.0915
.0915 -- (House of Representatives - May 19, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us will allow the House to consider the fiscal year 2007 Military Quality of Life and Veterans Administration Appropriations bill. All Members know that the support in this bill for military housing, for veterans' health care, and for retiree benefits is part of the promise we made to the men and women when they joined our Armed Forces.
As we consider this bill, there should be little disagreement over the tremendous demands being placed on the Veterans Administration and on the military construction accounts.
In 1995, the VA treated 2.6 million veterans and their families. By the end of this year, that number will have more than doubled to an estimated 5.4 million people. This places additional stress on the many hospitals and the VA network. These World War II-era buildings are badly in need of upgrades at the cost of billions over the next 5 to 10 years.
It was for this reason, increased strain in time of war, that the Democrats have consistently criticized the administration's less-than-adequate funding for veterans and veterans' health care.
Last year, the administration admitted to accounting errors which underestimated the demand for veterans' services by $3 billion in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. It turned out that the administration had failed to account for the new veterans, those returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After Democrats, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and many other veterans organizations expressed outrage, steps were taken retroactively to address the shortfall.
With that backdrop, this year's appropriations bill does increase veterans' medical services by $2.6 billion over last year's amount. Unfortunately, it does so by employing a budget gimmick.
This year's shortsighted budget did not provide full funding to meet this Nation's veterans' health care needs in a time of war. So the Military Quality of Life Appropriations Subcommittee was forced to boost money for veterans using money originally designated for military housing and then pay for military housing by declaring that money emergency funding.
In truth, it was no emergency. It was simply a shell game that ignored the principle of shared sacrifice upon which our Nation has relied in every other time of war, except this one. These budget gimmicks should come as no surprise. Even to the casual observer, this majority has shown disregard for budget matters. After all, 3 years into the Iraq War, the administration and this majority continue to fund it with ``emergency spending.''
We are using a credit card to pay for war and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the only reason this bill comes close to meeting the health needs of so many veterans is because of this gimmick. And the bill pays for construction of some housing for military families, but again only because of this gimmick. Many Members on both sides of the aisle are frustrated with this approach.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government cannot go back on our responsibility to support our troops, assist their families, and continue our commitment to the veterans. This responsibility is particularly important in a time of war. With troops fighting the war in Iraq, they should not be the only ones to make sacrifices; they must be shared by all Americans. No loopholes for a select few, no kicking the can down the road for another generation to deal with by way of increasing the national debt.
In cities and towns across America, our constituents notice when Congress uses these gimmicks. My local paper, in fact, hit on this very theme of sacrifice in time of war earlier this week, and I include for the RECORD an editorial from the Sacramento Bee. Its title says it all: ``Where's the Sacrifice.'' I could not agree more.
[From the Sacramento Bee, May 16, 2006]
Where's the Sacrifice?
The Republican majority in Congress wants to go into the November elections bragging that they've cut taxes again. The House and Senate just extended record-high Bush tax cuts until 2010. They call it a political victory.
Will the American people really buy this one-note chant again?
It represents the triumph of rigid ideology over practical reality.
At a time of war, these members of Congress are demanding sacrifice only of the young people fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The tax cuts of 2001, 2002 and 2003 have given us record-high deficits and debt, driving this country into a financial mess political leaders are passing on to future generations.
The tax cutters rely on two fallacious arguments.
The first is the ``starve the beast'' idea. Tax cuts, the theory goes, will reduce government revenues and choke off government spending, making government smaller. Even conservative economists now reject that hypothesis. For example, economists William Niskanen and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute show convincingly that since 1981, for each one percentage point decline in tax revenues, federal spending increases by about one-half percent of GDP. Government spending grows because tax cuts make government look cheaper than it actually is, so people want more of it. A tax increase does a better job of reducing government because it forces people to pay for government services.
At least ``starve the beast'' proponents were honest in saying that tax cuts would reduce government revenues.
Today you have members of Congress actually saying the opposite: ``Lower tax rates equal more federal revenue.'' The facts show otherwise. Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the U.S. economy since 1950. Where revenues typically have been 17 percent to 20 percent of the economy, in 2004 they were 16.3 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
A CBO report, ``Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates,'' shows that a 10 percent cut in income tax rates lowers revenues by $775 billion over 10 years.
So when tax cut proponents say that tax cuts benefit the Treasury, take it with a grain of salt.
The tax cut vote was a party line vote. Voters know whom to blame for the nation's financial mess come November.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Then I will proceed to my closing.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider three important amendments that were not included in this rule. These amendments will help fix the funding shortfalls in this bill.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of these amendments and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. The first amendment by Ranking Member Obey would pay for the $507 million cost for 20 routine military construction projects instead of designating them as ``emergency spending'' so that the funding would not count against the bill's allocation.
The Obey amendment pays for the 20 projects by reducing the tax cuts for people making more than $1 million a year by $1,400 or 1 percent.
The second amendment by subcommittee Ranking Member Edwards provides the $735 million needed to fully fund the Defense Health Program throughout the next year. The cost of the amendment is offset by reducing by 2 percent the tax cut for those making over $1 million annually.
The third amendment by Representative Farr, would increase veterans health care by $1.82 billion and pay for it by reducing the average tax cut for those with incomes above $1 million a year by about $5,000, leaving them with $109,025,
Mr. Speaker, these amendments together will help us meet the obligations we have to the members of our military, our veterans and their families. This Nation made a promise to those serving in the military that they would receive quality health care in return for their valiant service to this country, and now that wounded soldiers are returning to their homes, they deserve the best medical treatment and care available.
We can fix this today if we allow these amendments to be considered on the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the previous question.
I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Military Quality of Life Veterans Appropriations bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote on these important amendments.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/