DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 08, 2004)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 754 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5006.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, as usual, the next 2 days of debate on the Labor-HHS education bill will be instructive.
First, the basics. We will authorize in this bill spending of $142 billion plus for health, for education and for the American workers of this country in three major departments. This amounts to $3 billion more than we spent last year, Mr. Chairman, an increase in the discretionary spending in these 3 areas of 2.4 percent. At the same time, we are keeping it within the subcommittee allocation and the limits of the budget resolution, and I think the chairman is to be commended for that.
I have enormous respect for the leadership of this subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, certainly for the chairman, but also for my friend on the Democratic side who just spoke and for the ranking minority member.
What we will hear today amounts to sincerely held views and what it really comes down to, in the long run, is a difference in philosophy.
I have been on this subcommittee for 10 years now, the 10 years that the Republicans have been in the majority in this Congress. And each year when this bill comes up, the majority puts forward a bill that spends an amount of money over and above the last year, and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle object to the bill based on the fact that they would like to spend more money and tax more.
When they object to the bill, Mr. Chairman, they will often say that it is not really the fault of the leadership of this committee, not the fault of the chairman of the full committee or the subcommittee; that it is the underlying budget we adopted earlier which is at fault. What they really mean when they say this is that they wish a budget had been adopted so that taxes could be higher and that Federal spending could be higher, and indeed, that is the basic difference in philosophy on the two sides of the aisle.
Beginning in 2001, when we realized we were coming into a recession, and then certainly after 9/11 and the tragedy and the cost of that event, this majority on the Republican side decided to reduce the tax burden on Americans, reduce the tax burden on families with children, reduce the tax burden on married couples by eliminating the marriage penalty, reduce the tax burden on lower income workers and on every American who pays income tax, and, yes, to reduce taxes on the job creators.
What has that gotten us during this time? What it has gotten us, according to Chairman Greenspan's testimony before the Committee on the Budget just this morning? Chairman Greenspan said, We are in a period of moderate to excellent economic growth and the shallowest recession in postwar history.
I would submit that this is the program we need, and is why we have adopted the budget and why we should adopt the bill today.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT