the ironies we found out is the states
that are in red on that last chart are the states that have the
most difficult time in funding increases to their education
budgets. And the phenomenon is, if you compare the two charts,
the blue one with the red one, you see there is almost a one to
one correlation between states with a great deal of federal
lands and their inability to effectively fund the education
system for their kids. Which once again, I feel a double
whammy. As a schoolteacher I think my pay and retirement was
retarded because of this problem. And my kids, I think their
education level was diminished because of this particular
problem.
This is not one to one correlation with PILT, but it is the
same problems. The amount of federal lands has a negative
impact on the ability of states to actually raise the money and
raise the taxes and pay for their own programs by themselves.
Which is why we are going to ask you very seriously on your
Committee, on the assumption they are all here and listening to
me, to seriously look at this issue of PILT. That the
President's budget yearly underestimates the significance of
it. Someone in the administration talked of it as being welfare
for the west. To be honest, we look at it as rent that is due
for the land that is there because there is no other way we can
survive. If you want to give us all the land back so that our
blue map looks very similar to the east, we would be tickled to
death and we would not talk to you about it again. But until
that stage of nirvana actually hits, we definitely need
programs like PILT.
Now, in our written testimony there are some other
programs. And if I can just very quickly tell you about them.
The ADP Processing and User Fees is one of the simple
situations because you are putting a fee, if you already have a
lease the fee is almost like a taking to that lease. But the
difficulty is, that lease does not distinguish between ability
to pay. So a small developer has a much more difficult time of
paying than a large developer, which inhibits the ability of
actually developing those lands. Geothermal payments are
supposedly not going to the host county, which once again to me
is lacking of common sense and it puts the burden once again on
the counties that provide that service. Or it forces the
counties to put the burden on the geothermal developers who,
once again that changes their basic operation costs and their
profit margin whether they can actually be successful or not.
And finally, the administration zeros out the Range Improvement
Fund, which is a small program but once again it is extremely
important to rural, western communities to develop rangeland
potential.
And once again, I feel for you having to be here this long.
I am trying to get through this as quickly as possible. And I
usually am cumbersome in what I say. If there is something, if
you have questions I will do it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop of Utah follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rob Bishop, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Utah
Good evening Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan. This same
hearing was also held on Valentine's Day last year. I suppose it
apropos to hold budget hearings on Valentine's Day and following my
testimony you should feel my love for the Administration's budget for
FY07. I appreciate your opening up the microphone for ``Members' Day.''
I come before you wearing multiple hats: I am the communications and
outreach chairman for the Congressional Western Caucus, Ranking
Republican on the Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands, and a member from the rural part of the
United States. So I suppose I am qualified to speak on the issue I am
about to address.
Each year I endure countless visits from constituents who come in
and say, ``I know it's a tight budget year and our organization
supports the Administration's budget (and here comes the proverbial
``but ''), but my program is so important that you can't cut funding
for it and we ask that you increase our budget by 20 percent.'' We've
all experienced these types of visits, where advocates for various
programs come in and not only want to keep their program intact but
also increase their piece of the federal pie. On its face, my visit to
your committee may seem no different. I assure you it is not. Can you
feel the love?
Counties throughout the United States, particularly those with a
high percentage of federal lands ownership, rely on Payment in Lieu of
Taxes, a little known federal program first authorized in 1976 to help
offset the cost of providing essential (local) government services on
and for the benefit of users of our federal lands. However, local
counties may neither lay nor collect taxes on federally owned lands,
thus negatively impacting their ability to provide these services. The
program to which I am referring is Payment in Lieu of Taxes (or PILT)
and this federal program accomplishes just what its name implies.
Funding for this critical program is requested as part of the
President's budget, is funded in the Interior Appropriations Act, and
is managed by the Department of the Interior.
Just over four years ago, the PILT program was managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and was treated so abysmally by the BLM
that the Secretary of the Department of the Interior transferred
authority of the program over to her department. This was done as the
Secretary noted in her press release so that: ``PILT will be more
fairly treated if we deal with it at the department-level.'' Sadly, not
only did Secretary Norton fail to make this program a priority, so also
has Secretary Kempthorne.
The FY08 request for PILT is 42.5 million dollars below its FY06
and FY07 funding levels. I am disappointed in the disingenuousness with
which the current Administration treats this program. In a recent press
release the Secretary's office noted: ``[* * * Funding for PILT remains
at levels 50-60 percent higher than in the 1990s.]'' Somehow because
the current Administration has done better than the Clinton
Administration that's supposed to be good enough! Well, it is not--and
here's why: the federal government has become an absentee slumlord in
the West, owning over \1/3\ of all land in the United States and up to
as much as 90 percent in some Western states. The federal government
owns or controls \2/3\s of the land in my home state of Utah. High
federal lands ownership comes at a price to rural America. I would
argue that PILT is rent due on lands controlled by the federal
government.
Because the federal government is not required to pay property
taxes on the millions of acres it owns, it thereby reduces the amount
of tax revenue available to public lands counties. The federal
government does not share proportionally with the impacted communities
the higher cost now associated with providing medical services,
education, search and rescue, trash removal etc. on these federally-
owned lands. While ownership remains in the hands of the federal
government, the responsibility to provide services to the millions of
people who frequent them falls to the counties. PILT is a pittance and
does not even come close to offsetting the high cost of providing
essential government services on these public lands.
Although the preponderance of PILT monies goes to the West, that is
because the West has the highest federal lands presence. Moreover, the
federal government treats the West differently than any other section
of the country. I can understand that unless you are from the West or
reside in a public-lands county, it is difficult to grasp these
concepts.
Frequently the Administration will cite as one of their chief
reasons for underfunding PILT the fact that there is some small amount
of funding that goes to the states via royalty revenue sharing, and
recreational fees. Again, these payments do not begin to offset the
complete lack of tax revenue from these un-taxable lands. It is because
of the high amount of federal ownership of lands in the West that
western states and particularly rural counties have had a hard time
building a prosperous economic base. Many western communities'
boundaries are constrained by PILT, causing the price of homes and land
to increase dramatically. Further, because of a high amount of federal
lands ownership it is difficult to build an industrial base. If jobs
are available at all, they are in the service sector and are typically
seasonal and low-paying. It is unfortunate that the federal government
has created this artificial situation.
As it pertains to PILT funding, there is no federal governmental
constituency to lobby for this funding--only local governments who use
the money efficiently to help people. Unfortunately members of Congress
from public lands counties annually repeat this cycle of getting low-
balled in the budget and then fighting for our lives. This program
needs legislative protection, for in this area there is an apparent
lack of concern for or understanding about rural and Western America.
Were it not for historic congressional support for this program
(constant prodding of the executive by the legislative) then this
essential program probably would have died years ago. It is only
because of congressional action that we have been able to save the
local governments in the impacted states.
There are several other issues that I find disturbing in the FY08
budget request, in particular APD processing and user fees. Existing
lessees already have a right to develop their leases as defined in the
bundle of their ``rights'' which accompanies their lease. Presently,
ruinously high fees prohibit an existing lease from being developed and
approximate a taking of private property. Current fees proposed by the
Administration are an assault on independent and small scale operators.
If the same fees are imposed on all operators without regard to their
ability to pay, then that will damage small-scale operators and benefit
the larger operations. Small operators are the bread and butter of many
rural western communities and this assault on them by the
Administration will discourage domestic investment and is bad policy.
As it pertains to Geothermal payments to counties, the
Administration's proposal to redirect geothermal leasing funds away
from the counties that host geothermal operations defies common sense--
counties are the very folks who must face the music of any sort of
development--including geothermal energy development. Counties must
provide services to the geothermal operators and their employees. These
services must be paid for and failure to provide law enforcement for
example is not an option. Counties must provide these services with
only limited ways to pay for them. If the burden is passed to the
operators and employees of geothermal operations through taxes, it can
change the economics of a project for the worst. By granting some of
what would otherwise be a part of the federal share of royalties, we in
fact encourage the development of this renewable resource.
Again this year the Administration has chosen to zero out the Range
Improvement Fund. This small program allows the BLM to get dollars on
the ground for range improvement. This is a vital program on a local
level and another example of the political games the Administration is
playing at the expense of Western Communities. Responsible development
of public natural resources is good for our communities, our economy
and our national security. These programs are small in the context of
the budget. However the real impact these cuts will have on folks on
the ground is damaging to rural western communities. This is
unacceptable and I urge you to prioritize funding for these important
programs.
With that, Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Spratt. You still have time on the clock to start
with, but I am willing to listen to it because I am to some
extent affected by that. I have the Sumter National Forest in
my district.
Mr. Bishop of Utah. If you have a National Forest you will
know exactly what I am talking about. I think the State of
Rhode Island is the only state that does not qualify for any
kind of funding. But the second map that shows you the amount
of federal lands, clearly this is a western issue that is
almost like life and death. Any questions you have, once again
we would be very happy if the Budget Committee would make
another recommendation.
Chairman Spratt. You are proposing to support them for the
level of funding that the House produced last year that ended
up being cut in conference?
Mr. Bishop of Utah. Actually, I would support, as difficult
as this is going to be for anyone, to go to the full
authorization, which is about $320 million something. The House
last year came up to a $240 million figure, which I think would
be a nice starting assignment. About four years ago the
Interior Department took PILT funding out of the BLM and said,
``We will put it under the Secretary's budget procedure so we
will give it greater visibility and easier time of funding,''
and they would fund it at an incremental stage until they
reached the level of authorization. That has, quite frankly,
never happened. They have never started the incrementalization.
They did move it, but they did not actually do any of the
incrementalization. $240 million which would what we did last
year I think is doable and is at least appropriate for the
first stage.
When PILT was originally passed it was funded at 99 percent
of the authorization level. We obviously have increased the
authorization. So we are funding about 60 percent of the
authorization, 67 percent of the authorization level right now.
Obviously, the higher you get the better off it would be
because this program I think goes directly to counties and pays
for stuff that is used very frugally by them.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Bishop of Utah. I ran another two minutes down, if that
is----
Chairman Spratt. Keep talking.
Mr. Bishop of Utah. I am done. No, I do not want to put you
through, unless there is something specifically that I did not
cover or was confusing in the way I presented it.
Chairman Spratt. Okay.
Mr. Bishop of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Spratt. Thank you very much indeed for coming. We
finally conclude. I ask for unanimous consent that all members'
statements be included in the record. In addition, I ask for
unanimous consent that all members unable to attend the hearing
today be allowed to submit statements for the record. Without
objection, so ordered. This concludes the hearing. The
Committee stands adjourned.
[Additional submissions of Members follow:]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, a Delegate in
Congress From the Territory of Guam
Good afternoon Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before the House Committee on the Budget
on the Administration's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2008 and Guam's
budget priorities for the upcoming year. I greatly appreciate your
attention to and consideration of the priorities that I identify.
First, I respectfully request and appeal to the Committee to
include in its proposed budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2008
sufficient budgetary headroom to allow for the Committee on Natural
Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary to be able to effectively
report out and bring to the House floor during this session of the
110th Congress legislation to implement the recommendations of the Guam
War Claims Review Commission. Second, I respectfully request that the
budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2008 also include budgetary headroom
for the Department of Labor to provide additional workforce development
programs and projects on Guam.
I introduced H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition
Act, during to 109th Congress. This legislation was cosponsored by 112
Members of the House and was favorably reported out of the Committee on
Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary. If enacted, the
legislation would have implemented the recommendations of Guam War
Claims Review Commission. Regrettably, the 109th Congress adjourned
before H.R. 1595 was scheduled for a vote by the House. Despite this,
the progress realized in the 109th Congress on this issue was
encouraging. That H.R. 1595 was favorably reported out of two
committees of jurisdiction during the 109th Congress represented the
furthest point in the legislative process that this issue has ever
advanced. Guam war claims legislation will be reintroduced again in
this Congress. This will be the 12th Guam war claims bill introduced in
the House of Representatives since the first such measure was
introduced by Congressman Antonio Won Pat, Guam's first Delegate to
Congress, in 1983 in the 98th Congress.
The 107th Congress enacted legislation which authorized the
establishment of a federal commission. This commission was charged by
Congress with determining whether there was parity of war claims paid
to the residents of Guam for the experiences and losses they suffered
as loyal Americans during the enemy occupation of Guam during World War
II as compared with awards made to other similarly affected U.S.
citizens or nationals under war claims programs authorized by Congress.
The Commission, which was appointed by the Secretary of the
Interior, reported to Congress with findings and recommendations in
2004. The Commission found that:
<bullet> Congress was misinformed when it excluded Guam from
coverage under Title II of the War Claims Act of 1948, further amended
in 1962.
<bullet> A lack of parity in war claims for the people of Guam in
both process and amounts vis-a-vis other war claims programs authorized
by Congress for similarly affected U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals.
<bullet> The United States Government has a ``moral obligation'' to
pay the people of Guam for war damages.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the budget should
provide for a least $180 million over three fiscal years for
legislation to implement the recommendations of the Guam War Claims
Review Commission, as reported out by the two committees in the
immediate previous Congress, to be enacted. This estimate is based on
every possible conceivable claim whose payment would be authorized by
the legislation.
The Guam War Claims legislation I plan to introduce during the
110th will, like its predecessor H.R. 1595 (109th) and in accordance
with the spirit of the recommendations of the Guam War Claims Review
Commission, authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the
United States to serve as the adjudicating authority to redress
outstanding claims for deaths and injuries suffered by the people of
Guam during the occupation. This is structure for adjudicating claims
that would have been authorized by H.R.1595 (109th).
To fulfill their Congressional mandate, the Guam War Claims
Commission conducted hearings on Guam to receive testimony from
survivors. In addition to these hearings, the Commission also received
questionnaires from survivors on their occupational experiences. In
total, approximately 8,000 questionnaires were received by the
Commission primarily from survivors in Guam and to a smaller extent,
from throughout the entire United States. Based upon these returned
questionnaires, it is estimated that the amounts of actual claims would
be significantly lower than the Commission's original estimates and the
conservative estimate provided by CBO. Death claims may be as low as
330 based on the self-declarations in the questionnaires. While injury
claims may actually number closer to 4,000 to 5,000. It should also be
noted that the final report of the Guam War Claims Review Commission
included estimates for the potential death and personal injury claims.
The Commission estimated total funding for claims to be $126 million
based on 1,000 deaths and 8,551 survivors.
The Congress has a moral obligation to bring closure for the loyal
Americans who experienced the brutality of the occupation on Guam. I
respectfully request that the budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2008
take into account legislation that would help fulfill our moral
obligation to our fellow Americans and to bring justice to them as has
been recommended by the federal commission authorized by the 107th
Congress.
Looking forward, Guam will soon begin a period marked by increased
federal investment for infrastructure improvements to the island's
military bases and to other areas. The majority of this increased
investment is pursuant to a bi-lateral agreement the United States and
the government of Japan reached last year regarding the relocation of
elements of the III Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) from Okinawa,
Japan, to Guam over a period of at least ten years beginning as soon as
2008. Elements of the III MEF liberated Guam from Imperial Japanese
occupation in 1944. Guam welcomes the Marines back to our island.
Department of Defense (DOD) spending in Guam is a prime economic
driver for the island in addition to the visitor service and
hospitality industries. The Administration's Fiscal Year 2008 budget
request includes increased spending for infrastructure development on
Guam and within the two military bases on the island--Naval Base Guam
and Andersen Air Force Base. The planned increase in Federal spending
to support the military build-up on Guam promises to create new jobs
for Guam's economy and to provide opportunities to strengthen and
diversify Guam's private sector. I urge the Committee to support the
Administration's request for military construction spending.
In doing so, I also want to urge the Committee to include budget
authority for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to provide additional
workforce development programs and projects on Guam. The demand for a
skilled and trained workforce on Guam has never been greater, and will
increase significantly in the coming years. In my opinion, it is
essential for the federal government and the Government of Guam to
begin preparing now to be able to meet the labor and training
requirements associated with this relocation of U.S. forces to Guam.
Guam's current jobs and vocational training programs are struggling to
provide students with the training and skills needed to compete in the
modern workforce. A well resourced jobs training program is integral to
creating a skilled workforce to meet the demands associated with
increased DOD investment in Guam. Full support for job training,
education and assistance programs is especially important during this
time of growth for Guam. I recommend that the Committee ensure that the
DOL is budgeted sufficiently to allow for the extension of workforce
investment programs to Guam. I am committed to working to ensure that
Guam's contractors, its workforce, and the island as a whole benefits
fully from this planned investment in infrastructure improvements on
the island. And I look forward to the day when the Department of Labor
opens a Job Corps center on Guam.
That Guam is a strategic asset to our national security of growing
importance is evidenced by the planned increase in DOD investment in
the island's bases. Guam is proud to serve the United States in this
manner. But it is important that the federal government begin now to
help the island prepare for this enhanced role. The Committee's support
by means of providing budgetary headroom for the implementation of the
findings of the Guam War Claims Review Commission and for increased
workforce development programs and projects on Guam will go far toward
achieving this goal. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this
testimony for the record. Thank you for your consideration of my
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Budget Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to bring my concerns about the President's proposed budget
before the Committee. As you proceed to consider the budget and the
priorities for our nation, I want to point out the severe impacts that
the President's proposed budget will have on our children, our elderly,
our veterans, and on the providers who serve them.
The President's proposed budget is a predictable political
statement favoring the wealthiest among us, while targeting the most
vulnerable--and particularly their health. So simply put, the White
House favors wealth over health. The President's actions don't match
his words. He claims to have given us a fair budget and a path toward a
balanced budget. Those claims of balance are false, but worse, the path
he has chosen to reduce spending lies squarely on the backs of our
neighbors back home who have little, and now will have less. This
budget, if adopted, would hurt a lot of folks.
Yet many of the cuts in this budget directly reduce health care for
children, seniors and veterans.
(1) HEALTH CARE FOR THE MOST IN NEED--MEDICAID
Medicaid, the program for our most needy families, is pregnant
women, infants, and children in families earning about $25,000 a year.
It is for foster kids, for medically needy adults, and for a lot of our
senior citizens in nursing homes. So when you hear there are Medicaid
cuts, I would like us to really put a face on that and say they are
going after the most vulnerable in this country, infants, poor kids,
foster kids and seniors in nursing homes.
(2) HEALTH CARE FOR OUR SENIORS--MEDICARE
The White House proposed budget will hit another vulnerable group
of our families, our seniors. The White House proposes to cut Medicare.
I am from Florida, and a lot of folks retire down to Florida. They have
worked hard all their lives, and this is really one of the only
benefits that we can give them, in addition to Social Security. So what
the White House budget is proposing to do is ask them to pay even more.
They are asking our hardworking doctors to take a cut as well. The
result of cutting pay for providers is that there will be fewer avenues
for seniors to get good medical care. You see, I want my seniors to
have the best medical care. I want them to see the best doctors, and I
want those good doctors to stay in the Medicare system.
In Medicare, we must achieve savings through simplifying Medicare
Part D, and requiring the Bush Administration to negotiate drug prices.
In addition, we should target well documented overpayments to Medicare
HMO managed care plans. The HMO profits are out of sight. CEO salaries
are at skyrocketing levels.
(3) HEALTH CARE FOR OUR KIDS--SCHIP
The health care cuts would also hurt our children, our kids back
home. The State Child Health Insurance Program known as SCHIP has
provided a bridge for families who don't qualify for Medicaid, but
still cannot afford health insurance. This program partners with States
and our local communities and has done a pretty good job. Instead of
building on this success, the White House says: Even though we are
making progress, even though we still have such tremendous needs in
this country for children to be able to go in and see a doctor, get
their immunizations, get some advice on how to take care of themselves,
they say we are instead, going to cut this valuable and effective
program.
In the real-world, families, such as that of an old high school
friend of mine, Nan Dorton, have to decide between providing food and
shelter and purchasing health care for their children. Her husband has
a job. They are provided with health insurance through his employer.
But you know how much it costs for that family to have the kids
covered, $700 a month. That comes to $8400 per year, an amount that can
wreck the budget of many working families. She said it was hard to
choose whether to put food on the table or take the kids to the doctor
and sign them up for health insurance. She said, you live in constant
fear of your child having to go to the hospital. Forget preventive care
that can keep them out of a hospital.
But then she found out about children's health insurance and
Florida's KidCare program which is funded with SCHIP dollars. She said
it revolutionized their lives because under these health services, they
pay a $20-per-month co-payment for all three kids, and they don't have
any copays for hospital visits or prescriptions. We are saving a
tremendous amount of money because they and other children covered by
SCHIP are not showing up in the emergency room, where the cost is
passed on to all of us in our health insurance programs or government
subsidies. Because those families are healthier today, we are going to
save that money and have healthier kids ready to go to school and
become productive.
In sum, the priorities of the Bush budget are detached from the
reality of American families--And I urge Congress not to balance the
budget by cutting support for the most vulnerable, our seniors and our
kids.
On SCHIP we must recognize that we save when we invest in our
children. We can also achieve savings through reducing the costly
bureaucracy that diverts money that could go directly to care.
(4) HEALTH CARE FOR OUR VETERANS--VA
There is another group hit hard in this budget. In the State of
Florida, where I am from, we have the second highest number of veterans
in the country, and in my district, I have the busiest VA center in the
country, the James Haley Center, which saw over 1.5 million vets last
year. That number is more than the population of the State of Kansas.
The Haley VA Center serves many returning Iraq war vets injured by
IEDs and suffering through spinal cord injuries, brain injuries. Over
the past 10 years we have gone from 2 million visits to over 5 million
visits. How can we say to our veterans, put your lives and health on
the line, but by the way we are cutting the amount for your care when
we know the need will continue to grow. This affects not only the brave
men and women who have faced harm in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it also
affects those who have given great service to our country in previous
conflicts. Is this is a reflection of American values? Not where I come
from. How can the White House send us a budget that steps back, at a
time when the Bush-Cheney Administration is escalating the war in Iraq
from the commitment to our veterans?
(5) HEALTH CARE SAFETY NET
The White House also wants to sock it to our safety net hospitals
Our hospital emergency rooms are required by law to all who come there.
Have you all been to the emergency room lately, tried to get in? The
long lines? I served as a County Commissioner prior to serving in
Congress and the brave men and women in fire rescue who transport sick
people to the emergency room told story after story about the ERs being
so busy and so full, they would have to stay with the emergency patient
in the EMS truck for hours because the emergency room was clogged.
Despite this ongoing crisis, the Bush administration says both by
administrative rule and through its proposed budget, that we are going
to cut money to those hospitals. In my district alone, in the Tampa Bay
area, the impact on Tampa General Hospital, which is a level one trauma
center: $64 million. The great All Children's Hospital across the bay
in Saint Petersburg: $31 million; the great St. Joseph's Hospital:
another $20 million. Those costs will fall on those who will be denied
health care, and will fall on those of us whose health care costs will
have to be raised to compensate for the cuts, making it harder for many
to afford health care. It is hard to imagine a more devastating
approach to our health care system.
We are a better country than that. We need to set our priorities so
that we do not try to balance our budget on the backs of the most
vulnerable. We can move closer to a balanced budget by rejecting such
cuts because the very programs that the Bush administration wants to
cut are those that provide benefits now and avoid higher costs later. I
urge this Committee to work with all of us in this Congress to provide
support for those programs that protect our most vulnerable citizens
and move us toward a healthier and more productive society.
[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 Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan for allowing me
to testify before your Committee this afternoon.
My primary area of concern with the President's Fiscal Year 2008
budget centers on reductions in Medicare and Medicaid that could limit
access to comprehensive medical care for seniors and low-income
Americans. Let me begin by saying that my concern over these reductions
does not blind me to the fact that we need to take steps to curb the
spiraling costs of both Medicare and Medicaid to protect it for
generations to come. However, we should not implement reforms that
create undue burdens for patients or jeopardize the ability of doctors
and hospitals to provide high-level care.
Earlier this month, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
(MedPac) reported that Medicare payments are not keeping pace with the
cost of providing care to beneficiaries. In fact, they are steadily and
increasingly falling below cost. This is unsustainable and contrary to
the goal of providing high-quality care for our seniors. The
Administration's proposal seeks to reign in Medicare spending by
targeting the bedrock of Medicare's care delivery--inpatient hospitals,
outpatient hospitals, hospices, ambulance services, skilled nursing and
inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and home health care. By either
reducing the update factor or flat-funding these programs, the budget
proposal has the potential to create widespread instability in the
program.
In my district alone, the proposed reductions in Medicare would
slash payments to our three hospitals by nearly $110 million over the
next five years alone. Clearly, these cuts would lead to a reduction in
core Medicare services and leave Staten Island and Brooklyn seniors
without access to the quality care they need and deserve.
Similarly, I am concerned the President's budget does not strike
the right balance to address Medicaid's cost increases. The proposed
cuts to Medicaid would devastate hospitals in New York City, including
hospitals in my district.
For instance, the President's budget proposes to eliminate federal
Medicaid dollars for graduate medical education (GME) payments to
hospitals. This proposal alone would cut payments to the public
hospital system in New York City by $400 million in the first year
alone.
In addition, the Administration has issued a proposed regulation
that Congress previously rejected as part of the budget. The regulation
would restrict how states finance their Medicaid expenditures and limit
state reimbursement for only a narrow set of costs incurred by public
providers. If enacted, this regulation would cut millions of dollars
from virtually every public hospital in America. New York City's public
hospital system would lose an estimated $350 million in the first year
alone of its implementation.
Combined, these two proposals would drastically reduce the ability
of the public health system in New York to continue serving our
constituents, with the greatest negative impact hitting the uninsured.
In total, the public hospital system in New York City would lose an
estimated $750 million in the first year alone--and as much as $3.6
billion over the next five years. These cuts would overwhelm and harm
an already struggling hospital system.
While I have reservations about several of the health care budget
proposals, I would like to commend the President for his dedication to
providing high-quality health care to our nation's veterans. Since
2001, the President has increased funding for veterans medical care by
83%; overall, the President's budget recommends an almost $11 billion
increase over the estimated levels for FY07.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to highlight a specific
issue included in the President's recommendations. The President's
budget includes additional funding to expand the national cemetery
system. The VA currently has a threshold of 170,000 veterans within a
75 mile radius to constitute the establishment of a national cemetery.
The Department is conducting a study to examine the feasibility of this
requirement and its applicability to urban and other unique areas. In
New York City, the transportation implications of traveling as many as
75 miles prevents many veterans from accessing the cemetery within
their service area. I would urge the consideration of additional
funding to expand the national cemetery system so that alternative
factors to mileage can be considered in determining accessibility.
9/11 HEALTH
Another crucial budget item for New York is the inclusion of a $25
million place holder to provide health monitoring and treatment for
first responders and workers suffering from 9-11-related illnesses as a
result of their service at Ground Zero. This budget item represents the
first time the Administration has proactively asked for money to treat
the unsung heroes of 9/11. I commend the President for such an
important first step.
Many of these individuals are suffering from long-term illnesses as
a result of inhaling Ground Zero's toxic plume. Some have even died
from their sickness. A report released yesterday by New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg revealed that 681,000 individuals are in need of
medical monitoring, 410,000 people were ``heavily exposed'' to Ground
Zero toxins and 30,000 responders are sick; 21,000 of them, however, do
not have adequate health insurance.
Importantly, the Administration personally told me the $25 million
in the budget is a place holder. It is expected that these programs
will need significantly more funding. In December 2005, Congresswoman
Maloney and I successfully restored $125 million in 9-11 funding
rescinded in the FY2006 Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill. Of that money,
$75 million was made available to treat 9-11 illnesses for the first
time ever. While that money was released to treatment programs last
October, some estimates say it could dry up as early as this summer--
putting the future of critical care for our 9-11 heroes in jeopardy.
HHS is currently developing a ``burn rate'' for the existing funding.
Assistant Secretary Dr. Agwunobi said his task force will develop a
cost estimate for the program from that number within weeks.
As you develop the budget, I urge you to keep in mind the $25
million is a starting point and any budget resolution should include a
caveat for adding funding after the HHS estimate is completed in the
near future. I would also like to point out that this isn't just a New
York problem--it's a national problem. People from all over the country
came to Ground Zero to help New York and our nation get back on their
feet. Many are suffering the same illnesses as New York police and
firefighters. Funding these critical programs will help those
individuals as well.
HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING
Despite the fact that New York is the number one target for
terrorists, the City's share of homeland security funding was slashed
40% last year under the High Threat, High Density Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI).
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. Since the creation of UASI, funding
levels to our highest-threat areas have continually fluctuated. This is
extremely dangerous for our national security and creates needless
uncertainty for police departments, first responders and others to
prepare and carry out anti-terror activities. As the House continues to
work with the Senate to pass a bill that overhauls the homeland
security grant program to implement more comprehensive risk-based
funding, I strongly encourage maximum funding for UASI.
In addition, I was pleased the President's budget proposed changing
the state and territory guaranteed minimum funding level to 0.25% from
0.75% of the total amount for the State Homeland Security Grant Program
(SHSGP). This percentage change effectively endorses a shift to risk-
based funding, one of the principle recommendations of the 9/11
Commission. While we have made progress on this issue in recent years,
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.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to offer my comments on
the President's Fiscal Year 2008 budget. I hope you take my thoughts
into consideration as the budget process moves forward. I look forward
to working with you on these and other matters in the weeks ahead.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Texas
I want to thank Chairman John Spratt and Ranking Member Paul Ryan,
and their respective staffs, for their work in developing the Budget
Resolution for Fiscal Year 2008.
The Administration's budget fails to prioritize important social
programs very much needed by the working poor. More specifically the
President's budget fails to address adequately the needs of African
Americans and other neglected minorities. It is deaf to the voices,
concerns and needs of the poor, children and the elderly. The budget
slights domestic priorities such as health care and education and it
lacks progressive or visionary funding.
The shortsightedness of the Republican budget mirrors that of its
drafters. The unconscionable tax cuts amount to an unprecedented $2
trillion dollars and result in a $400 billion deficit over the next
three years. Awaiting the President when he took office in 2001 was a
budget surplus of over $236 billion dollars. At present, the President
can only commit to balancing the budget by 2012. And to do this he uses
unrealistic assumptions. The Administration is consistent in
implementing policies that will only worsen the country's economy.
The budget lacks badly needed Alternative Minimum Tax reform and
full funding for the Administration's military missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
This budget relies on unrealistic projections for the economy and
underestimates this country's growing fiscal problems.
The Republican budget proposals ignore the needs of Texans and all
hard working Americans. It cuts Medicare by $252 billion over ten years
and ignores improving or funding alternative heath care programs. The
budget also cuts funding for the Department of Education by $1.5
billion; and cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by
$509 million. It also imposes new costs on already cash-stripped
veterans' of $4.9 billion over the next ten years.
We must implement a budget that better understands our nation's
transportation system as the backbone of our economy. Instead, the
President's budget cuts the general fund portion of Mass Transit
programs by $308 million. The budget also cuts funding for Airport
improvements by $765 million.
This budget is a disaster for my constituents in Texas. Two million
Texans could see retirement benefits cut under the president's
privatization proposal. Meanwhile, rather than help the 5.5.million
uninsured Texans (the most in any state) the President's health care
proposal will squeeze the Texas middle class with more costs and less
coverage. This administration's budget includes $78 billion in Medicare
and Medicaid cuts and billions in new premiums that threaten to
endanger Texas' 2.5 million Medicare patients' access to needed care.
Shortfalls in state grants for children's health care will add to the
ranks of Texas' 1.4 million uninsured children.
At a time when states like Texas are cutting back on funding needed
social programs, this Administration is funding non-emergency programs
and appropriating billions of dollars on a war that rightly belongs to
the Iraqi people.
[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 Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan 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, every 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 the sidewalk when the 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? 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. According to the American Institute of Architects, one
in every three American public schools needs major repair. The
Department of Education found we need $127 billion to bring schools
nationwide into adequate conditions. 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.
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.
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 one 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 domestic discretionary budget is $391.7 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.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan, and Members of the Budget
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding the
President's proposed budget for the 2008 fiscal year. As members of the
Committee know well, the budget serves as a roadmap for the nation's
priorities. I commend Chairman Spratt and Members of the Committee for
their commitment to fiscal discipline and to crafting an honest and
pragmatic budget resolution. Reinstituting Pay-Go rules was an
important first step toward putting the nation's fiscal house in order,
and I am optimistic that the Committee will draft a budget resolution
that will continue on the path to fiscal discipline, while making smart
investments for the future in areas including health care, education,
energy research, science and the nation's infrastructure. Of course,
resources are limited and the Committee will face difficult choices in
the weeks ahead. Through my testimony, I hope to inform the Committee's
deliberations as it begins the FY 08 budget process.
In examining the President's proposed budget for FY 08, I wanted to
share with you a few key priorities for my constituents in Sacramento.
My top priority in Congress is protecting my district from flooding.
Statistically, Sacramento is the single American river city most likely
to experience a catastrophic flood in the near future, and I am
committed to working with my partners at the federal, state, and local
levels to ensure that our homes and communities can withstand such an
event. From a budgetary perspective, these efforts depend on full
funding for authorized flood protection projects in the Army Corps of
Engineers budget. The Corps, along with the Bureau of Reclamation,
constructs the dams and levees that are vital to the safety of my
constituents and those in other vulnerable locations around the
country. The President's budget funds Army Corps projects at 8.6% below
FY 07 levels. Such a cut could potentially put key flood protection
projects behind schedule, further endangering our constituents across
the country. I urge the Committee to consider fully funding these
projects in allocating resources to the Natural Resources and
Environment budget function.
Another program that ensures the safety of my constituents in
Sacramento and Americans in cities across the nation is the Urban Area
Security Initiative in the Department of Homeland Security's budget.
The UASI grant program plays an important role in protecting our
critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks. Congress must ensure
that in high-risk urban areas first responders and law enforcement have
the resources they need to protect our cities from foreign and domestic
threats. I hope you will consider the importance of the UASI program in
determining allocations for homeland security-related budget functions.
In your consideration of the Health budget function, please
consider the importance of the National Institutes of Health budget,
particularly the National Children's Study. The National Children's
Study follows 100,000 children from birth to age 21 to provide an
understanding of how environmental factors affect health and disease.
It holds the potential to provide critical answers to the root causes
of autism, asthma, obesity, childhood diabetes, and other illnesses. It
may also be of note to this Committee that according to the NICHD, the
Study's benefits will save between $3.5-$5.5 billion per year in
avoided health care costs. This single-year savings is roughly double
the Study's cost over its more than twenty-five year period of
research. Clearly, the National Children's Study is a key investment in
the long term health of our nation, for our children and our children's
children. I am concerned that the President's budget recommends
eliminating the National Children's Study and recommends an overall NIH
budget $210 million below the FY07 levels. The NIH is doing vital work
in so many areas, and thorough funding for NIH will allow outstanding
research to continue to be performed. I hope you will keep NIH and the
National Children's Study at the top of your mind in considering the
Health budget function.
I would also call attention to the Corporation for National and
Community Service. Each year, the Corporation engages more than 3.8
million Americans in a wide array of service opportunities through its
core programs, which include: AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps
National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), AmeriCorps Volunteers in
Service to America (VISTA), Learn and Serve America and Senior Corps.
These programs help drive vital organizations like CityYear and Habitat
for Humanity who receive grants from the Corporation every year.
The importance of having a strong network of trained volunteers has
never been more evident than after the devastating hurricanes in the
Gulf Coast. In fact, since September 2005, more than 35,000 national
service participants have provided humanitarian assistance to the
victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilson and have played a
pivotal role in the Gulf Coast's recovery efforts, helping to recruit
and manage an additional 120,000 community volunteers. Through the
national service programs, volunteers established and operated
shelters, cleared debris, provided meals and social service, put tarps
on roofs, sanitized homes, and provided hope to those uprooted and
displaced by the storms.
In particular, AmeriCorps*NCCC members have proven to be adept
intermediaries between our first responders and others in the
community. Local first responders in my district of Sacramento have
explained that because NCCC members are 100% disaster trained and
readily deployable, they are able to come into a situation and
immediately assist at any level of the operation, thereby freeing up
our first responders and law enforcement. In fact, NCCC members were
deployed to the Gulf Coast within 24 hours of Katrina making landfall
and continue to assist with the relief and recovery efforts.
The Corporation needs a robust appropriation that will preserve
this continuum of service and engage more Americans in this critical
work. I urge the Committee to consider these programs in determining
the Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services budget
function so we can send a positive message to those who want to build a
better tomorrow for those in need.
A final priority for my constituents is moving toward a clean
energy economy and fighting the looming threat of global warming. To do
this, it is essential to fully fund the Department of Energy's Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) in the Energy budget
function and DOE's Office of Science in the General Science, Space and
Technology budget function. Funding the research and development
programs at these offices will lay the foundation for breakthrough
technologies that have the potential to transform our energy economy
while helping us make progress to halt global warming. While the Office
of Science receives a sizable funding increase in the President's
budget, the $1.24 billion request for EERE represents essentially flat
funding relative to FY 06, a request that vastly understates the
urgency of investing in clean energy research and development. I hope
that energy research and development will be funded in the budget
resolution at a level commensurate with the energy policy challenges
facing this nation.
Another important tool which helps reduce global warming is the
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA). In California specifically, we
face significant challenges related to our air quality, water supply,
and flood vulnerability, and the initiatives authorized under DERA will
help us combat the risks posed by polluted air, increased mountain
runoff, and global warming. Authorized in the Energy Policy Act of
2005, DERA encompasses a broad range of programs designed to limit
harmful diesel emissions through engine retrofits, idling reduction
initiatives, and a variety of grants and loans at the state and local
levels. As such, DERA is essential to our efforts to fight global
warming, clean the air, and protect the general population. The
President's FY 08 Budget request provides $35 million for DERA
programs, a sizable reduction from the FY 07 proposal of $49.5 million.
I urge the Committee to join with the bipartisan coalition that has
championed DERA since its inception, and help restore funding for these
essential initiatives through the FY 08 budget resolution.
I very much appreciate the Committee's consideration of these
budget priorities. The deteriorating fiscal situation and the impending
retirement of the baby boomers certainly places the Budget Committee in
a tough position. But now is a time of opportunity when Congress can
act on behalf of our children and grandchildren, and truly align this
nation's priorities with those of all of the American people. I hope my
testimony will help the Committee toward that important end. If I can
provide further information or answer any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Randy Neugebauer, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Texas
Maintain tax relief because of benefits of tax relief to revenue,
economy and deficit.
Need to support troops.
Spending is the key: Need to hold down domestic discretionary. Need
for reform of mandatory programs.
We can balance this budget, and we are very close to balancing it
now. If we were doing a better job on the spending side, we could
balance the budget.
Savings from 2002 Farm Bill and lower baseline for programs--ag has
contributed to deficit reduction and need to support 2007 Farm Bill.
Dangers of Democrat PAYGO.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roskam follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter J. Roskam, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Illinois
I applaud the Administration for making bold moves in fiscal policy
to balance the federal budget by 2012 by maintaining successful pro-
growth economic policies, reforming entitlements, and most importantly,
doing it without raising taxes. Spending in the President's Fiscal Year
2008 budget proposes an average increase of 3.1% per year over the next
5 years, a reduction from last year's average growth projection of 3.6%
over the same period.
Current entitlement spending puts the U.S. economy on a path to
disaster. As Members of Congress, we must rein in wasteful spending in
order to protect these important programs for those who need them most:
the elderly, women and children, and the disabled. Entitlements consume
more than half of the entire federal budget, and are projected to grow
by nearly six percent per year--faster than the entire economy. At this
rate, by 2040, the operating costs for these programs will equal the
current operating costs of the entire federal government. While I do
not agree with the Administration one hundred percent on how we should
go about reducing the outrageously expensive cost of entitlement
programs, I do believe that this budget sends a serious message on the
need to reduce spending in order to sustain entitlement programs.
I also commend the President's proposals to return tax dollars to
the hard-working families and small businesses of my district. I
believe we need to make permanent the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and
2003. We need to extend AMT relief and the R&D tax credit, and work to
keep important health care decisions in the hands of patients by
supporting Health Savings Accounts and promoting new health deduction
initiatives. These policies have already spurred economic growth and
helped to create over 7.2 million new jobs.
The State of Illinois ranks 46th in the nation for job growth, so I
can assure you that I know firsthand the disastrous consequences of an
economic policy agenda based on burdensome regulations and lack of
incentives for innovation, research and development. Instead of
continuing these stifling economic policies, I have promised to fight
to rein in out-of-control spending, reduce the cost of entitlements,
and maintain the tax incentives that built sustained economic growth
and job creation since their enactment in 2001.
Included in this testimony are thoughts on some other sections of
the FY2008 Budget Proposal:
EDUCATION
A strong education system is the backbone of our economy and
absolutely vital to our nation's strength and growth. However, while I
support $1 billion in additional funding for the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) program proposed in the FY2008 Budget Proposal, I harbor serious
concerns that the NCLB program is not performing as well as it could
be. As the 110th Congress looks to reauthorize this program, I plan to
consider carefully the ways in which we can improve it. This reform
must reduce unnecessary and ineffective red tape that hinders
achievement in our classrooms, apply fair standards for students with
disabilities, and emphasize the use of an individual student's
achievement as a benchmark for improvement. As a former high school
teacher, I know the challenges facing our education system. It is
essential that parents, teachers, and community leaders take the lead
role in promoting a quality education for all of our students. We can
do our part by working to reduce bureaucratic regulation and empowering
local leaders to provide all of our children a bright future.
I am also pleased to see the Administration's proposal to encourage
greater access to college for low-income students by increasing the
Pell Grant maximum award from $4,050 to $5,400. In comparison to
legislation the House passed a few weeks ago, which reduced interest
rates on student loans for current college students, a Pell Grant
increase directly addresses the issue of inequality in access to higher
education.
HOMELAND SECURITY
In reviewing the Administration's homeland security funding
proposal I must raise some issues of concern. The reductions to the
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Program (LETPP), and the State Homeland Security Grant
Program (SHSGP) would negatively impact my constituents by potentially
ending many terrorism prevention and coordination activities at the
state and local level. DuPage and Cook Counties' first responders are
working tirelessly to prevent threats to the Chicago area's many
potential terrorist targets, and reducing their funding is simply
unacceptable. We must provide our first responders and local law
enforcement the tools they need to keep our families and communities
safe.
HEALTH CARE
When we discuss the need to pull in the reins on the budget, health
care is at the top of the list. Studies have shown the more government
involvement in health care, the higher the costs within the industry.
Specifically, the need to reform the out-of-control growth of Medicare
and Medicaid is a must. The Administration takes a daring move in
tackling this uncontrollable growth to ensure sustainability of the
health care programs which support those most in need. I am a strong
advocate in reducing growth of essential health care programs. However,
I would like to encourage the message of caution when the Committee is
deciding where savings should be found. Some of the recommended policy
cuts by the Administration, such as a reduction in the market basket
update for inpatient and outpatient care, as well as a four-year phase-
out of reimbursement for Medicare bad debt across service types, could
cost hospitals in Illinois up to $623 million. Specifically, Adventist
GlenOaks Hospital, which is a large provider of the underserved and
uninsured population in my congressional district, could potentially
stand to lose almost $3 million. Therefore, we should proceed with good
sense to ensure any program reductions we enact do not have unintended
consequences on our hospitals. Unfairly saddling them to pay for
additional uncompensated care could threaten the access to health
services for those most in need. The hospitals in my congressional
district directly employ over 10,000 people, paying out over $643
million in wages and generate approximately $212 million in federal
taxes. It is imperative to my congressional district's local economy
that these hospitals remain financially secure to serve the community.
While I have concerns for my hospitals, I have found a bright spot
in the President's FY 2008 budget proposal with its' funding of $1.988
billion for community health centers. Community health centers, such as
the Martin T. Russo Family Health Center in Bloomingdale, IL, are
crucial to ensuring the uninsured and low-income population has access
to reliable, high-quality health care. Community health centers serve
everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, in a cost-effective and
efficient manner; all accomplished through locally-controlled patient
boards. The health center in Bloomingdale is a member of a larger
Chicago-based network, the ACCESS Community Health Network. One in four
patients treated by this network is uninsured. ACCESS responsibly
leverages its federal dollars with state and private funds, and
partners with local hospitals to strengthen the health safety net in
the community by promoting preventative care and keeping patients out
of costly emergency rooms. Study after study has shown that people who
regularly visit a health center reduce other health care expenditures
by more than thirty percent. Further funding of this program will
increase the availability of health care and reduce federal Medicaid
and Medicare costs and also unnecessary emergency room visits at
neighboring hospitals.
MANUFACTURING
I am very concerned with the fifty-seven percent proposed cut to
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). With approximately
140,000 of my constituents employed by the manufacturing industry, the
retention and growth of this sector is a must. The Chicago
Manufacturing Center (CMC) is the MEP center that serves the seven
county Chicagoland area, which includes DuPage and Cook Counties in my
congressional district. In 2004, CMC clients reported increases and
retentions of $110.1 million in sales, hired 194 people for newly
created jobs, and saved 527 jobs. With manufacturing contributing one-
third of all corporate taxes for state and local governments, the MEP
program is vital to ensuring the economic well-being of my district.
ENERGY
The last budget issue I would like to address is energy. I was
pleased to see the President request an increase of $73 million for the
Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. It is absolutely vital that we provide additional resources and
incentives for private sector investments to wean our economy off of
our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and reduce emissions that
destroy our natural environment, all without causing a loss of jobs in
the manufacturing industry. The Gas Technology Institute in my
Congressional district is leading the way in the quest for alternative
and renewable energy solutions.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity you
have presented me today. I am hopeful the House Budget Committee will
take into consideration my constituent's priorities and will be
reflected in the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Resolution that comes to the
House Floor later this Congress.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sarbanes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John P. Sarbanes, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Maryland
As the committee continues its budget deliberations for fiscal
2008, I am writing to ask you to reject the President's assault on
working families. Instead, we must refocus our national priorities to
ensure that fairness, opportunity and fiscal responsibility are at the
top of the list. Although the President's budget proposal has enormous
deficiencies across the board, I wanted to draw your attention to a few
specific shortcomings because of their direct impact on my
constituents.
My experience in the health care field has made me keenly aware of
the shortcomings of our national health care system. It is a tragedy
that approximately 47 million Americans have no health insurance. In
the state of Maryland, the uninsured population has swelled to nearly
800,000 residents, or more than 10 percent of the population.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of federal health
programs to underserved populations, or to state budgets. Maryland
currently spends 18% of its general fund budget on medical assistance.
Without fundamental changes, it is projected that Maryland will spend
nearly one-fifth of its general fund on medical assistance by FY 2011.
The following programs are critical to sustaining services to low
income and uninsured populations, as well as assisting states to pay
for medical assistance programs:
<bullet> Restore the President's cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and
avoid reductions in benefits or increases in premiums.
<bullet> Provide sufficient funding for the SCHIP program to at
least maintain benefits for those now receiving SCHIP and work to
expand coverage.
For the last eight years, I also served as special liaison to the
Baltimore City Public School System for Maryland's State Superintendent
of Schools. In this capacity, I worked closely with educators and
school administrators and saw first hand the impact of inadequate
federal funding on meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behind,
providing a quality education for children with special needs, closing
the achievement gap, and many other areas. We need to set the federal
budget on a course to meet past promises:
<bullet> Move toward full funding for NCLB.
<bullet> Move toward paying the federal government's fair share of
IDEA.
<bullet> Reconsider the President's arbitrary elimination of
important education programs.
Maryland is no different than many communities around America in
that our state's critical infrastructure is in dire need of upgrade.
During my campaign, I often talked about the need to reinvest in
America as a means of strengthening our nation's infrastructure, but
also as a job creator for thousands, if not millions of Americans. The
result will be stronger communities and a more secure America.
Where Maryland may differ, however, is that the operation of the
federal government disproportionately strains our state's
transportation infrastructure, schools, housing needs, and water and
sewer capacities. The 2005 BRAC round, which is a tremendous
opportunity, also poses an enormous challenge as Maryland's military
facilities gain tens of thousands of new positions.
In Maryland, we are very proud of the military installations across
our State and we stand ready to support these facilities. There are
several federal programs that will aid the state in preparing for these
new incoming defense workers. This funding, to be used in coordination
with significant state and local resources, is critical in order to
assimilate these hard working men and women in a way that maintains the
state's environmental integrity and is least disruptive to quality of
life in Maryland's communities. The following programs are critical to
achieving these goals:
<bullet> Fully fund the President's request for Base Realignment
and Closure.
<bullet> Restore the President's cuts to the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund.
<bullet> Increase funding for the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and
other Bay cleanup efforts.
<bullet> Fully fund authorized levels for highway and mass transit
programs.
<bullet> Provide adequate funding for Amtrak.
<bullet> Restore the President's cuts to the Community Development
Block Grant program.
<bullet> Ensure adequate funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to
execute important navigation and environmental projects.
<bullet> Increase funding for Impact Aid.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to working with the Committee to ensure that our Nation's
domestic and international priorities are met in the upcoming fiscal
year. Should you need additional information, please feel free to
contact me or my staff.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Solis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California
Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan, thank you for allowing me
to speak with you today to share with you my budget priorities for
Fiscal Year 2008. I would like to start by saying that I recognize our
difficult budget situation. The cost of the war in Iraq, coupled with
tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest, have forced our backs against the
wall when it comes to domestic spending. I cannot condone, however, a
budget which continues to defer needed investment in public health
care, the environment, and education. We must prioritize investments in
these areas if we are to guarantee a healthy, productive future for our
children and families.
HEALTH CARE
Ensuring access to quality, affordable health care is one of the
most important challenges we face. As the Chair of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus Task Force on Health and the Environment, and a member
of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, I am deeply
concerned about the impact of the President's proposed budget on
minority populations.
More than 46 million Americans are uninsured, including more than
one out three residents in the communities I represent in East Los
Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California, and 14
million Latinos nationwide. Sixteen percent of Latino children in
families below 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level in Los Angeles
County lacked health insurance for at least part of 2005. Nine million
children, including 202,000 in Los Angeles County are uninsured. Five
million uninsured children are from communities of color, including 3.5
million (or one in five) Latino children.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, uninsured children are
five times less likely to have visited a doctor or dentist in the past
two years compared to insured children. Fewer doctor visits can lead to
serious health problems as well as costly emergency room visits.
Yet, the budget submitted last week appears to leave our seniors
and children with fewer choices and greater costs. First, the proposed
budget fails to responsibly address the issue of insuring children. If
the budget does not include additional funding to fully address the
SCHIP shortfalls and account for growth in the program, many current
SCHIP beneficiaries will lose their health care and the un-enrolled but
eligible children will continue to lack coverage.
The budget also fails to take into account the number of eligible
but un-enrolled children in SCHIP. Seven in ten uninsured children are
eligible for public programs such as Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, or
Healthy Kids, but obstacles such as language and cultural barriers may
delay or block enrollment. Federal support is needed to enroll
uninsured eligible children, with an emphasis on linguistic and
cultural competence.
I urge my colleagues to consider the valuable role community health
workers are playing across our country. Community health workers are
bilingual, culturally competent professionals who provide a wide array
of services, mostly to immigrant populations, such as health education,
advocacy, and enrollment in health insurance programs. A recent report
in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics compared the
effectiveness of community workers with traditional Medicaid and SCHIP
outreach and enrollment. This authors of this study found that families
who interacted with community health workers were eight times more
likely to obtain health insurance for their children. Almost 96 percent
of children who worked with promotoras in the study obtained health
insurance and 78 percent were insured continuously!
This study proves that community health workers can reduce the
number of uninsured children. The overall cost of providing grants to
community health workers so they can assist in ensuring children access
health care is $24.5 million over five years--a small price given the
large benefit health care has on children.
As proposed, the budget neither envisions providing coverage to un-
enrolled but eligible children nor does it suggest new ways to ensure
that those children who are eligible but uninsured are receiving needed
care. We must ensure that our budget places a priority on children's
health by including $60 billion over five years for SCHIP
reauthorization and $24.5 million for outreach programs through
community health workers.
I am also concerned about the virtual elimination of health
professions training programs in the budget submitted last week. These
training programs are needed tools to ensure that our workforce
reflects the diversity of our nation. Communities of color bear the
brunt of the impact of the lack of health care, struggling
disproportionately from diseases such as diabetes and obesity. Yet this
budget fails to place a priority on culturally and linguistically
competent care. Without health professions training, those communities
struggling with cultural and linguistic barriers will continue to lack
service and care needed. By supporting health professions training
programs we are ensuring that future generations will receive
appropriate health care and that health disparities will be reduced.
Perhaps some of most important resources our communities have are
our Community Health Centers. Unfortunately, the proposed budget
targets Community Health Centers, domestic HIV/AIDS programs, and
maternal and children's health programs by $4 billion over five years.
I hope we can work together to support the health of our communities by
placing making them a funding priority.
ENSURING A HEALTHY COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Our budget must also invest in infrastructure which sustains a
healthy community. Unfortunately, under the budget received last week,
environmental programs such as pollution control will sustain cuts of
$5.5 billion over five years. I find these proposed cuts, particularly
cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency, disingenuous given the
failure of the EPA to testify about its budget under the Bush
Administration. I look forward to having this discussion with the
Administrator in the coming weeks.
Several of these cuts will have very real impacts on our nation's
most vulnerable communities. Over the past several years the EPA has
proposed cuts of approximately 30 percent to environmental justice
programs and such a cut is included in the budget we received last
week. The proposed budget cut comes on the heels of a report by the
EPA's own Inspector General which identified the failures of the EPA to
implement environmental justice programs, which stated that until the
program and regional offices perform environmental justice reviews, the
EPA ``cannot determine whether its programs cause disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and
low-income populations.'' Each year Congress has recognized the
importance of protecting minority and low-income communities, and I
hope that, like years past, we can reinstate this funding.
I am also very concerned about the impact leaking underground
storage tanks are having on our groundwater supplies. Underground
storage tanks that leak petroleum or other hazardous substances can
contaminate nearby soil and groundwater, which serves as the source of
drinking water for nearly half of all Americans. Individuals coming
into contact with this contamination, which can contain known
carcinogens, could experience health programs ranging from nausea to
kidney or liver damage. Funding for cleanup of these tanks is financed
largely by a $.001 per gallon excise tax on gasoline and other motor
fuels. Unlike other funds, this Trust Fund has a surplus of $2.67
billion which should be spent to clean up the 117,000 leaking tanks.
Unfortunately, the President's budget only requests $72.4 million for
FY 2008, less than .005 percent of the amount available. I urge my
colleagues to release these funds so our groundwater supplies may be
protected, rather than holding them hostage to the deficit.
Critical to ensuring a healthy community is ensuring clean air.
However, the Administration's budget slashes federal funding for state
and local air quality programs by $35 million, seriously undermining
state and local clean air programs which are needed to protect public
health. Proposed cuts could result in state and local agencies being
forced to lay off staff or leave vacancies unfilled, shutting down
existing monitors or otherwise curtailing monitoring programs. For
communities such as the one I represent, these monitoring programs have
been critical to protect the health of vulnerable communities, such as
the health of the students whose elementary school playground is right
next to an open gravel pit. The health of our communities if dependent
upon a strong federal commitment to clean air.
Finally, we must not ignore the needs of our low-income communities
to afford their heating and cooling bills. The submitted budget cuts
weatherization programs by 41 percent and assistance programs for low
income $200 million. This budget also fails to address the
disproportionate impact global warming will have on low-income and
communities of color. I strongly recommend that the proposed cuts to
weatherization programs (which are a hand up, not a hand out) and
LIHEAP be rejected, and a strategy to address climate change includes
tools to mitigate the impact it will have on communities of color.
SECURING WOMEN'S HEALTH--DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
For women throughout the United States, the foundation of their
health is their safety. Congress' passage of the reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act was one of the most important legislative
accomplishments for women in the 109th Congress. Unfortunately,
violence against women is still all too common in our country. Nearly
one in every four women experiences at least one physical assault by a
partner during adulthood. Yet, only one in every seven (14 percent)
domestic assaults comes to the attention of police. Four out of ten
victims of domestic violence live in households with young children,
who most likely witness the abuse.
For women of color and immigrant women, the effects of domestic
violence can be exacerbated by spouses who control their immigration
status and services that are not linguistically or culturally
competent. I worked very hard with my colleagues throughout the long
process of drafting VAWA to make sure that the unique needs of
communities of color were addressed in the bill.
Two provisions that I authored to help women of color who are
victims of violence were included in the final version of VAWA. One of
my provisions will provide funding for programs that educate minority
and immigrant communities on how to prevent domestic violence and let
them know what services are available to victims. The second provision
I authored will help communities establish specialized domestic
violence courts in order to expedite the processing of domestic
violence cases. Specialized domestic violence courts have been proven
to cut the processing time of domestic violence court cases, decrease
the backlog of court cases, raise the conviction rate and lower the
rate of repeat offenders. My provision will also provide funding for
translation and interpretation services in these courts.
We made significant improvements in VAWA 2005 for women of color
and immigrant women who are victims of violence, and Congress must
reinforce these provisions with increased funding. Unfortunately, the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal ignores the increased
funding levels that Congress laid out for VAWA programs. Instead, the
President is proposing to block grant the Department of Justice VAWA
programs and fund them at only $370 million, an increase of barely more
than $2 million to the overall funding for those programs. The full
funding level authorized for VAWA programs in the Department of Justice
for 2008 tops $600 million.
There is also a critical need to fund VAWA programs in the
Department of Health and Human Services that support direct services
and prevention programs. The President's budget proposes just over $176
million for these programs, and funding for these services has remained
roughly level for several years, despite an increase in the number of
victims coming forward. There are over 2,000 community-based domestic
violence programs across the United States that provide emergency
shelter to approximately 300,000 women and children annually, as well
as crucial services such as counseling, legal assistance, and
preventative education to millions of women, men, and children. These
services and other prevention and intervention efforts are authorized
at $320 million in VAWA 2005. Mr. Chairman, if we are really serious
about ending violence against women in our country, then we must live
up to the commitments made in VAWA 2005 and significantly increase
funding for these programs.
As the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues in
the 109th Congress, I helped lead letters to the Bush Administration
and appropriators in the House asking that VAWA be fully funded based
on the levels that Congress laid out in the reauthorization. At this
time, I would like to submit for the record a letter that the Women's
Caucus helped lead and was signed by 167 Members of Congress. This
letter was sent in July to the Department of Justice and the Department
of Health and Human Services asking that, in their recommendations to
the Office of Management and the Budget, VAWA be funded at the full
authorization levels. Unfortunately, the priorities of more than one-
third of Congress are not shared by the Bush Administration, and
instead they have transmitted this dead-on-arrival proposal to stagnate
VAWA funds and block grants the few funds they propose.
I urge you to act in the best interest of women and children around
the country who are victims of domestic violence and reject the
President's ill-conceived VAWA block grants and his flat funding for
VAWA programs. Women and children, including and especially immigrant
women and communities of color, need Congress and the Bush
Administration to fully fund the improvements made in VAWA 2005. I look
forward to working with you and your colleagues, Mr. Chairman, as you
craft a more sensible and balanced budget resolution that better meets
the needs of women and children who are victims of violence.
PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE--SECURING HIGHER EDUCATION
Education is the key to opportunity for all who live in America.
This is particularly true for Latino and other minority and low income
students. However, I am concerned that the President's budget
terminates various key need-based student aid programs, such as the low
interest Perkins Loan program, the Leveraging Educational Assistance
Program (LEAP), and the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
(SEOG) program.
As tuition fees at schools increase, the Administration's cuts in
student aid will put college further out of reach for many low-income
students. For many low income working class students, financial
barriers are the determining factor in whether or not they will
successfully complete college. Instead of helping allow our students
achieve greater college access, this budget does little to close the
college gap.
CONCLUSION
Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan and Members of the Committee,
thank you again for allowing me to speak with you today about budget
priorities for Fiscal Year 2008. I respect the difficult task which
lies ahead and urge my colleagues to place a strong investment in
public health care, the environment, and education. Simply put, we must
prioritize investments in these areas in order to guarantee a healthy,
productive future generation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stupak follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Michigan
Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan, thank you for allowing
Members of the House to testify before the Budget Committee. I know
that assembling a budget that meets the needs of working class
Americans after six years of deficit spending is no simple task. I
appreciate this opportunity to share with you my thoughts on the
President's Fiscal Year 2008 budget request and where Congress should
be investing more.
SOO LOCKS
First, I would like to speak to a critical infrastructure project
that the President has left out of his budget the past six years. The
Soo Locks divide two Great Lakes: Superior and Huron. The Locks are
made up of four locks that play a vital role in moving freight through
the upper Great Lakes. Each year, more than 80 million tons of freight
move through the Locks.
As lake vessels have grown in carrying capacity and size, the
existing large lock, the Poe, is the only one which can accommodate
their massive frames. Two-thirds of the carrying capacity of the U.S.
Great Lakes fleet is now limited to the Poe lock. If the Poe Lock were
rendered unusable for any reason, it would disable industry in the
Great Lakes, halting the shipment of ore, coal, wheat, and other
commodities. The steel industry would be especially hard hit as 70
percent of all raw materials used in the steel industry travel through
the Soo Locks. This would create significant economic and homeland
security problems. Recognizing this, in 1986, Congress authorized the
construction of a new large lock to replace the old and outmoded Davis
and Sabin locks.
Despite the economic and homeland security concerns created by the
current situation at the Soo Locks, the President continues to ignore
the need to construct a new lock. The Administration's FY 2008 Budget
does not contain any funding for this important construction project,
which is estimated to cost the federal government $250 million. I am
hopeful the Budget Committee and Congress will see the wisdom in
funding this project appropriately this year. Every year we delay
building a new lock, the situation becomes more dire, and the cost to
build a new lock only increases.
DREDGING POLICY
Moving to another Army Corps of Engineers issue, in 2006, the
Administration began implementing new budget guidelines for maintenance
dredging of commercial harbors. By using a standard based on the
tonnage handled, harbors that do not move a large tonnage but are still
important to the economic success of rural areas are excluded from the
President's budget.
These highly inadequate guidelines are unfairly biased against
rural communities and will have a detrimental effect on small-town,
rural America, causing job losses, increased hardship for businesses,
and endanger shipping infrastructure. In setting this policy, the Corps
also disregards the fact that approximately two-thirds of all shipping
in the United States either starts or finishes at small ports.
During House consideration of H.R. 2864, the U.S. House of
Representatives' WRDA bill, I offered an amendment requiring the Corps
to eliminate this tonnage standard. While the amendment was included,
Congress did not complete work on the WRDA bill before the end of the
109th Congress. As a result, the President's FY 2008 Budget continues
to discriminate against commercial harbors in rural communities.
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
I would like to turn to another budget item of interest to rural
communities: the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Across the country,
communities are struggling to replace aging waste water infrastructure.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund plays an important role in helping
communities afford updates to their aging infrastructure.
Unfortunately, President Bush has repeatedly slashed funding for this
program in his budgets.
The President's FY 2008 budget includes only $688 million for the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a $200 million cut compared to FY2006
and nearly a $400 million cut compared to the $1.08 billion Democrats
included in the FY2007 CR. In Michigan, the President's cuts would mean
$8.5 million less for important waste water infrastructure projects
compared to FY2006. If the President's proposal is enacted, Michigan
would receive $28.4 million less in FY 2008 than the state received in
FY 2001. We need to invest in our waste water infrastructure, to ensure
the health of the Great Lakes, which is the source of drinking water
for 30 million people.
PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Another important program the President repeatedly under funds is
the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT, program. National Forests, as
well as other federal lands, lead to a reduced tax base in several
Northern Michigan counties. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program
is important in helping these local communities afford schools, roads,
fire fighting, police, and other vital services.
In his FY 2007 and FY 2008 budget requests, President Bush has
neglected this important program, requesting significantly less than
needed. In FY 2007, the President requested only $198 million, a 15
percent decrease compared to FY 2006. In FY 2008, the President has
proposed an even larger cut, requesting only $190 million. This $43
million cut will significantly limit the ability of local governments
in Northern Michigan to provide the basic services residents depend on.
TAA
In addition to federal programs to help communities make
infrastructure improvements, the President's budget cuts important job
training and education programs helping to revitalize our economy. One
very important program is Trade Adjustment Assistance. The TAA program
provides workers negatively impacted by trade with job retraining, job
search and relocation allowances, income support and other reemployment
services.
Unfortunately, too often communities in my district have run out of
TAA funding. I have repeatedly contacted the Department of Labor to
assist the State of Michigan in receiving supplemental funds. Despite
the shortfalls repeatedly faced by Michigan and other areas, the
President has requested flat funding for the TAA training program the
last three years, requesting $260 million again for 2008. At a minimum,
we owe our workers adversely affected by this country's trade policy,
or lack thereof, adequate job training.
MEP
Similarly, we owe our small businesses who are competing globally a
fair shake.
I urge the committee to adequately fund the Manufacturer Extension
Partnership (MEP) program. I don't know what Congress needs to do to
make the Administration understand the importance of this program to
our small manufacturers. I hope this is an issue the budget committee
can address in your budget hearings with the administration, and I
respectfully ask you to provide a needed increase for this program.
I would now like to turn to health and education priorities that
deserve Committee consideration.
BJ STUPAK OLYMPIC SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
The Olympic Scholarship Program was established by Congress in
1992. I have championed it since it was created, and offered an
amendment to re-authorize it in 1998. It was subsequently re-named the
BJ Stupak Olympic Scholarship Program after my late son.
The B.J. Stupak Olympic Scholarship Program is a federally-funded
scholarship program designed to provide financial assistance to college
athletes training at any of the four U.S. Olympic training centers: the
U.S. Olympic Education Center in Marquette, Michigan; and the Olympic
Training Centers at Lake Placid, New York; Colorado Springs, Colorado;
and Chula Vista, California, outside of San Diego. The Program is
designed to allow athletes to pursue their post-secondary education
while also training for the Olympics.
Prior to 1992, too many athletes had to choose between pursuing
their education and training for the Olympics. All too often, athletes
chose training and then found themselves at the end of their Olympic
careers with no post-secondary education and no career path.
This problem was so severe that the U.S. Olympic Alumni Association
identified it as a cause of great concern. Our Olympic athletes' plight
was in stark contrast with many collegiate athletes, who received
college and university scholarships because of their athletic skills.
The Program was re-authorized in 1998 for five years at up to $5
million per year, under Section 836 of the Higher Education Act of
1998. Due to the success of the program, the growth of the program has
outgrown its $1 million appropriations allocation the last six years.
Without an increase for inflation, the number of athletes receiving
scholarships will have to be substantially cut.
RURAL HEALTH
Rural hospitals and other health facilities are economic engines
for rural communities as they provide hundreds of good paying jobs.
Quality health care is also essential to keeping businesses and
attracting new businesses to rural America.
The Rural Hospital Flexibility Grants fund quality improvement and
emergency medical service projects for nearly 1,300 Critical Access
Hospitals across the Country. In essence, this program provides
technical assistance to the smallest hospitals in the Country who
provide critical care.
This program helps hospitals improve their business operations,
focus on quality improvement and help information privacy. The
President's budget eliminates this vital program. The National Rural
Health Association is requesting $49.2 million, and I am hopeful
Congress can see fit this program is adequately funded in 2008.
I wanted to highlight this program in particular, but I also want
to express my strong support for adequately funding the other health
care access programs within the Department of Health and Human
Services.
HOMELAND SECURITY
Our job in Congress is to promote the health and welfare of our
citizens. But we have no higher job than to keep our citizens safe. I'm
gravely concerned about the 42 percent cut to first responder funding
at the Department of Homeland Security, adding up to a $985 million cut
to first responder grants and state assistance. As a former law
enforcement officer and a co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, I
hear every day from local police and firefighters. This budget is an
insult to them!
These individuals are on the front lines in responding to natural
disasters and protecting our nation from terrorism and crime. We need
to support them in their efforts.
Instead, the President's budget cuts over $1 billion from critical
programs--$338 million from State Homeland Security Grants, $112
million from Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grants, $362 million
from Assistance for Firefighters, and over $680 million from COPS and
Byrne. Congress should reject these cuts, especially in light of the
recently-passed Democratic 9/11 Commission Implementation bill, which
re-affirmed the critical importance of first responders in preventing
terrorism.
All of these local first responder programs are success stories,
and all of them are essential to the ability of local first responders
to keep our communities and our nation safe. Congress needs to begin
reversing this disturbing trend of cutting first responder funding, in
all areas, but particularly in the area of first responder
communications.
INTEROPERABILITY TRUST FUND
I would like to highlight one new program that many members of this
committee may not be aware of. As part of the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005, Congress mandated that a section of very valuable spectrum, or
public airwaves, be auctioned off at the end of 2007. This spectrum is
worth billions of dollars. The CBO estimated $10 billion. But I can
assure you the industry knows that spectrum will be auctioned off for
at least twice as much.
Congress had a choice then about whether to use those proceeds to
fund interoperable communications for our first responders or tax cuts
for millionaires. You know what past Congresses have chosen.
On a tie-vote, an amendment I offered in Committee to create a $5.8
billion grant program, was defeated. My amendment would have made a
down payment on what is estimated to be an $18 billion problem.
Ultimately, a $1 billion grant program was created. This is a one-time
$1 billion grant program, with grants to be awarded this fall.
I have legislation to make a permanent grant program at NTIA and
fund that program with a portion of spectrum proceeds. We should solve
this problem once and for all. How many more September 11th and
Katrinas do we have to endure before our first responders can
effectively communicate and do their jobs?
Now, I know we are in a difficult fiscal situation. But, as I said
this spectrum that we are auctioning this year is worth $20 billion.
The CBO estimated it was worth $10 billion. This is the time to use
those dollars to adequately equip our first responders.
FEDERAL COURT HOUSES
I would like to move to another security concern. I also ask that
the Committee consider increasing funding for courthouse construction
activities funded through the Federal Building Fund (FBF).
There are dozens of federal courthouses across the nation in urgent
need of renovation or replacement. Some of these facilities have not
been significantly updated in more than half a century. These outdated
courthouses not only interfere with the federal judicial process; in
some cases, major security problems put federal judges and employees at
risk on a daily basis.
In 1997, The Judicial Conference of the United States identified
and prioritized 45 courthouse construction projects to be funded by
Congress. This plan aimed to clear the courthouse backlog by 2009.
However, under-funding has repeatedly stalled this effort. The
President's budget provides only $47 million for FY2008--enough to fund
only one of the dozens of courthouse projects currently needing
attention.
I ask that the Committee fund courthouse construction efforts at
the full amount requested by the Judicial Conference of the United
States. The problem of outdated federal courts has been ignored for too
long. Courthouse modernization is essential to the safety of federal
judges and court officers, and should be a high priority of this
Congress.
I have been a strong advocate for investing in courthouse
construction because my district's federal courthouse in Marquette, MI,
urgently needs to be replaced. The Marquette Courthouse is over 70
years old and lacks adequate security, making it unsafe for Court
employees and the public.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before your
committee today. I am happy to take questions.
[Whereupon, at 6:41 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
<all>