[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MEMBERS' DAY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 6, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=budget
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-207 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman
TOM PRICE, Georgia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland,
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
JOHN CAMPBELL, California ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TOM COLE, Oklahoma BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
TOM McCLINTOCK, California TIM RYAN, Ohio
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee KATHY CASTOR, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
BILL FLORES, Texas BARBARA LEE, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ROB WOODALL, Georgia HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia JARED HUFFMAN, California
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri TONY CARDENAS, California
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
LUKE MESSER, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
TOM RICE, South Carolina
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin
Professional Staff
Austin Smythe, Staff Director
Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC, March 6, 2013.................... 1
Hon. Dennis A. Ross, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 5
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas................................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Hon. Steve Daines, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Montana........................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Hon. Ami Bera, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California................................................. 13
Hon. Scott DesJarlais, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee......................................... 14
Hon. Richard Nugent, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 16
Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 17
Hon. Scott Peters, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 19
Hon. Randy Neugebauer, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 21
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Kentucky.......................................... 24
Hon. Bradley S. Schneider, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Illinois...................................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Hon. Paul D. Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Hon. John C. Carney, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Delaware...................................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Hon. Joe Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the State
of South Carolina.......................................... 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Hon. Jim McDermott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 37
Hon. Keith Ellison, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 38
Hon. Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 40
Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut....................................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Hon. Joe Courtney, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut....................................... 44
Graph: ``S&P Medicare Index''............................ 47
Hon. Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia...................................... 47
Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Nevada.................................................. 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Hon. Ron Barber, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Hon. Matt Salmon, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Hon. Andy Barr, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Kentucky................................................ 58
Prepared statement of.................................... 60
Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Mexico............................... 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Washington.............................................. 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Hon. Bill Foster, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois................................................ 68
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Additional statements submitted for the record:
Hon. Julia Brownley, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California................................ 70
Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois...................................... 71
Hon. Judy Chu, Chair, Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus (CAPAC)................................ 72
Hon. Danny K. Davis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Illinois.................................. 76
Hon. Suzan K. DelBene, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington................................ 78
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio...................................... 79
Hon. Tulsi Gabbard, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii........................................ 82
Hon. William R. Keating, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Massachusetts........................ 82
Letter, dated Mar. 11, 2013, from Hon. Ben Ray Lujan, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico 84
Hon. Gloria Negrete McLeod, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California........................... 86
Hon. Markwayne Mullin, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Oklahoma.................................. 87
Hon. Robert Pittenger, a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina............................ 88
Hon. Martha Roby, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alabama....................................... 88
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois............................. 89
Hon. Carol Shea-Porter, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Hampshire............................. 90
MEMBERS' DAY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in room
210, Cannon Office Building, Hon. Vicky Hartzler, presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Hartzler, Warlorski,
Rice, Van Hollen, McDermott, Cicilline, Pocan, Lujan Grisham,
and Blumenauer.
Mrs. Hartzler. This hearing will come to order. Good
morning and welcome to the Budget Committee Members Day
hearing.
Before we begin, as it looks like we are scheduled to have
votes early this afternoon, so I ask unanimous consent that
consistent with clause 4 of House rule 16, the chairman is
authorized to declare a recess at any time. Without objection,
the request is agreed to.
This is a hearing we hold every year to hear from our
colleagues about their views on the budget. This hearing is
directed by section 301(e)(1) of the Budget Act, and its intent
is to bring about a forum in which members can relay their
priorities for their district, for their State, and indeed for
our country.
We are pleased to have a diverse group of members from both
sides of the aisle who are scheduled to make presentations, and
we look forward to receiving their testimony.
Before we begin, I would like to turn to my colleague, Mr.
Blumenauer and see if you have any comments you would like to
make.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to
hearing from our colleagues. It is interesting every year to
have an opportunity for people to share with us their
priorities. We all agree that it is vital to reduce the deficit
over the next decade, using a steady and predictable approach.
I am hopeful that we will be able to use this opportunity to
look at what is in the best interests not only for our
constituents, but for the country as a whole now and in the
future.
Crafting a budget resolution is an exercise in
demonstrating priorities. Mr. Van Hollen, were he here--he is,
unfortunately, unable to be at two places at once. I know he is
coming back from the Capitol and the leadership meeting--will
be talking about focusing on job creation, continuing an
economic recovery that we have all worked hard on the last few
years.
I think it is clear that the sequester is exactly the wrong
thing for the country to do right now. According to the CBO, it
is going to cost in the neighborhood of three-quarters of a
million jobs in this year alone and reduce the economic growth
that we could otherwise expect by about a third.
Mr. Van Hollen will be putting forth a budget alternative
that my Democratic colleagues will be working with him to
develop to replace the sequester with an equal amount of
deficit reduction but is obtained in a more balanced way. And
that will be a theme you will hear throughout these
deliberations, thinking about being able to do it in a balanced
and thoughtful way. The overwhelming majority of the American
public, according to public opinion surveys and I think common
sense, approach this hoping that we will be able in a balanced,
bipartisan way to make some progress.
I look forward to participating here with you and perhaps
circling back later in the day to share some of my own biases.
Mrs. Hartzler. It sounds very good. Thank you very much,
Mr. Blumenauer.
As a reminder, members will have 5 minutes to give their
oral testimony, and their written statements will be submitted
for the record. Additionally, members of the committee will be
permitted to question the witness following their statements,
but out of consideration of our colleagues' time and to
expedite today's proceedings, I ask that you please keep your
comments brief.
I now will call our first witness, Mr. Dennis Ross from
Florida. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you members
of the Budget Committee for your time and opportunity today to
engage in this dialogue regarding the budget.
I have introduced H.R. 239, the Zero-Based Budgeting
Ensures Responsible Oversight, or ZERO, Act which requires
agencies and departments to draft their budgets starting at a
zero baseline instead of current funding levels as they do
today. To do that, my bill requires every department under the
President's budget to Congress to provide four things.
First, they must provide a description of each activity
that requires an appropriation from Congress.
Second, they must cite to Congress the legal basis under
which they may lawfully receive an appropriation.
Third, they must offer three alternative funding levels.
And fourth and finally, they must provide a summary of the
cost effectiveness to the taxpayer for each activity that
requires an appropriation from Congress.
This is to ensure that every expenditure is justified.
Removing the baseline from agency and department budgets and
implementing zero-based budgeting instead would get rid of the
automatic spending increases that encourage increased spending.
For these reasons, I would like to speak to you about the
budget process reform and the need to pass the ZERO Act into
law.
As the Citizens Against Government Waste explained in their
support of my bill, quote, baseline budgeting is one of the
most sinister ways that politicians claim to cut spending when
they are actually increasing spending. For example, if an
agency's budget is projected to grow by $100 million but only
grows by $75 million, according to baseline budgeting, that
agency sustained a $25 million cut. That is equivalent to
someone who expects to gain 100 pounds but only gains 75 pounds
and then says, well, I have lost 25 pounds. The Federal
Government is the only place where this absurd logic is
employed.
Zero-based budgeting has been widely successful with State
and local governments. Since 2008, Idaho has taken zero-
budgeting one step forward and used it as a tool to prioritize
programs based on statutory requirements. Under the direction
of Governor Butch Otter, the Idaho Budget Bureau is identifying
programs and activities outside of the central mission of the
agency, eliminating or moving programs to other agencies that
are not in line with the central mission of the agency and has
been able to better prioritize agency resources and functions
accordingly. Idaho has used zero-based budgeting for strategic
planning and prioritizing, which has put agencies in a better
position to make recommendations when faced with tough budget
cuts.
We just took a $42 billion across-the-board cut without any
attempt to prioritize agency and department missions.
Sequestration was bad policy and we could have avoided it had
we addressed the cuts ahead of time. If Congress had used the
zero-based budgeting application, as required under H.R. 239,
and given agencies and the departments a chance to review their
activities and streamline duplicative programs, we would not be
in this battle of who to blame over sequestration and our
finances would be better for it.
Furthermore, zero-based budgeting also has support across
the aisles. Initially introduced in the 1970's, the
administration then implemented a zero-based budgeting to
control expenditures within the agencies' budgets. In 1976
under a Democrat-controlled Congress, appropriating committees
selected independent agencies to test the applicability of
zero-based budgeting, and the agency requests were available
for review by the authorizing committees. Agencies were
required to consider alternative levels of funding for
discretionary programs, sometimes three to four alternatives,
and the practice lasted until 1994. My bill requires very
similar details.
With America facing $16 trillion in debt and credit rating
agencies demanding that we put ourselves on a path to pay off
debt to remain creditworthy, it is time to rethink how Congress
writes our budgets. If American families and businesses know
how to assess their spending and programs every year, so should
Congress. It is imperative that we do away with the baseline
budgeting tricks and gimmicks and become better stewards of the
taxpayer money.
I urge the committee to pass H.R. 239, the ZERO Act, to
smoke out waste in the Federal agencies and departments and put
taxpayers back in check.
I thank you for this opportunity and yield back the balance
of my time.
[The prepared statement of Dennis Ross follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis A. Ross, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Florida
Thank you members of the Budget Committee for your time and for
this opportunity to engage in the dialogue regarding the budget.
I have introduced H.R. 239, the Zero-based-budgeting Ensures
Responsible Oversight, or ZERO Act, which requires agencies and
departments to draft their budgets starting at a zero baseline, instead
of current funding levels as they do today. To do that, my bill
requires every department under the President's Budget to Congress to
provide four things:
1. Provide a description of each activity that requires an
appropriation from Congress;
2. Cite to Congress the legal basis under which they may lawfully
receive an appropriation;
3. Offer three alternative funding levels;
4. Provide a summary of the cost effectiveness to the taxpayer for
each activity that requires an appropriation from Congress.
This is to ensure that every expenditure is justified. Removing the
baseline from agency and department budgets and implementing zero-based
budgeting instead would get rid of the automatic spending increases
that encourage increased spending. For these reasons, I would like to
speak to you about budget process reform and the need to pass the ZERO
Act into law.
As the Citizens Against Government Waste explained in their support
of my bill, HR 239:
``Baseline budgeting is one of the most sinister ways that
politicians claim to cut spending when they are actually increasing
spending. For example, if an agency's budget is projected to grow by
$100 million, but only grows by $75 million, according to baseline
budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million cut. That is equivalent
to someone who expects to gain 100 pounds [but] only gaining 75 pounds
[and takes] credit for losing 25 pounds. The federal government is the
only place where this absurd logic is employed.''
Zero-based budgeting has been widely successful with state and
local governments.
Since 2008, Idaho has taken zero-based budgeting one step forward
and used it as a tool to prioritize programs based on statutory
requirements. Under the direction of Governor Butch Otter, the Idaho
Budget Bureau is identifying programs and activities outside of the
central mission of the agency, eliminating or moving programs to other
agencies that are not in line with the central mission of the agency,
and has been able to better prioritize agency resources and functions
accordingly. Idaho has used zero-based budgeting for strategic planning
and prioritizing, which has put agencies in a better position to make
recommendations when faced with tough budget cuts.
We just took a $42 billion across-the-board cut without any attempt
to prioritize agency and department missions and functions.
Sequestration was bad policy and could have been avoided if we had
addressed cuts ahead of time. If Congress had used the zero-based
budgeting as required under H.R. 239 and given agencies and departments
a chance to review their activities and streamline duplicative
programs, we would not be in this battle of who to blame over
sequestration. And our finances would be better for it.
Furthermore, zero-based budgeting also has support across the
aisles.
Initially introduced the late 1970s, the Administration then
implemented zero-based budgeting to control expenditures within
agencies' budgets. In 1976, under a Democratic Congress, appropriating
committees asked selected independent agencies to test the
applicability of zero-based budgeting, and the agency requests were
available for review by the authorizing committees. Agencies were
required to consider alternate levels of funding for discretionary
programs, sometimes three to four different alternatives, and the
practice lasted until 1994. H.R. 239 requires very similar details.
With America facing $16 trillion in debt, and credit rating
agencies demanding that we put ourselves on a path to pay off that debt
to remain credit-worthy, it is time to re-think how Congress writes our
budgets. If American families and business know how to assess their
spending and programs every year, so should Congress. It is imperative
that we do away with the baseline budgeting tricks and gimmicks and
become better stewards of the taxpayer's money. I urge the committee to
pass H.R. 239, the ZERO Act, to smoke out waste in the federal agencies
and departments and put taxpayer spending in check.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
addendum
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste,
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 1075,
Washington, DC, February 8, 2013.
U.S. Representative, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative: Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) has introduced H.R.
239, the Zero-based budgeting Ensures Responsibility (ZERO) Act, which
would require that all departments and agencies in the federal
government switch from baseline budgeting to zero-based budgeting. On
behalf of the more than one million members and supporters of the
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I urge you to
support this legislation.
Baseline budgeting is one of the most sinister ways that
politicians claim to cut spending when they are actually increasing
spending. The Congressional Budget Office defines the baseline as a
benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in
federal revenue or spending, with the assumption that current budgetary
policies or current services are continued without change. Baseline
budgeting, therefore, builds automatic future spending increases into
Congress's budgetary forecasts and tilts the budget process in favor of
increased spending and taxes. For example, if an agency's budget is
projected to grow by $100 million, but only grows by $75 million,
according to baseline budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million
cut. That is equivalent to someone who expects to gain 100 pounds only
gaining 75 pounds taking credit for losing 25 pounds. The federal
government is the only place where this absurd logic is employed.
H.R. 239 would require that, effective January 1, 2015, all
departments and agencies of the government utilize zero-based
budgeting. The ZERO Act additionally requires that each department and
agency provide a description of each activity that requires an
appropriation from Congress; cite to Congress the legal basis under
which they may lawfully receive an appropriation; offer three
alternative funding levels; and provide a summary of the cost
effectiveness and efficiency to the taxpayer for each activity that
requires an appropriation from Congress.
Eliminating the inflated budget baseline will force Congress to
justify and account for increased spending instead of hiding behind
automatic increases. I urge you to support the ZERO Act. All votes on
H.R. 239 will be among those considered in CCAGW's 2013
Congressional Ratings.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Schatz, President,
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Ross.
Do we have any questions for the witness?
All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Blumenauer. Madam Chair, as we are waiting for our next
witness, I might just share some observations that I was going
to offer later in the hearing, if that is all right.
Mrs. Hartzler. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Blumenauer. This is one of the opportunities for us to
enter into the record our own thoughts and observations before
we move forward into the more formalized efforts before the
committee.
I have a personal desire that--maybe it is a hope that at
some point there is a chance to go back and forth on the Budget
Committee not so much in terms of the way that we have done it
in the past, but opportunities to really as a committee, at
least informally, zero in on areas where there might actually
be some agreement.
I am personally keenly interested in our being able to, in
this committee, deal with some of the aspects of the defense
budget. Here is an area where I think all of us decry the
effects of sequestration, sort of the meat axe approach. We all
agree that we want the United States to have unparalleled
military might and the ability to protect and defend this
country, but I think most of us would agree that we are
spending too much for the wrong people to do the wrong things.
We have a nuclear arsenal that is going to cost about
three-quarters of a trillion dollars this next 10 years, and
much of it is directed towards the threats of the Cold War and
the former Soviet Union, long after that ceased to exist. We
have probably conservatively 10 times the nuclear weapons that
are necessary to deter anybody on the planet and render their
country uninhabitable. We are maintaining not one, not two, but
three redundant delivery systems, nuclear submarines, bombers,
and land-base missiles, again far more than we need and
candidly far more than we can afford. We have not used these
devices in 68 years. All this redundancy piles up costs and
does not help us for the threats that we face today, real
threats that have resulted in having two wars. We are dealing
with terrorism. We need to, I think, adjust that effort.
I hope that we stop defending east Germany from western
Russia.
I hope at some point we talk about how we come to grips
with the reality of an all-volunteer military and an all-
volunteer military that is as large as it is now. The costs in
the long run are as egregious as anything that we are facing
with other entitlements, and we really have not talked about
how we are going to cope with that, either right-sizing it or
providing more resources.
In the area of health care--and our friend, the chairman,
Mr. Ryan, has charts that talk about how the path we are on is
unsustainable. But the question is how do we change that path.
And there are many parts of the country where people have
already not only implemented health care reform, they are
accelerating it. And rather than having an ongoing debate to
minimize to try and get in the way of health care reform, we
should be accelerating it.
I represent a State, Oregon, where we have made a
commitment to the Federal Government to reduce our Medicare
spending 2 percent a year over the next 5 years, and the
Federal Government takes it seriously enough to have bet $1.9
billion that we can do it. If we did this nationally--and it is
being done in private clinics and in some areas of the
country--that would save more than the entire sum we are
talking about in sequestration over the next 10 years.
It has been a pleasure to work with Chairman Ryan over the
years on agricultural reform. I hope that we take the fact that
we have not yet reauthorized the bill and that the Budget
Committee might help shape some of this. I fully expect the
chairman will do something dealing with crop insurance, but
seeing if there are ways that we can accelerate that with
direct payments with crop insurance and sending messages that
we want.
And last but not least, I have talked with the chairman. I
have talked to the ranking member about this committee doing
something publicly about the infrastructure deficit that we
face where America is falling apart. The President mentioned
50,000 structurally unsound bridges. These are things that I
hope we are able to give attention to that will make a big
difference in this budget and beyond.
I appreciate the opportunity to be with you, share a few of
my biases. I look forward to working with the chair and the
ranking member.
And I yield back.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.
Are there any questions for our witness?
All right. Thank you very much for sitting in here and
helping with the hearing today.
Hello, Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. How are you?
Mrs. Hartzler. Very good. Glad you could make it. do you
have any comments that you would like to make?
Mr. Van Hollen. Just it is great to join with you to hear
testimony from our colleagues on ideas they have with respect
to the budget, how it affects our national priorities and local
priorities. So thank you.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sure, very good.
Our next witness is Representative Gene Green from Texas.
So please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Green. Thank you and good morning. I appreciate the
Budget Committee allowing us to have this opportunity again.
I am pleased to be here today to present my views on the
fiscal year 2013 budget resolution. This committee is faced
with many difficult choices as it crafts this year's
congressional budget. Democrats and Republicans must work
together to produce a budget that simultaneously helps meet our
economic, health care, energy, and social challenges.
My first concern is energy provisions. Madam Chairman, as
you craft the House Budget Committee and any budget
reconciliation directives, I want to state my strong opposition
to any efforts to single out the oil and natural gas industry
for tax increases. By repealing the existing tax incentives, we
will destroy thousands of small businesses across our country.
The average independent production company has only 12
employees, the definition of a true small business. The oil and
natural gas industry is also one of the largest employers in
our country, supporting more than 9.2 million jobs.
Madam Chairman and Ranking Member, it is important to
highlight that the U.S. oil and natural gas industry does not
receive tax subsidies. In fact, there is not a single targeted
tax credit in the Internal Revenue Code available to the oil
and natural gas industry. Yet, you would never know that given
how our administration and several of our colleagues
characterize the issue.
Instead, the U.S. oil and natural gas industry is allowed
to take deductions to cover the cost of doing business which
has been afforded to all businesses since the beginning of our
country's income tax system. In return, the industry delivers
$86 million a day to the Federal Government in revenue. Any
change to these tax incentives should be addressed in a
comprehensive tax reform.
That said, the United States needs to continue researching
and developing alternative energy sources which will lead us
away from our dependence on fossil fuels. I support bills that
will increase the funding to research and development projects
dealing with new and cleaner energy sources, as well as provide
financial incentives to produce energy from wind, solar,
biomass, geothermal and other sources.
And I would like to ask that a copy of a report that was
done by the Texas Alliance talking about not only oil and gas
taxes, but also fracking and a number of issues be placed in
the record.
Another priority in our district is the Port of Houston.
Our port is the largest foreign tonnage port and the largest
petrochemical port in the country. In fact, it moves the second
largest amount of cargo in the country. The commerce that
occurs in our port is critical to our Nation's energy and
chemical sectors and to our ability to trade and move goods
throughout our country.
The number one issue that faces support today and will face
support in the future is maintenance dredging by the Army Corps
of Engineers. In 1998, the Federal Government invested $700
million in deepening and widening the Houston ship channel, an
investment we have benefitted from tremendously. However, as
the years have passed, the silt has settled and reduced the
draft in the channel significantly. Today only .4 percent of
the channel is dredged to its proper depth across the entire
width of the channel. That is astounding and our Nation's
investment is rapidly deteriorating.
We have been fortunate to get funding that we received over
the past several years--last year an extra $700,000 for
maintenance dredging--for a total of just over $24 million was
included, and $100,000 of new funding was provided towards
studying the widening and deepening of the Houston ship channel
to the turning basin. An increase of $800,000 does not sound
like a lot and it is not, when the dredging needs alone are
near $60 million per year. But it is good to get an increase on
any program Government-wide when we are right for cuts.
I am asking you today that when this committee does write
its budget, that you include as much as possible for harbor
maintenance. As we confront the dual challenges of adapting
policies that create jobs and reduce the debt, funding for
dredging projects is an item that, while costly, will have more
than a positive impact on our economy than a negative impact on
our deficit.
The Texas Transportation Institute performed a study and
determined that direct economic impact of the loss of a 1-foot
draft costs $373 million. The majority of this impact is lost
business opportunities due to light loading of non-
containerized vessels. If the dredging crisis at the port
continues to worsen, this cost will quickly accelerate.
Another issue important in our area in southeast Texas is
NASA. It is difficult to overstate the importance of a robust
NASA program if the United States is to continue to be the
world leader in space exploration. I am frustrated by the
administrations' position over the last few years--and this has
been different administrations--to move away from NASA-led
human space flight towards commercial contracts. The multi-
purpose crew vehicle program and the space launch system must
be funded at current authorized levels if the multi-purpose
crew vehicle is to stay on track for 2014 exploration flight
test and the space launch system on track for the integrated
multiple purpose crew vessel flight demonstration in 2017.
Johnson Space Center is just outside our district and has a
long history of being a premier NASA installation. I am proud
of that legacy but concerned that NASA will disregard the law
passed by Congress and move away from the programs that ensure
NASA's future as the preeminent human space flight agency in
the world. Maintaining a commitment to these vehicles means our
country will continue to be a pioneer in science, technology,
and space flight. These crucial programs must be funded at the
levels authorized by Congress so that NASA has the resources
necessary to meet its deadlines.
I implore my colleagues and the administration to continue
to invest in our future by supporting NASA-led human space
flight.
Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity, and I will
be glad to yield back my time or answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Gene Green follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Texas
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen and Members of the
Committee: I am pleased to be here today to provide my views on the
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution.
This committee is faced with many difficult choices as it crafts
this year's congressional budget.
Democrats and Republicans must work together to produce a budget
that simultaneously helps meet our economic, health care, energy, and
social challenges.
energy provisions
Mr. Chairman, as you craft the House budget resolution and any
budget reconciliation directives, I want to state my strong opposition
to any efforts to single out the oil and natural gas industry for tax
increases.
By repealing the existing tax incentives, we would destroy
thousands of small businesses across our country. The average
independent production company has only 12 employees--the definition of
a true small business.
The oil and natural gas industry is also one of the largest
employers in our country, supporting more than 9.2 million jobs.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to highlight that the U.S. oil and
natural gas industry does not receive tax subsidies. In fact, there is
not a single targeted tax credit in the Internal Revenue Code available
to the oil and natural gas industry.
Yet, you would never know that given how the Administration and
several of our colleagues characterize the issue.
Instead, the U.S. oil and natural gas industry is allowed to take
deductions to recover the costs of doing business, which has been
afforded to all businesses since the beginning of our country's income
tax system.
In return, this industry delivers $86 million a day to the federal
government in revenue. Any changes to these tax incentives should be
addressed in the context of comprehensive tax reform.
That said, the United States needs to continue researching and
developing alternative energy sources which will lead us away from our
dependence on fossil fuels.
I support bills that would increase funding to research and
development projects dealing with new and cleaner energy sources as
well as provide financial incentives to produce energy from wind,
solar, biomass, geothermal, and other sources.
port of houston
Another priority in our district is the Port of Houston. Our Port
is the largest foreign tonnage port and the largest petrochemical port
in the country. In fact, it moves the second largest amount of cargo in
the country.
The commerce that occurs at our port is critical to our nation's
energy and chemical sectors and to our ability to trade and move goods
throughout our country.
The number one issue that faces the Port today and will face the
Port in the future is maintenance dredging by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
In 1998, the Federal Government invested $700 million in deepening
and widening the Houston Ship Channel. An investment we have benefitted
from tremendously.
However, as the years have passed silt has settled and reduced the
draft in the channel significantly. Today, only .4% of the channel is
dredged to its proper depth across the entire width of the channel.
That is astounding. Our nation's investment is rapidly deteriorating.
We have been fortunate to get the funding we have received over the
past several years.
Last year, an extra $700,000 for maintenance dredging for a total
of just over $24 million was included and $100,000 of new funding was
provided toward study on the widening and deepening of the Houston Ship
Channel to the Turning Basin.
An increase of $800,000 does not sound like a lot, and it's not,
when our dredging needs alone are near $60 million. But, it is good to
get an increase at all as every program, government-wide, is eyed for
cuts.
I am asking you today that when this committee does write its
budget that you include as much as possible for harbor maintenance.
As we confront the dual challenges of adopting policies that create
jobs and reduce the debt, funding for dredging projects is an item
that, while costly, will have more of a positive impact on our economy
than a negative impact on our deficit.
The Texas Transportation Institute performed a study and determined
that a direct economic impact of the loss of 1 foot of draft is $373
million.
The majority of this impact is lost business opportunities due to
light loading of non-containerized vessels. If the dredging crisis at
the port continues to worsen, this cost will quickly accelerate.
nasa
It is difficult to overstate the importance of a robust NASA
program if the United States is to continue to be the world leader in
space exploration.
I am frustrated by the Administration's decision over the last few
years to move away from NASA-led human space flight and towards
commercial contracts.
The Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) program and the Space Launch
System (SLS) must be funded at current authorized levels if the MPCV is
to stay on track for the 2014 Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) and the
SLS on track for the integrated MPCV-SLS flight demonstration,
Exploration Mission (EM)-1, in 2017.
Johnson Space Center, just outside our district, has a long history
of being a premiere NASA installation.
I am proud of that legacy, but concerned that NASA will disregard
the law passed by Congress and move away from programs that will ensure
NASA's future as the preeminent human space flight agency in the world.
Maintaining the commitment to MPCV and SLS means our country will
continue to be a pioneer in science, technology and space flight.
These crucial programs must be funded at the levels authorized by
Congress, so that NASA has the resources necessary to meet its
deadlines.
I implore my colleagues and the Obama Administration to continue to
invest in our future by supporting NASA-led human space flight.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Green.
Do we have any questions for our witness?
Okay, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate it.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Mrs. Hartzler. Now we will hear from the Honorable Steve
Daines from Montana.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for
inviting me here to testify.
As I sit before the Budget Committee this morning, I am
reminded of the reason I decided to run for Congress. It was
not because I was having a mid-life crisis. Rather, I realized
the severity of our national financial crisis and the damaging
impact it will have on my kids and my grandkids if responsible
action is not taken today.
Our Federal budget has been balanced just five times in the
past 50 years. This practice has resulted in our present $16
trillion-plus debt and it is simply unsustainable.
I come to Washington with a little different resume. I
spent the last 28 years in the private sector. I am not a
lawyer. I am engineer, and I know firsthand how important it is
not only to balance the budget which in the private sector--
that is just breaking even, but actually creating surpluses.
That is called a profit in the private sector. Balancing is not
enough. You actually have to generate more income than you
spend. Debt wears down any potential for growth and a business
will ultimately collapse under its pressure.
Further, I was motivated by competition and the competitive
forces of the free market. When I was in the private sector, I
woke up every morning knowing that if I did not give 100
percent effort and find ways to deliver value to our customers,
to be innovators, to continuously find ways to do more with
less, our competitors would beat us. The companies that I
worked for were held accountable for results we produced. That
is far different than what we have here in Washington with a
``spend it or lose it'' mentality as it comes to managing the
finances, and it is unfortunately very prevalent across this
institution.
Balancing the budget, demanding accountability, demanding
results, promoting efficiency. These principles are at the core
of the success in the private sector that are also championed
and adhered to by the people of Montana, which I represent. And
I believe it is time to bring these common sense principles
back to Washington.
I would also like to highlight that I believe the Federal
Government fundamentally has a spending problem. It is not a
revenue problem. As you know, the Congressional Budget Office
released a study last month that found that our Federal
revenues will exceed the 40-year average next year and will
remain above that average throughout the next decade. This will
occur even if Congress does not raise a single dollar in new
taxes. I strongly support reforming our tax code to make it
simpler, to make it fairer, and to promote economic growth, but
I believe this should be in a revenue neutral fashion.
Federal spending, on the other hand, will remain above
historic averages throughout the next decade. As all of you
know, the growth in entitlement spending is the primary driver
of this unsustainable spending and our escalating debt crisis.
We must enact cost-saving reforms to these programs to preserve
them for future generations without weakening the critical
services provided to today's beneficiaries. I have two
grandmothers--each are 94 years old--that depend on their
Medicare and their Social Security. This is not about touching
what Gramma gets. This is about ensuring that my four kids will
have something when they retire.
Lastly, as a Congress, I believe we too need to be
motivated. I supported the no budget/no pay legislation passed
in January and am pleased it appears to have motivated the
Senate to take up a budget for the first time in 4 years.
I believe we need to take this principle even one step
further--and this goes back to perhaps my private sector
instincts--by tying it to a balanced budget and making the
performance for pay standard permanent.
I recently introduced the Balanced Budget Accountability
Act which would terminate member pay after April 15th if our
respective chamber does not pass a budget that maintains a
glide path to balance by fiscal year 2023. That is the idea of
balance the budget within 10 years. In the private sector, if
you do not produce results, you do not get paid. I think it is
about time that Congress should be no different than the way it
operates out in the free markets, in the private sector.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward
to working with the Budget Committee as we work to balance the
budget and invigorate job creation and economic growth for this
country.
I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Steve Daines follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Daines, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Montana
Thank you Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen for inviting
me to testify. As I sit before the Budget Committee this morning I am
reminded of the reason I decided to run for Congress. It wasn't because
of a mid-life crisis; rather I realized the severity of our national
financial crisis and the damaging impact it will have on my children
and grandchildren, if responsible action is not taken today.
Our federal budget has been balanced in only five of the past 50
years. This practice has resulted in our present $16 trillion plus in
debt and is simply unsustainable. I have 28 years of experience in the
private sector, and I know firsthand how important it is not only to
balance the budget--which in the private sector, we'd call breaking
even--but in creating annual surpluses. Debt wears down any potential
for growth, and a business will ultimately collapse under its pressure.
Further, I was motivated by competition in the free market. I used
to wake up every day knowing that if I didn't give 100% effort and find
ways to deliver value to our customers, to innovate, and to
continuously find ways to do more with less, our competitors would beat
us. The companies I worked for were held accountable for the results we
produced. This is far different than the ``spend it or lose it''
mentality that unfortunately is prevalent throughout our federal
government.
Balancing the budget, demanding accountability and results,
promoting efficiency--these principles are at the core of success in
the private sector, and they are championed and adhered to by the
people of Montana. It is time to bring these commonsense principles to
Washington.
I would also like to highlight that the federal government has a
spending problem, not a revenue problem. As you know, the Congressional
Budget Office released a study last month that found that federal
revenues will exceed the 40 year average next year, and will remain
above the average throughout the next decade. This will occur even if
Congress does not raise a single dollar in new taxes. I strongly
support reforming our tax code to make it simpler and fairer and to
promote economic growth, but this should be done in a revenue-neutral
fashion.
Federal spending, on the other hand, will remain above the historic
average throughout the decade. As all of you know, the growth in
entitlement spending is the primary driver of this unsustainable
spending and our escalating debt crisis. We must enact cost-saving
reforms to these programs to preserve them for future generations,
without weakening the critical services provided to today's
beneficiaries.
Last, as a Congress, I believe we too need to be motivated. I
supported the No Budget, No Pay legislation passed in January and am
pleased that it appears to have motivated the Senate to take up a
budget for the first time in four years. I believe we need to take this
principle one step further by tying it to a balanced budget and making
the performance pay standard permanent. I recently introduced the
Balanced Budget Accountability Act, which would terminate member pay
after April 15 if our respective chamber does not pass a budget that
maintains a glide path to balance by fiscal year 2023. In the private
sector, if you don't produce results, you don't get paid. Congress
should be no different.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward to
working with the Budget Committee as we work to balance the budget and
invigorate job creation and economic growth in our country.
Mrs. Hartzler. You actually timed your comments so that it
came out exactly at 0.00. I have never seen that before. So for
a new Member of Congress, you are well suited to represent your
district. So thank you for your comments today. I appreciate
it.
Mr. Daines. Okay. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Hartzler. Now we will take a brief recess as we wait
for additional members to testify. This hearing is now in
recess, subject to the call of the chair.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Hartzler. I call this hearing back into session.
We are enjoying hearing from various members on their
priorities for our budget and their thoughts about our Nation's
financial condition. So we are glad that you are here today to
share your thoughts. I believe on our list, the order--we had
Mr. Ami Bera first. So if you would like to proceed, please go
ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMI BERA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Bera. Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank
you, Ranking Member. Members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on behalf of the residents
California's 7th Congressional District.
As you begin discussions towards fiscal year 2014's budget
resolution, I want to call your attention to two projects of
critical importance to Sacramento County: the Sacramento-
American River levee system and the Folsom Dam.
Sacramento, which sits where the Sacramento and American
Rivers converge near the Bay Delta, has the second highest
flood risk in the United States. A flood in the Sacramento
region would be devastating to 1.4 million people who live in
our metropolitan area. The flood risk could result in
interstate closures of I-5 and I-80 which are needed as
evacuation routes, a shutdown of Sacramento International
Airport, destruction of homes, hospitals, and most importantly,
a tragic loss of life. Flooding could result in billions of
dollars in potential damage and it could take weeks to months
to pump the water out of the area.
To date, the Army Corps has identified 10 projects of
national economic importance through signed chief reports. The
Natomas levees are one of these critical projects. The levees
date from the 1870's when farmers began building nearly 1,100
miles of protection around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to
control flood waters and create farmland. Today these levees
are in desperate need of critical repair to help prevent a
catastrophic disaster.
Robert Bea, professor of engineering at the University of
California-Berkeley, warns in terms of damage, deaths, and
long-term costs, a rupture of the delta levees would be far
more destructive than what happened in Hurricane Katrina. This
is a ticking bomb. We all witnessed the devastation caused by
Superstorm Sandy this past November. However, unlike a slow-
moving hurricane, a breach of the levees could occur with
little or no warning.
In 2006, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a
state of emergency for California levees. He signed an
executive order directing agencies to identify, evaluate, and
repair critical systems. Sacramento is still waiting for these
repairs.
For example, the Natomas Basin is surrounded by 42 miles of
levees. 18 miles of those levees have been repaired and updated
by the Sacramento Flood Control Agency. However, the final 24
miles are still slated to be completed by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The Army Corps is responsible for upgrading and
maintaining a vast amount of the delta levees. We need to
ensure the proper amount of funding is granted to these and
other projects.
Again, the Natomas levees are just 1 of 10 Army Corps of
Engineer chief report projects based in locations ranging from
Iowa to Florida, Louisiana to California. These 10 projects are
shovel-ready and will provide on-the-ground jobs immediately
once funded.
As you begin assembling the 2014 budget, I urge you--I urge
this committee--to make sure the U.S. Army Corps chief report
projects are given sufficient funding to maintain and protect
our communities. Thank you.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, gentleman. That was very
interesting.
Do we have any questions for our witness?
I will have to say this was new information to me being
from Missouri. So I appreciate you coming today making us aware
of this situation.
Mr. Bera. Thank you.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much.
Now I will have Representative DesJarlais.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT DESJARLAIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. DesJarlais. Chairman Hartzler, Chairman Ryan, and
Ranking Member Van Hollen, and distinguished members of the
Budget Committee, thank you for having me here today to discuss
the fiscal year 2014 budget. This is an issue of top concern to
my constituents in Tennessee's 4th Congressional District.
While my district, like many others across the country, has
certainly experienced its fair share of economic hardship, we
are fortunate that some of the most innovative and talented
small business owners this country has to offer have chosen to
call the 4th District their home. These individuals and the
businesses they own employ tens of thousands of hard-working
Tennesseans. In fact, last Congress, my colleagues on the House
Oversight Committee and I held a hearing with some of these job
creators in order to identify what they are doing right now and
how their successes can be replicated at a national level. But
while the businesses in my district are doing their part and
growing and creating jobs, the Federal Government seems more
interested in putting up roadblocks to achievement than acting
as a partner in ensuring their success.
Business owners from across my district certainly have no
shortage of frustrations regarding their Government in
Washington. Naturally these complaints will vary depending on
the type of business. Some are very niche issues and others
just general complaints that I am sure that each of us have
heard from the folks back home.
But there is one concern that I hear from nearly every
single business owner in my district regardless of their
industry, size of their business, or even political
affiliation. That is our country's unsustainable debt.
Business owners in my district know that today's deficit
spending will have to be paid for with tomorrow's tax
increases. They know our reckless spending growth puts America
at risk of staggering tax increases or worse, even economic
collapse. This economic uncertainty is causing business owners,
both large and small, in my district to hold back on hiring and
capital investment. If you think about it, any successful
business faces important decisions on long-term plans and
outlooks, and while they can control the direction of their
business, they cannot control the fiscal uncertainty of the
Federal Government. This uncertainty diminishes hiring and
investment which then curtails economic expansion. Further,
governing through a seamlessly endless stream of CR's only
exacerbates the problem. What businesses truly want is a long-
term, comprehensive plan to control the deficit spending.
Since arriving to Congress I have twice supported Chairman
Ryan's budgetary proposal, commonly referred to as the Path to
Prosperity. I along with the vast majority of my constituents
applaud the chairman for his strong leadership on this issue.
Chairman Ryan put forth the common sense proposal that would
put an end to the deficits so that we can start paying down our
$16 trillion-plus deficit and debt. One of the ways that he
does this is through preserving and protecting Medicare so that
it remains solvent for both current seniors and future
generations. Not only was this plan heralded by business owners
in my district as a prudent first step, our seniors appreciated
that Mr. Ryan's plan kept the promises that were made to them.
Unfortunately, while the Path to Prosperity passed the
House two times, the Senate refused to work with us. Rather,
they let politics trump policy. As a result, we are still
without a plan to control long-term spending.
Businesses in my district cannot understand why Washington
continues to promise them everything but the one thing that
they have asked for: certainty.
I hope the House will work its will and pass a budget that
will achieve balance and provide the certainty businesses in my
district need. I hope that we will find a more receptive
audience in the Senate and White House during the 113th
Congress than we did in the 112th. In writing this budget, I
hope that the chairman will pursue the same approach that
prioritizes our spending, protects our seniors, and avoids job-
crushing taxes on business owners.
I simply fail to understand why the idea of putting a
budget in place is viewed by some as extreme. Rather, I would
argue that it is extreme to operate without a budget. We have
seen what it has gotten us: 4 years of trillion-dollar
deficits. If we continue to ignore the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 and its subsequent adaptations, we should simply repeal
the act and stop pretending that this Congress has any desire
to operate the way our constituents expect.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, enough is enough,
and that is the message that the people of Tennessee's 4th
Congressional District are asking me to transmit to this
committee.
I thank you for letting me testify.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much, gentleman. Well stated.
Any questions?
All right. Thank you very much for being here today.
I am glad to welcome Mr. Nugent from Florida, who is
enjoying the snow outside I am sure.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD NUGENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Nugent. Well, this is a treat I will tell you. It
reminds me of where I grew up back in Chicago. But that is the
reason I left that area too. [Laughter.]
Mrs. Hartzler. We are glad you are here today.
Mr. Nugent. Well, thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member,
for the opportunity to share with you my budget priorities for
Florida's 11th Congressional District.
I understand that all districts are different in their own
way. Their demographics, industries, and cultures make them all
unique. Florida's 11th District is no exception. Its population
consists of well over 200,000 senior citizens. These citizens
rely heavily on Social Security and Medicare, benefits they
have earned and that they have been promised. In previous
testimony before this committee, I have pledged not to change
Social Security and Medicare benefits for those at or near
retirement. I am here today to reaffirm that commitment.
I am also aware of the need to ensure solvency of these
programs in the short, in medium, long term. If we do nothing--
if we do nothing--Social Security and Medicare, as we know it,
will not exist for future generations. In fact, the latest
information we have from the board of trustees of Medicare
indicates that if nothing is done to shore up the program,
Medicare's main trust fund will be exhausted with 11 years.
When that happens, any senior who is relying on a program at
that time can expect the program to change significantly. The
changes will be abrupt. They will be serious and they will have
a negative effect on the quality of life for just about every
senior citizen living in America.
To be clear, Chairman, it is the group that will include
millions and millions of seniors who are already enrolled in
Medicare. On the other hand, if we act now, we can keep the
benefits just as they are for individuals who are already on
the program, as well as for those nearing Medicare age. It is
important to note that if we keep the program just as it is for
those folks 55, it means the full 10 years will go by before
any savings will be realized, and when the bankruptcy date is
11 years out and the savings take 10 years to kick in, we do
not have any time to waste. Next year, if nothing is done, it
will have to go to 56, 57, and up, and the year after that, if
nothing is done, we will only be able to keep the program the
same for those 58 and up. And that is as the trend goes. And to
me that is totally unacceptable.
I have promised my constituents I would do everything in my
power to save and preserve Medicare for as many of them as
possible. And the longer Congress delays, the harder it will be
to keep that promise.
I urge you to do everything you can to find a way that we
can come together to save Medicare and to maintain its current
form for as many people as we can without bankrupting the
entire system.
I do not envy the tasks that this committee has in putting
forth a responsible proposal that gets back to a balanced
budget. The decisions you make will be difficult. As our $16
trillion debt indicates, those decisions have never been more
necessary than they are right now.
In my own experiences budgeting as Hernando County sheriff,
I had to make tough choices that were not always popular. It
sometimes meant scaling back programs that I myself started. It
was not easy. However, those actions had to be taken to ensure
that my office could effectively serve its core principle.
I understand the budget that you are all dealing with is a
lot bigger in the numbers and the type that I worked as sheriff
of Hernando County, Florida. And I know the implications are
far larger and more widespread. But the underlying principle
remains the same. We need to cut unsustainable spending,
identify the core mission of the Federal Government, and
prioritize our resources based upon that. In my opinion,
keeping our promises to our seniors, making sure they are able
to receive the benefits they have earned is a fundamental part
of that mission.
I want to thank you again for allowing me to be here today
to give you my opinion as to where we should go forward. Thank
you so very much.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, gentleman.
Do we have any questions?
All right. Thank you very much for being here today and
speaking out on behalf of your senior citizens in your
district.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you.
Mrs. Hartzler. I welcome Honorable Ann Kirkpatrick from
Arizona. Glad you are here today and look forward to hearing
your comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANN KIRKPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
thank you, Ranking Member Pocan.
I really appreciate this opportunity to talk with you about
the budget priorities for my district. I am here representing
Arizona's District 1. It is a large, rural district that runs
from the Utah border in the north all the way down to
communities below Tucson in southern Arizona. My district
includes some of Arizona's best known regions, peoples, and
traditions: the Grand Canyon, Sedona Red Rocks, Native American
tribes, the Copper Corridor, ranching, farming, and small
towns.
We embrace our western and tribal traditions, but we also
welcome education and innovation. District 1 includes Northern
Arizona University, which is exploring new approaches to clean
energy and natural resources. District 1 touches southern
Arizona where the University of Arizona has emerged as a
national leader in cancer research and biotech.
A district as large and diverse as ours has many
challenges, but also many opportunities. I mentioned that we
have one of the great natural wonders of the world, the Grand
Canyon. We also have 11 other national parks. The Grand Canyon
and these parks are not only environmental treasures, they are
economic drivers. The Grand Canyon brings $700 million a year
to the economy and employs 12,000 people. Overall, Arizona's
national parks attract 10.5 million visitors a year. Thousands
of jobs and small businesses are connected to the national park
in my district.
Today I ask this committee to properly fund the National
Park Service because national parks create jobs and drive our
local economies.
Earlier I mentioned higher education in District 1, but I
also want to raise some urgent concern about elementary schools
in our district. District 1 is the largest recipient of Impact
Aid in the Nation. As you know, Impact Aid compensates school
districts for revenue they lost because of their proximity to
federally owned, tax exempt property. Because District 1 has 12
national parks and 12 Native American tribes, a majority of
this land is government-owned or controlled, and that means
Impact Aid is often the primary source for funding and
operating our schools. About 50 of our schools receive Impact
Aid. They rely on it to pay the most basic resources and to
fund a qualify education for all of our children. Our schools
need Impact Aid to help them manage everything from
transportation to staffing, from construction to classroom
size. I am asking this committee to properly fund Impact Aid
because every child deserves a quality education no matter
where he or she lives.
Another important priority for my District 1 is Indian
Health Services. I mentioned that we have 12 Native American
tribes. That means that 25 percent of the district is Native
American. These are residents of some of the most remote and
rural communities. Median income is about $7,000. These folks
often struggle with access to the most basic medical care and
resources, and their primary source of health care is Indian
Health Services.
The Indian Health Services has this important
responsibility as the result of government-to-government
agreements between the United States and the tribes. In
District 1, IHS provides Native Americans with primary care,
inpatient care, outpatient visits, and more. Nationally it
provides health care to 1.9 million people belonging to 565
federally recognized tribes. IHS operates 254 health care
centers, 16 hospitals, 74 health stations, and four school
health centers nationally. I am asking this committee to
properly fund IHS because the health care for Native Americans
is not optional. It is essential.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, lady.
Do we have any questions for our witness?
All right. Thank you very much for being here today.
Ms. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
Mrs. Hartzler. Representative Peters from California, thank
you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PETERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair and Representative
Pocan, for giving me this opportunity to address these impacts.
Thank you.
Congress failed San Diego and America last week by not
working together to find a sensible alternative to the
sequester. It is a piece of legislation that was intentionally
crafted to be so nonsensical that Congress would be forced to
do everything in its power to avoid it.
I am here today because we have a choice. We can choose to
continue down this path and let the American people down or we
can decide to make a change. And I hope we will view March
27th, which is the end of the continuing resolution, as an
opportunity to pass a budget and not another opportunity to
avoid our responsibilities.
We could turn the indiscriminate cuts in the sequester into
targeted cuts that are part of a larger and balanced deficit
reduction strategy, a strategy that does not cut critical
infrastructure investments, stifle scientific innovation, or
compromise our national defense.
Let me give you a few examples from my district in San
Diego, and I have spoken repeatedly about how my district is
disproportionately affected by the sequester.
The infrastructure investments we have made in the Port of
San Diego have helped the port become San Diego's window to
national and international commerce, as well as the main driver
of our economy. The port is the fourth largest port in
California and one of 17 commercial strategic ports in America.
That means they are available to our military if they need to
ship supplies out of them. It oversees two marine cargo
terminals, two crew ship terminals, and hundreds of maritime
leases to small businesses. Since 2001, the port has received
almost $22 million in Federal funding for critical
infrastructure projects. That has allowed the port to hire more
San Diegans and boost San Diegans' economy.
The American Society of Engineers found that with an
additional investment in our ports of $15.8 billion between now
and 2020--$15.8 billion--our national system of ports provide
$270 billion in U.S. exports and $697 billion in GDP.
The main drivers of the San Diego economy, though, are the
scientific research community and our military. In fiscal year
2012, San Diego firms received more than $130 million from the
National Science Foundation and $850 million from the National
Institutes of Health. It is these types of investments that
have created hundreds of thousands of jobs, boosted our
economy, and allowed San Diego to become the second largest
life science cluster in the United States. The sequester could
undo this progress. The immediate cuts to NIH from
sequestration are 8.2 percent or equivalent to a cut of $2.5
billion. This could result in the loss of 33,000 research-
related jobs in 2013 and a $4.5 billion decrease in economic
activity. We all see innovation as one of our ways to move
forward as a country, and the uncertainty caused by not having
a budget reduces our national competitiveness.
The sequester threatens our border. It would cut customs
and border protection work hours by 5,000 agents, increasing
the time it takes to screen people and shipments. Those
inefficiencies will drive up costs and also harm businesses
because trade cannot move across the border, the legal trade
that we need.
And almost one in four jobs in San Diego are defense-
related. Nearly 25 percent of defense contractors are small
businesses. Already shipbuilding and maintenance contracts have
been canceled, including 10 ship repairs in San Diego.
Manufacturing companies that rely on defense funding could lose
223,000 jobs, 30,000 in our county, about. Neglecting ship
repairs will not only hurt morale but lead to job loss and
threaten our readiness.
The Navy will be forced to put a freeze on hiring
civilians. Many of them are veterans. With 11.5 percent of our
communities of veterans unemployed and a shocking 25 percent of
veterans between 18 and 24 still struggling to find employment,
any further reduction in job opportunities for our Nation's
heroes is unacceptable. We can do better.
I know that protecting these areas of investment are ideas
that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Now is the
time to ignore those party pressures and do what is right for
the American people. Our fiscal problems are real, and I know
you are aware of that. You have heard that, all. We need to
address those in the smartest strategic way. The budget process
will allow us to put aside the indiscriminate nature of the
sequester and to give us an opportunity to protect our
infrastructure, science and technology communities, and the
military that not only are driving forces of our economy but
are obviously at the root of our security as a country. We can
increase revenues by closing tax loopholes, stop spending in
the tax code on things we cannot afford, and we can decrease
our spending on wasteful programs and cutting redundant and
outdated programs and waste, fraud, and abuse.
Finding common ground does not mean we have failed. It does
not mean we have abandoned our principles. Let's show San Diego
and America that Congress can do its job. Let's pass the
balanced budget without the sequester and address the revenue
and spending challenges that we face.
I thank you both for your work and for the opportunity to
appear today.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much, gentleman.
Do we have a question? Sure.
Mr. Pocan. Great, thank you. Thank you, Representative
Peters.
I understand you talked about how the budgeting process
hurts San Diego specifically, but you mentioned in your
testimony that it hurts American competitiveness. Can you
elaborate a little bit on that, please?
Mr. Peters. Sure. And I will just tell you the story I
heard at the Salk Institute, which is one of the research
institutes we are very proud of. They depend heavily on funding
from the National Institutes of Health. And they explained to
me that kids who are educated and want to go into science and
do really high-end science--you know, you have to be almost 40
years old before you get one of those labs where you can start
to compete for those grants. And then you are competing in the
smartest classroom you can imagine. Everyone is extremely
smart. It is peer-reviewed. And typically only 25 percent of
those grants have been funded. So you can imagine, even in good
times, a 75 failure rate.
Well, now we are funding about 7 percent of those grants.
And what they told me is that young people who are deciding
where to do their science are looking at Congress, looking at
the American Government and really asking themselves are we
committed to consistent and adequate funding for scientific
research.
And the problem is there are now opportunities to do those
research projects in other countries that are making those
investments. So we face the prospect that the next cure for a
great disease or the next Qualcomm, which is in my district, or
the next Google or Microsoft is invented by someone who is
educated here, maybe someone who is educated at the University
of California-San Diego, but who moved to China or Europe or
Israel or Brazil where they are making the investments in
science that they need to do the research.
It is not just a matter of the funding level now, but it is
also the uncertainty caused by really the way we have not
addressed our budget issue. So I think if we could get through
the budget process and provide some assurance that we are going
to be consistent, we are going to fund science in a consistent
and adequate way, we could continue to lead the world. But we
should not take that for granted. We should do our job.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peters. Thank you so much.
Mrs. Hartzler. Our next witness will be Randy Neugebauer
from Texas. Thank you for being here, gentleman.
STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member,
for allowing me to be here this morning.
I ask unanimous consent that my written statement would be
made a part of the record.
Mrs. Hartzler. So ordered.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you. And I would just like to make
some general reflections here because I know that your time is
short.
One of the things that I think is most concerning is the
direction that we are headed, and that is the reason this
budget process is going to be so important not only this year
but in the years to come. The example that I use when I am back
in the district--because when you start talking about trillions
of dollars to the American people, they do not have the concept
of what a trillion dollars is. I am not sure that I do. A lot
of people use a lot of analogies that you could take a trillion
dollars and go around the moon twice and back to earth if you
were doing them end to end and all of those kind of things.
But really, let's talk about what is important, and what is
important is the analogy that I use is we have got a little
family making $27,000 a year. Unfortunately, this little family
is going to be spending around $37,000 or $38,000 a year. So
they are going to be spending $10,000 to $11,000 more a year
than they are making. And they just got their credit statement
the other day, and they found out they owe $166,000 on their
credit card. And when I ask the people in my district how many
people in the room think that family has any kind of future,
nobody raises their hand. And I ask the question where do you
think that family is headed, and the most prevalent answer is
they are headed to bankruptcy.
And then when I tell them, well, that little family I just
described to you is the United States of America, they are a
little bit shocked. And what they understand is in their own
budgets that a family living beyond their means is on an
unsustainable path.
We have to stop that and we have to stop it now because,
quite honestly, we are reaching, I think, a tipping point in
this country with $16.6 trillion in debt, whether we will ever
be able to pay that back. Two things are the consequences of
that.
One, we are mortgaging the future of our children and our
grandchildren.
The other is that the growing share that Government is of
the economy--every time the Government takes money out of the
economy, that is capital that could be used to create jobs and
opportunity in this country for today's generation. And so
these huge deficits not only are punishing the people today,
but they are certainly going to be the consequences for future
generations.
One of the things that I think we have to understand is we
have got to stop measuring our commitment to certain aspects of
our Government by how much money we spend. We seem to make
ourselves feel good when we say, well, we increased spending
for that or we increased spending for this. And that is the way
we say, well, we must be doing a good job because we are
spending more money. But when you look--and this Budget
Committee I know has done that--across the board in a number of
areas of our Government, well, we have spent more money, but
actually the results have been declining. We have to go back
more to a results-oriented budgeting process and not a
spending-oriented process.
Now, I want to make this point, and we use these analogies
but I think it helps put it in perspective of how important it
is that we move to a balanced budget. And I know this committee
has set a goal to do that in 10 years. I think 10 years is the
maximum we can wait. We may need to do it shorter. But let me
let you know where we are today to put this in perspective.
Everybody understands a mortgage. Many of us have had a
mortgage on our home, and the standard term on a mortgage today
is you can still get a 30-year mortgage. Now, Mr. Bernanke has
been buying down the yield for the Treasury. I call him a
``deficit enabler'' because he is keeping interest rates very
low. He is making it very cheap to borrow money right now for
the Government to run these deficits, but at some point in
time, these rates will not be at this level.
Well, let's say the Budget Committee could wave your wand
and balance the budget tomorrow. Now we have got this $16.6
trillion that we owe. Right? So how are we going to pay that
back? Well, let's do what some people could do and let's take
out a 30-year mortgage and pay this back over the next 30
years. And let's go to a more traditional 30-year mortgage rate
or a 30-year bond rate, which would be around 4.25. Then the
question is what would the payments be on $16.6 trillion over
the next 30 years. You are not going to like this answer. It is
about $960 billion a year, just shy of $1 trillion. And so even
if we balance the budget, for example, in the next 10 years,
our total debt will be over $20 trillion by the time we hit
that. And so just alone today, if we do not do something very
quickly here, it is going to take $1 trillion out of the
economy every year just to pay the debt service on what we have
done.
Like this little family that is living beyond their means,
we are going to have to get America back living within our
means.
And one of the last points I would make here is our budget
process is unfortunately broken. This baseline budgeting is not
working. Here is another analogy I use with my folks in the
19th Congressional District and they get that. And I talk to
them about what is a revenue neutral transaction in Washington,
D.C. And what I say to them is I would like for you to give me
a $100 bill. In exchange for that, to make sure that this is a
revenue neutral transaction, I am going to give you 10 $10
postdated checks that you can cash over the next 10 years. And
that is a revenue neutral transaction and there should not be
anybody that would be unwilling to do that.
You know, I have not gotten one taker of that because they
understand that, one, they do not know whether my check is
going to be good next year or the year after that. And that is
$100 we are spending today with the promise that you are going
to get $10 a year savings over the next 10 years. And that is
how we got to $16.6 trillion.
Here is a little postscript of how important this is. You
know, when I came to Congress in 2003, America was a super
power. Our capital markets were the envy of the world. But just
recently we had some students from Abilene Christian University
in Abilene, Texas, and they came. They were college students
and they came here during the inauguration as a part of their
government class. And so we were on the steps of the Capitol
and we were taking pictures. I then gave those students an
opportunity to see if any of them had a question. The most
interesting question that I received that day was a young woman
from China, and her question was, Congressman, will you all be
able to pay us back?
And it made me stop and reflect that the nation that was
once considered the gold standard of the world--our currency
still enjoys preference by many countries. But I am going to
tell you that that is waning because what they realize is what
people realize about that little family that is spending
$11,000 more a year than they are making and owes $164,000 on
their credit card, that that cannot remain for a long period of
time.
I thank you for your time and I hope that we will begin to
look at some radical ways to change the direction of our
country. And we are depending on the Budget Committee to help
us with that process.
With that, I yield back.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much, gentleman. Well stated.
I appreciate that.
Now we have the Honorable Ed Whitfield from Kentucky.
STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. Chairman Hartzler, thank you and Ranking
Member Pocan. And thank you very much for giving us an
opportunity to visit briefly with you this morning.
I would like to start off by saying, first of all, how much
we appreciate the time and effort that all of you spend on the
budget process.
I will have to say that I agree with my friend from Texas
that I believe also that the budget process is broken, and I
genuinely believe that one of the reasons that Congress has
such a low approval rating is that many people across America
perceive that if Congress cannot do its most basic task of
adopting a budget, then that contributes to the impression that
this is an ineffective body.
And I went back and I looked at the history of the budget
process in the U.S. Congress. Of course, back in 1921, it was
the first year that the President started submitting a budget
to Congress. And we went through that process from 1921 to
1974, and the Congress would work with the President's budget.
And then, of course, in 1974 we passed the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act. And since that time, Congress has
only met the deadline for passing the budget resolution six
times since 1974. Congress did not adopt any budget resolution
for six fiscal years, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011, and 2012.
Now, the process that I think contributes to the feeling of
the American people that Congress is so ineffective is that
more and more the budget debate and the budget process has
become so partisan because we use the budget to highlight
philosophical differences on primarily these big mandatory
spending areas, which obviously is where we have our problem.
But many people, when a budget does pass, assume that all of
the cuts or reductions or changes are automatically taking
effect even though everyone recognizes that the authorizing
committees have to come back and make those changes.
When I go to civic club meetings, people frequently--and I
am sure many of you have experienced this too. They ask you why
is it that Congress cannot even pass a budget. Well, probably
they do not really understand it.
But I think to get to the bottom line here is the current
process in my view is not working very well, and I think it is
factually correct when you say that Congress has only met the
deadline six times since 1974. The Congress has not even passed
a budget at all for 6 years. And I think you would agree with
me that the entire Congress becomes so consumed with this
process each year that it interferes with our ability to
authorize, do oversight, and everything else.
So my point is that even back in 1995 the GAO did a study
of the history and future direction of the budget process and
even at that time was pointing out the great difficulties that
we face. That is why many of us way back in 1999 suggested that
maybe one way that could improve the process is go to a 2-year
budget cycle. And I had been told that every President since
Ronald Reagan--I cannot speak emphatically that President Obama
supports this, but I have heard that he is not opposed to it--
would support a 2-year budget process so that one year Congress
could be totally consumed by the budget. The next year they
could do the authorizing, the oversight, and so forth.
But back in 1999, we brought a budget resolution to the
floor to go to a 2-year budget cycle. It was defeated on the
House floor by 8 or 9 votes. Even the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee voted for it. And of course, Senator
Pete Domenici of New Mexico was one of the leaders.
But I would just say as one member speaking for my little
group of constituents in Kentucky, 700,000 of them, it has been
my experience that the budget process, the confusion, the chaos
of the budget process, the lack of accomplishment of the budget
process has contributed greatly to the impression of the
American people that the U.S. Congress as an institution is not
very effective. And it is not your all individual faults. I
think it is all of our faults.
And I simply wanted to make that comment just out of a
sense of frustration that I have had but, once again, want to
thank you all personally for your efforts and what you continue
to do. Thank you.
Ms. Warlorski [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield, and
your comments are duly noted.
Mr. Schneider from the great State of Illinois?
STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD SCHNEIDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Congressman
Pocan. It is good to see you. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify today on the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution.
Let me state emphatically we have an urgent need to address
our Nation's budget deficit and secure our long-term fiscal
stability. This effort requires thinking beyond across-the-
board, wholesale cuts or budget freezes. It necessitates that
we reevaluate how every single dollar is spent.
Mr. Chairman, I join you in support of this goal but urge
caution against making misguided cuts that may jeopardize our
national security and global competitiveness or that
disproportionately impact our most vulnerable populations: our
seniors, students, and middle class families. That is exactly
why we need a smart approach to deficit reduction that reduces
spending and increases revenue responsibly.
We need to be smarter about how we spend taxpayer dollars.
Just one example. The Federal Government spends $18 billion on
47 separate employment and job training programs with
inconsistent results. We need to refocus our Federal funding of
programs that produce real substantial results, which is why I,
with my colleague, Lou Barletta, introduced the America Works
Act. This legislation seeks to close the skills gap between
employers with job openings and job seekers inadequately
prepared for the 21st century economy. And it does so at no new
cost to Government. It is a smarter, more efficient use of
dollars we already spend on three of our Federal worker
training programs: Perkins, TAA, and WIA.
Beyond technical education, if we are to maintain our
preeminent role in the world, it is essential that we provide
all of our children with the opportunity for a quality
education to help ensure that they have the skills and capacity
to be ready for success in college and career. Research shows
that future success starts with a strong, early learning
foundation, with crucial intellectual development occurring in
the first 3 years of life. Provided with positive educational
experiences during these first years, children demonstrate
improved academic achievement. They are more likely to read and
do math at grade level, to make constructive life choices, and
to graduate from high school.
I echo the call President Obama made in his State of the
Union Address for this Congress to expand access to high
quality preschool to every child. Pre-K provides the foundation
for a child's future success in school and helps reduce
achievement gaps.
As Congress looks to reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, we must establish a continuum of early
learning so that our children, parents, and teachers are
provided with the resources they need to ensure a bright future
for the next generation. By investing in our children now, we
are preparing a future workforce that will be able to compete
in the 21st century global economy so that future medical
breakthroughs, new green technologies, and other innovations
are developed here in the United States rather than abroad.
If we want to promote innovation, to stimulate economic
growth and put people back to work, we must also tend to our
Nation's infrastructure. It is imperative for this Congress to
place renewed focus on our infrastructure and that we enact a
long-term, fully financed transportation authorization. Too
many of our roads, bridges, and ports are in desperate need of
repair. We must promote a robust, polymodal transportation
system, including modernized mass transit systems. In order for
our economy to operate at its optimal level, our infrastructure
must as well.
In my home district, Waukegan Harbor is presently closed to
commercial navigation, putting a strain on other ports and
draining our local economy. Waukegan Harbor's closing hurts
shipping, but so too do historically low lake and river levels
that reduce and restrict cargo capacity. We must be responsible
stewards of our natural resources and environment, and we must
provide the Environmental Protection Agency with the resources
it needs to keep our air and drinking water in our communities
clean and safe and our waterways open and clear. Irresponsible
cuts to this agency are short-sighted and will put our recovery
at risk. We must continue to lead the world as guardians of our
natural resources and environment, ensuring sustainability, and
thereby ensuring our long-term prosperity and security.
Many U.S. manufacturers across the country are global
leaders in sustainable technology development. These industries
create high-paying, quality jobs and promise sustainable
economic growth for our country. We should foster this type of
innovation, not slash away at its potential.
Another area of our budget where we cannot afford to be
short-sighted is foreign engagement and its associated economic
assistance. As we work to address our deficit, the foreign
assistance budget may seem like an easy target, but cutting it
would seriously undermine our diplomatic efforts in the world.
We live in an increasingly complex and dangerous world that
demands U.S. leadership. The foreign assistance budget provides
funding for our embassies, including security for our diplomats
who promote U.S. national interests around the world and
demonstrate the values and principles that define us as a
Nation. A strong diplomatic presence is essential to preserving
the United States' positive influence and leadership in
bilateral and multilateral relations with our allies and
addressing the challenges with our adversaries. Understanding
the fiscal challenges we face, we must also recognize that we
are not going to balance the budget by slashing foreign
assistance.
We are nearly a week into the sequester that went into
effect on March 1st, the impact of which will begin to be felt
by our constituents through, among other areas, fewer police
officers on patrol in our communities, canceled Head Start
services, eliminated meal services for low-income seniors.
Coupled with recent reductions in spending, sequestration will
slow economic growth, even risking a contraction throughout our
economy. Rather than these imprudent, across-the-board cuts
that in the aggregate will do harm to our constituents and our
economy, both parties must come to the table to craft a
comprehensive, balanced, measured approach to deficit
reduction.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again
for the opportunity to address you today to outline my
priorities for the fiscal year 2014 budget.
[The prepared statement of Brad Schneider follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bradley S. Schneider, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Illinois
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution.
Let me state emphatically, we have an urgent need to address our
nation's budget deficit and secure our long-term fiscal stability. This
effort requires thinking beyond across-the-board wholesale cuts or
budget freezes. It necessitates that we reevaluate how every federal
dollar is spent.
Mr. Chairman, I join you in support of this goal, but urge caution
against making misguided cuts that may jeopardize our national security
and global competitiveness, or that disproportionally impact our most
vulnerable populations--our seniors, students and middle class
families. That is exactly why we need a smart approach to deficit
reduction that reduces spending thoughtfully and increases revenue
responsibly.
We need to be smarter about how we spend taxpayer dollars. Just one
example: the federal government spends $18 billion on 47 separate
employment and job training programs, with inconsistent results. We
need to refocus our federal funding on programs that produce real,
substantial results, which is why I, with my colleague Lou Barletta,
introduced the AMERICA Works Act. This legislation seeks to close the
skills gap between employers with job openings and job seekers
inadequately prepared for the 21st Century economy and it does so at no
new cost to the government. It is a smarter, more efficient use of the
dollars we already spend on three of our federal worker training
programs--Perkins, TAA and WIA.
Beyond technical education, if we are to maintain our preeminent
role in the world, it is essential that we provide all our children
with the opportunity for a quality education to help ensure that they
have the skills and capacity to be ready for success in college and
career.
Research shows that future success starts with a strong early-
learning foundation, with crucial intellectual development occurring in
the first three years of life. Provided with positive educational
experiences during these first years, children demonstrate improved
academic achievement, are more likely to read and do math at grade
level, to make constructive life choices, and graduate from high
school.
I echo the call President Obama made in his State of the Union
Address for this Congress to expand access to high-quality preschool to
every child. Pre-K provides the foundation for a child's future success
in school, and helps reduce achievement gaps. As Congress looks to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we must
establish a continuum of early learning so that our children, parents
and teachers are provided with the resources they need to ensure a
bright future for the next generation.
By investing in our children now, we are preparing a future
workforce that will be able to compete in the 21st Century global
economy, so that future medical breakthroughs, new green technologies,
and other innovations are developed here in the U.S. instead of abroad.
If we want to promote innovation, to stimulate economic growth and
put people back to work, we also must tend to our nation's
infrastructure. It is imperative for this Congress to place renewed
focus on our infrastructure and that we enact a long-term, fully
financed transportation authorization. Too many of our roads, bridges
and ports are in desperate need of repair. We must promote a robust,
polymodal transportation system, including modernized mass transit
systems.
In order for our economy to operate at its optimal level, our
infrastructure must as well. In my home district, Waukegan Harbor is
presently closed to commercial navigation, putting a strain on other
ports and draining our local economy.
Waukegan Harbor's closing hurts shipping, but so too do
historically-low lake and river levels that reduce or restrict cargo
capacity. We must be responsible stewards of our natural resources and
environment, and we must provide the Environmental Protection Agency
with the resources it needs to keep the air and drinking water in our
communities clean and safe, and our waterways open and clear.
Irresponsible cuts to the Agency are shortsighted and will put our
recovery at risk. We must continue to lead the world as guardians of
our natural resources and environment, ensuring sustainability, and
thereby ensuring our long-term prosperity and security.
Many U.S. manufacturers across the country are global leaders in
sustainable technology development. These industries create high-
paying, quality jobs and promise sustainable economic growth for our
country. We should foster this type of innovation, not slash away at
its potential.
Another area of our federal budget where we cannot afford to be
shortsighted is foreign engagement, and its associated economic
assistance. As we work to address our deficit, the foreign assistance
budget may seem like an easy target, but cutting it would seriously
undermine our diplomatic efforts in the world.
We live in an increasingly complex and dangerous world that demands
U.S. leadership. The foreign assistance budget provides funding for our
embassies, including security for our diplomats who promote U.S.
national interests around the world and demonstrate the values and
principles that define us as a nation. A strong diplomatic presence is
essential to preserving the United States' positive influence and
leadership in bilateral and multilateral relations with our allies and
addressing challenges with our adversaries. Understanding the fiscal
challenges we face, we must also recognize that we are not going to
balance the budget by slashing foreign assistance.
We are nearly a week into the sequester that went into effect on
March 1st, the impact of which will begin to be felt by our
constituents through, among other areas, fewer police officers on
patrol in our communities, canceled Head Start services, eliminated
meal services for low-income seniors. Coupled with recent reductions in
spending, sequestration will slow economic growth, even risking a
contraction throughout our economy. Rather than these imprudent,
across-the-board cuts that, in the aggregate, will do harm to our
constituents and our economy, both parties must come to the table to
craft a comprehensive, balanced, measured approach to deficit
reduction.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you again for the
opportunity to address you today to outline my priorities for the
fiscal year 2014 budget.
Ms. Warlorski. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Tonko?
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Acting Chair Warlorski, Acting
Ranking Member McDermott, and distinguished members of the
Budget Committee. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
testify before you today on the blueprint for our Nation's
priorities and statement of our values: the budget.
As a former member of this committee, I know the difficult
choices we all must make in putting together this document each
year, but I also know that it is our duty and, indeed, our
constitutional responsibility to build this framework together.
Indeed, blaming the President for failure to stop
indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts known as sequestration
when the authority lies entirely at our feet is little more
than an excuse. The power to levy taxes and to invest those
funds is exclusively our duty as the legislative branch, and we
have plenty of work to do.
After 36 consecutive months of private sector job growth
and over 6 million jobs added since the great recession, our
economy is on its way to recovery. It would seem that our
progress remains steady and consistent.
Just yesterday the financial markets closed at an all-time
high. The recovery of the financial sector has been the most
robust because taxpayers shored up the industry when it was on
the ropes.
We all hoped that saving Wall Street would translate into
recovery for Main Street, but despite Wall Street's recovery
and record profits for businesses, our families and small
businesses continue to struggle to make ends meet. Those who
are unemployed are working more hours and taking home less pay.
Too many are still unemployed or under-employed. We cannot
solve the Federal Government's budget problems without first
helping families' household budget problems. There are programs
that we can and must prioritize in our Nation's budget that
will give our hard-working families the opportunity to earn a
decent living for the work that they do, programs that will
grow the economic powerhouse that is the American middle class
and that will lift people out of poverty and into the
mainstream economy.
To that end, let me share a few words from President John
F. Kennedy. These are remarks that were prepared but never
delivered at the Trade Mart in Dallas, Texas, November 22nd,
1963. Our late President wrote: we cannot expect everyone, to
use the phrase of a decade ago will, quote, talk sense to the
American people. End quote.
Kennedy's remarks continued--and I quote--but we can hope
that fewer people will listen to nonsense, and the notion that
this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit or that
strength is but a matter of slogans is nothing just plain
nonsense. End quote.
Those words are as true as we sit here today as they were
in the 1960's. By putting people back to work, we will defeat
the deficit. It will not defeat us. And we know that our
Nation's strength is not in slogans. It is in her people. And
it is our people, their dreams, ideas, aspirations, their work,
their grit, effort, education, health, liberty, and strength
that we must as a Nation support and bolster through
investments, investments in education that train and retrain
our workers to compete in the global economy with cutting-edge
skills from the trades all the way through to Ph.D.'s. We must
ensure that any student that works hard and seeks a higher
education is able to obtain one, no matter their financial
background.
That is why I encourage increased funding for teachers,
student aid, and training programs, investments in innovation
that realize we are competing in a global race on clean energy
and ideas. We must bolster our research and development
accounts and empower programs like APRA-E that foster new
businesses and entrepreneurs.
We must invest in our infrastructure. We cannot expect to
compete in the 21st century global economy with 19th or 20th
century infrastructure. We must fix our structurally deficient
roads and bridges and upgrade our water treatment and
distribution systems which we have ignored for far too long.
But this is not enough. We must also increase accounts that
support energy transmission upgrades, high-speed rail, ports,
mass transit, and much more. We require the best infrastructure
in the world to move our goods, our services, our information,
and people if we are to remain competitive in a global
marketplace.
Finally, I have long been supportive of investments we make
as a nation in our natural and cultural resources. The
foresight of previous generations in establishing our national
parks, wilderness areas, and cultural and historical lands was
a great gift to us that has paid many dividends over the years.
Every generation has drawn on the environmental accounts of
this Nation, and none more so than ours.
Climate change is the bill that is coming due. We must act
now by making investments that will reduce the vulnerability of
communities and businesses across our Nation to this threat. We
cannot afford to delay any longer.
We are a great Nation. We rose to the world leadership
position we hold by working together, not by pulling apart. A
budget that rewards the wealthiest amongst us and asks the most
from those who have least is not only unwise but unfair. It is
un-American. I hope we can move past the campaign slogans and
failed economic theories to address the challenges we face and
do what is right and just for all our citizens.
Again, I thank you as members of this committee for the
opportunity that you have allowed me today.
With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Paul Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul D. Tonko, a Representative in
Congress From the State of New York
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, distinguished members of
the Budget Committee: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
testify before you today on the blueprint for our nation's priorities
and statement of our values--the budget. As a former member of this
committee, I know the difficult choices we all must make in putting
together this document each year. But I also know that it is our duty,
and indeed, our Constitutional responsibility to build this framework
together.
Indeed, blaming the President for failure to stop indiscriminate,
across-the-board cuts known as ``sequestration'' when that authority
lays entirely at our feet is little more than an excuse. The power to
levy taxes and to invest those funds is exclusively our duty as the
legislative branch--and we have plenty of work to do.
After thirty-six consecutive months of private sector job growth
and over six million jobs added since the Great Recession, our economy
is on its way to recovery. It would seem that our progress remains
steady and consistent.
Just yesterday, the financial markets closed at an all time high.
The recovery of the financial sector has been the most robust because
taxpayers shored up the industry when it was on the ropes. We all hoped
that saving Wall Street would translate into recovery for Main Street.
But despite Wall Street's recovery and record profits for businesses,
our families and small businesses continue to struggle to make ends
meet.
Those who are employed are working more and taking home less pay.
Too many are still unemployed or under employed. We cannot solve the
federal government's budget problems without first helping families'
household budget problems.
There are programs that we can and must prioritize in our nation's
budget that will give our hard-working families the opportunity to earn
a decent living for the work they do--programs that will grow the
economic powerhouse that is the American middle class and that will
lift people out of poverty and into the mainstream economy.
To that end, let me share a few words from President John F.
Kennedy. These are remarks that were prepared, but never delivered, at
the Trade Mart in Dallas, Texas November 22, 1963. He said, ``We cannot
expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will [quote]
talk sense to the American people [end quote].'' Kennedy's remarks
continued, ``But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense.
And the notion that this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit,
or that strength is but a matter of slogans is nothing but just plain
nonsense.''
Those words are as true as we sit here today as they were in the
1960's. By putting people back to work, we will defeat the deficit, it
will not defeat us. And we know that our nation's strength is not in
slogans; it is in her people. And it is our people--their dreams,
ideas, aspirations, work, grit, effort, education, health, liberty, and
strength--that we must, as a nation, support and bolster through
investments.
Investments in education--that train and retrain our workers to
compete in a global economy with cutting edge skills--from the trades
all the way through to Ph.D.'s. We must ensure that any student that
works hard and seeks a higher education is able to obtain one, no
matter their financial background. That is why I encourage increased
funding for teachers, student aid and training programs.
Investments in innovation--that realize we are competing in a
global race on clean energy and ideas. We must bolster our research and
development accounts, and empower programs like ARPA-E that foster new
businesses and entrepreneurs.
We must invest in our infrastructure. We cannot expect to compete
in the 21st century global economy with 19th or 20th century
infrastructure. We must fix our structurally deficient roads and
bridges, and upgrade our water treatment and distribution systems which
we have ignored for far too long. But this is not enough. We must also
increase accounts that support energy transmission upgrades, high speed
rail, ports, mass transit and much more. We require the best
infrastructure in the world to move goods, services, information, and
people if we are to remain competitive in a global marketplace.
Finally, I have long been supportive of investments we make as a
nation in our natural and cultural resources. The foresight of previous
generations in establishing our national parks, wilderness areas, and
cultural and historical lands was a great gift to us that has paid many
dividends over the years. Every generation has drawn on the
environmental accounts of this nation, and none more so than ours.
Climate change is the bill that is coming due. We must act now by
making investments that will reduce the vulnerability of communities
and businesses across the nation to this threat. We cannot afford to
delay any longer.
We are a great nation. We rose to the world leadership position we
hold by working together, not by pulling apart. A budget that rewards
the wealthiest among us and asks the most from those who have least is
not only unwise and unfair, it is un-American. I hope we can move past
campaign slogans and failed economic theories to address the challenges
we face and do what is right and just for all our citizens.
Again, thank you Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen and
the rest of the committee for allowing me this opportunity today. I
yield back.
Ms. Warlorski. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Carney? We are going to try to get through Mr. Carney's
testimony and then possibly Mr. Wilson. It depends on when we
are going to break for votes here. But, Mr. Carney, you are now
recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CARNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Acting Chairwoman Warlorski and
Acting Ranking Member McDermott and members of the committee.
Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to testify about what
Congress should focus on as we work to put the Nation on a
sustainable fiscal path in the coming decades.
The last 2 years have been consumed by fights over deficit
reduction and spending priorities. Instead of agreeing on a
comprehensive plan, we have hurtled from crisis to crisis.
Right now, we are on a course, frankly, that nobody wants. As
people in Delaware tell me, that does not make much sense.
While it is true that we have been able achieve $3.9
trillion in deficit reduction through this long and frustrating
process, economic experts say that our current approach is not
the right one. Our piecemeal efforts have yielded more than $3
in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue. Some of the cuts we
have made, particularly through sequestration, will hurt a
broad array of important programs that help grow our economy in
the long term. All of the nonpartisan experts agree that more
revenue needs to be part of the plan. Both sides have
acknowledged that tax reform is important and necessary, and we
should use it as a mechanism to avoid the sequester in a
balanced way by generating revenue and implementing more
responsible spending cuts.
Instead of indiscriminate cuts to important investments in
education, training, infrastructure, and research in the short
term, we ought to make cuts more gradually, and we ought to
focus our efforts on the fundamental problem that is going to
drive our deficits in the long term: rapidly rising health care
costs. Between 2000 and 2030, the number of seniors will more
than double, and senior receive more benefits than they pay in
through Medicare by a 3-to-1 ratio today. Since 2008, Medicare
Part A outlays have exceeded payroll tax revenue, and that
problem will continue to worsen. So we face a serious challenge
here.
But addressing this problem does not just mean dealing with
the effects of an aging population. Unnecessary procedures,
duplicative tests, and widely varying costs depending on the
hospital or region are also real problems that must be
addressed. We need systemic change, and the Affordable Care Act
takes steps in this direction.
The combined effects of an aging population and rising
health care costs will cause Medicare costs to nearly double
over the next 10 years. That is just not sustainable. As I see
it, we really have two choices as we move forward.
One is the idea that the Federal Government would provide
premium support to Medicare recipients. I do not support that
approach for two reasons. First, we cannot force our seniors to
pay thousands of dollars each year out of pocket for premiums
that they cannot afford. And second, this approach does not
address the real drivers of our ballooning health care costs.
It simply shifts the costs to seniors.
The right approach is to make systemic changes to our
health care system that incentivizes doctors to provide quality
over quantity, bringing down costs across the board. Along the
way, we need to make sure that whatever we do does not harm the
quality of care seniors currently receive or their ability to
afford that care.
I recently joined several of my colleagues for lunch with
Dr. Zeke Emanuel, former health care advisor at the Office of
Management and Budget, who talked to us about several promising
ideas that are worth considering as we move forward.
One is to accelerate the shift away from the fee-for-
service health care system. Pilot programs within the
Affordable Care Act that focus on bundled payments and
accountable care organizations are showing promise. We could
expand these programs and implement a countrywide change from
paying for each procedure to paying for the overall delivery of
care.
Second, we should ensure that Medicare is getting the best
possible price for expensive medical equipment like wheelchairs
and oxygen tanks. This approach is working well in some parts
of the country for certain types of equipment. So we should
look at enhancing its scope.
Third, we should reduce over-utilization in our health care
system by promoting price transparency that allows patients to
know how much their health care actually costs them, and we
should tell patients which providers are delivering quality
care at an efficient price.
No matter what we do, these health care challenges are
going to require buy-in from all sides: hospitals, doctors,
insurance companies, and providers, Democrats and Republicans,
and of course, the American people. The longer we wait, the
harder it will be to fix the problem. If we fail to address our
health care crisis, we can cut all we want from important
investments like infrastructure and education, but we will not
be any closer to putting the Nation on a sustainable fiscal
path.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to share these
thoughts, and thank you for the great work that you do for our
country as part of this committee.
[The prepared statement of John Carney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John C. Carney, Jr., a Representative in
Congress From the State of Delaware
Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to testify about what
Congress should focus on as we work to put the nation on a sustainable
fiscal path in the coming decades.
The last two years have been consumed by fights over deficit
reduction and spending priorities. Instead of agreeing on a
comprehensive plan, we've hurtled from crisis to crisis. Right now,
we're on a course that nobody wants. As people in Delaware tell me:
that's stupid.
While it's true that we've been able to achieve $3.9 trillion in
deficit reduction throughout this long and frustrating process,
economic experts say that our current approach is not the right one.
Our piecemeal efforts have yielded more than $3 in spending cuts for
every $1 in revenue. Some of the cuts we've made--particularly through
sequestration--will hurt a broad array of important discretionary
programs that help grow our economy in the long-term.
All the nonpartisan experts agree that more revenue needs to be
part of the plan. Both sides have acknowledged that tax reform is
important, and we should use it as a mechanism to avoid the sequester
in a balanced way--by generating revenue and implementing more
responsible cuts.
And instead of indiscriminate cuts to important investments in
education, training, infrastructure and research in the short-term, we
ought to make cuts more gradually. Let's focus our efforts on the
fundamental problem that is going to drive our deficit in the long-
term: rapidly rising health care costs.
Between 2000 and 2030, the number of seniors will have more than
doubled. And seniors receive more benefits than they pay in--by a 3 to
1 ratio. Since 2008, Medicare Part A outlays have exceeded payroll tax
revenue, and that problem will continue to worsen. So we face a serious
challenge.
But addressing this problem doesn't just mean dealing with the
effects of an aging population. Unnecessary procedures, duplicative
tests, and wildly varying costs depending on the hospital or region are
also real problems that must be addressed. We need systemic change, and
the Affordable Care Act takes steps in this direction.
The combined effects of an aging population and healthcare cost
inflation will cause Medicare costs to nearly double over the next 10
years. That's not sustainable.
As I see it, we really have two choices as we move forward. One
idea is that the federal government would provide premium support to
Medicare recipients. I don't support that approach for two reasons.
First, we can't force our seniors to pay thousands of dollars each year
out-of-pocket for premiums that they can't afford. Second, this
approach doesn't address the real drivers of our ballooning healthcare
costs. It simply shifts the costs to seniors.
The right approach is to make systemic changes to our health care
system that incentivize doctors to provide quality over quantity--
bringing down costs across the board. Along the way, we need to make
sure that whatever we do doesn't harm the quality of care seniors
currently receive, or their ability to afford that care. I recently
joined several of my colleagues for lunch with Dr. Zeke Emanuel, former
health care advisor at the Office of Management and Budget, who talked
about several promising ideas that are worth considering as we move
forward.
One is to accelerate the shift away from a fee-for-service
healthcare system. Pilot programs within the Affordable Care Act that
focus on bundled payments and accountable care organizations are
showing promise. We could expand these programs and implement a
country-wide change from paying for each procedure to paying for the
overall delivery of care.
Second, we should ensure that Medicare is getting the best possible
price for expensive medical equipment like wheelchairs and oxygen
tanks. This approach is working well in some parts of the country for
certain types of equipment, so we should look at enhancing its scope.
Third, we should reduce overutilization in our health care system
by promoting price transparency that allows patients to know how much
their healthcare actually costs. And we should tell patients which
providers are delivering quality care at an efficient rate.
No matter what we do, these health care challenges are going to
require buy-in from all sides: hospitals and doctors, insurance
companies and providers, Democrats and Republicans, and the American
people. The longer we wait, the harder it is going to be to fix the
problem. If we fail to address our healthcare crisis, we can cut all we
want from important investments like infrastructure and education, but
we won't be any closer to putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal
path.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Warlorski. Thank you, Mr. Carney.
Mr. Wilson, we are going to go, and then we will vote.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Wilson. Madam Chair and colleagues, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today. I sincerely appreciate the
opportunity to speak before you. I would like to first thank
Chairman Paul Ryan for his leadership on this committee. These
are difficult economic times, and I appreciate the dedicated
efforts of the chairman and all of the members on their
efforts.
I represent the 2nd Congressional District of South
Carolina, which includes the Army's base at Fort Jackson in
Columbia, as well as the Department of Energy's Savannah River
site in Aiken and Barnwell Counties. Both of these
installations are vital to our national security as they
provide unique, one-of-a-kind resources to our country. I
appreciate working together with my colleague, Congressman Jim
Clyburn, as Fort Jackson is adjacent to his district, and also
part of the Savannah River site is located in the district.
Fort Jackson serves as the Army's largest initial entry
training facility. Between the fiscal years of 2007 and 2012,
the number of soldiers who were trained at Fort Jackson ranged
from 35,000 recruits to a maximum of 46,000. Due to the
sequester, the Army has informed us that $75 million of funding
will be cut from Fort Jackson. This facility provides training
for our men and women who selflessly serve our Nation and
defend our freedoms while promoting democracy around the world.
These dedicated brave men and women in uniform should not be
subjected to budgeting confusion. As you work to draft the
fiscal year 2014 budget, please do all that you can to secure
the funds necessary for the training of our men and women at
Fort Jackson.
About an hour southwest of Columbia lies the Department of
Energy's Savannah River site. This site is a national security
asset which disposes of weapons-grade nuclear materials,
conducts cutting-edge research, and supports our country's
nuclear weapons missions. This site played a key role in
nuclear weapons production starting in the early 1950's which
led to Cold War victory. Sequestration has had a tremendous
impact on the site, causing over $100 million in cuts and over
2,000 possible furloughs.
That being said, there are concerns also about cutting
funding for the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility which
currently is under construction at SRS. This facility also
called MOX for the mixed oxide fuel it will create is in line
for our country's means to honor our nuclear nonproliferation
agreement with Russia. In the agreement made in the year 2000,
each of our countries agreed to dispose of 34 metric tons of
excess military-grade plutonium. This equates to over 17,000
nuclear bombs being removed from the world. Even more, this
facility will convert the military-grade plutonium into
commercial nuclear power rods which will power homes and
businesses across the United States. The project is over 60
percent completed and currently employs 2,300 workers with
another 2,000 ancillary jobs with the project.
In addition to the hard-working and dedicated employees at
the facility, finishing MOX is imperative for a multitude of
national security reasons. Slade Gordon, a member of the 9/11
Commission stated, quote, every dollar diverted from the MOX
facility delays the effort to get rid of plutonium and delay
provides more time for the material to be stolen. If we default
on our end of the agreement, Russia will have no incentive to
dispose of their own excess weapons-grade plutonium. I share
Mr. Gordon's concerns. It is in our mutual interest for America
and Russia to continue working together.
Apart from the future funding of the MOX project,
sequestration has ravaged funding across the board at SRS. The
environmental management side of the site will lose over $100
million in funds, and contractors expect to furlough 2,000
employees beginning April 1st. Please keep in mind that these
are completely separate from the aforementioned MOX workers.
From H Canyon to the tank farms, environmental cleanup funds
have been slashed. Moreover, the Savannah River National
Laboratory, SRNL, cannot benefit monetarily from its inventions
and does not possess a line from within the budget, making it
heavily reliant upon trickle-down funding from other facilities
within the DOE nuclear complex.
A significant decrease in funding for SRNL poses a direct
threat to our national security as the laboratory is tasked
with training all FBI forensic agents, is key to developing new
military technologies implemented in the war on terror, and
directly supports the environmental cleanup mission of legacy
defense waste across the country.
Your committee has extremely tough choices ahead. I fully
understand. I simply ask as you go through the budgetary
process, you fully consider the critical national security
missions of both Fort Jackson and the Savannah River site. The
individuals at both installations are dedicated to serving our
country and putting our national interests of the United States
before themselves.
Thank you for your attention today under the stressed time
that we have. But I have a full statement that I will provide.
[The prepared statement of Joe Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson, a Representative in
Congress From the State of South Carolina
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak here before you
today. I would like to first thank Chairman Ryan for his leadership of
this Committee. These are difficult economic times and appreciate the
dedicated efforts of the Chairman and Members of the Committee.
I represent the Second Congressional District of South Carolina
which includes the Army's Base at Fort Jackson in Columbia, as well as
the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in Aiken and Barnwell.
Both of these installations are national assets which provide unique
one-of-a-kind--to our country.
Fort Jackson serves as the Army's largest initial entry training
facility. Between fiscal years 07 to 12 the number of Soldiers who were
trained at Fort Jackson ranged from 35,000 recruits to a max of 46,000.
Due to the sequester, the Army has informed me that $75 million of
funding will be cut from Fort Jackson. This facility provides basic
training to our men and women who selflessly give of themselves to
defend freedom and spread democracy across the world. These dedicated
individuals should not be subjected to political games. As you work to
draft the Fiscal Year 2014 budget, please do everything you can to
secure funds to train our men and women at Fort Jackson.
About an hour southwest of Columbia lies the Department of Energy's
Savannah River Site. This site is a national asset which disposes of
Weapons Grade nuclear materials, conducts cutting edge research, and
supports our country's nuclear weapons missions.
Sequestration has had a tremendous effect at the Site, causing over
$100 million in funds to be cut and over 2000 possible furloughs. That
being said, what further concerns me are widespread rumors that the
President is considering severely cutting funding for the Mixed Oxide
Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) currently under construction at SRS.
This facility, also called MOX for the Mixed Oxide Fuel it will create,
is in line to be our country's only means to honor a 2000 Agreement
with Russia which called on each of our countries to dispose of 34
metric tons of excess military grade plutonium. That equates to over
17,000 nuclear bombs being taken out of the world. Even more, the
Facility will convert the military grade plutonium into commercial
nuclear power rods which will power homes and businesses across the
United States. The Project is over 60% completed and currently employs
2300 hundred workers with another 2000 ancillary jobs associated with
the Project.
In addition to the hardworking and dedicated workers at the
Facility, finishing MOX is imperative for a multitude of national
security reasons. Slade Gordon, a member of the 9/11 Commission, stated
that ``Every dollar diverted (from the MOX Facility) delays the effort
to get rid of plutonium, and every delay provides more time for the
material to be stolen.'' If we renege on our end of the Agreement,
Russia will have no incentive to dispose of their own excess weapons
grade plutonium. Do you feel comfortable allowing Russia to possess
such material? I do not.
Notwithstanding the future funding of the MOX Project,
sequestration has ravaged funding across the board at SRS. The
Environmental Management side of the Site alone will lose over $100
million in funds and contractors expect to furlough over 2000 employees
starting April 1. Please keep in mind, these are completely separate of
the aforementioned MOX workers. From H-Canyon to the Tank Farms, funds
have been slashed. Moreover, the Savannah River National Laboratory
(SRNL) cannot benefit monetarily from its inventions and does not
possess a line item within the Budget, making it heavily reliant upon
trickle down funding from other facilities within the DOE Nuclear
Complex. This doesn't bode well for the SRNL when all other
installations are also getting cut.
Your Committee has extremely difficult choices to make. I fully
understand. I simply ask that as you go through the budgetary process,
you fully consider the critical national security missions being
carried out at both Fort Jackson as well as the Savannah River Site.
The individuals at both installations are dedicated to serving their
country and putting the national interest of the United States before
themselves. Please give them the tools they need to get the job done
and to keep us safe here at home.
Ms. Warlorski. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Duly noted.
And we will take a brief recess so members can go to the
floor to vote. This hearing is now in recess subject to the
call of the chair.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rice [presiding]. The hearing of the Budget Committee
will come back to order.
Mr. McDermott, you are recognized for 5 minutes. I want you
to keep in mind, though, that we have votes starting at roughly
12:45. So if the witnesses will be kind enough to keep their
verbal comments to 5 minutes, then we can move on through this.
With that, I will start by recognizing Mr. McDermott.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM McDERMOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. McDermott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we often hear, budgets are moral documents. They are a
statement by a country about what they want their future to be
and where they are going to spend their resources.
And one of the things that is lost, I think, in some of
this sequester business that is going on right now--because
people are looking at short-term things, who will be laid off
tomorrow, who will be laid off next week, who will have a
month-long furlough in the month of May. But the real damage of
the sequester is that it affects the long-term investments in
research that this country does.
Now, the President has said he wants to innovate our way to
continue to lead the world. Our ability now to produce
manufactured goods and that sort of thing is--we are in real
competition around the world. But in terms of innovation, this
country has led the world. It is why our universities are
filled with students from outside because they want to come and
learn what it is the Americans are doing or what it is in the
water or whatever it is that is making us so creative and so
competitive.
A huge amount of what happens in our innovation and our
research and development, R&D as it is called, is from the
Federal Government. Right now, we are spending $142 billion a
year. Now, it is spread out through Defense and Health and
Human Services and Energy and NASA and the National Science
Foundation, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Interior.
The National Institutes of Health is the one that I know best
because of the development in Seattle of a global health
industry. And we have things going on in AIDS and tuberculosis
and malaria. And all these programs are funded by the Federal
Government.
Now, the way it works is that the Federal Government has X
number of dollars. They give it to the National Institutes of
Health. Each one of the institutes, whether it is Infectious
Diseases or Pulmonary Disease or whatever, gets a certain
amount of money, and then they receive grants--they receive
grant requests. And in the past, we were doing--about 20
percent of the grant proposals were funded. That is what we
did. And in fact, we increased funding in the National
Institutes of Health in 2003, and then it dropped significantly
from 2004 to 2009. And this has brought us to the point where
about 6 percent of grant proposals made to the National
Institutes of Health are funded. So we have dropped from 20 to
6 percent.
Now, what does that mean? Well, it is just a number. Right?
No, it is not. What it means is that you have young people who
spend 6-7 years. I have got a nephew who is at Harvard in
virology, and he is spending 7 years to get his Ph.D. When he
comes out, the expectation is that there will be grant money
for which he can apply to continue the research that he has
been doing while he is a graduate student at Harvard. The fact
is that he is going to have a 6 percent chance out of 100 of
getting his research funded.
Now, you say, well, you know, that is the luck of the draw.
Right? Well, the problem with that is we have trained these
people. We have trained hundreds of people in this regard, and
when they come out, they got debts and they are marketable in
other areas and we lose them.
Singapore is recruiting wildly. The guy who created Dolly
was taken from England from one of the universities and given
full--whatever he wanted in Singapore. And that is very common
across the world. There are countries who are making tremendous
investments in health and human services.
And the United States, in deciding in this document, is
making a decision about things that are going to go on 3 and 4,
5, 7, 8 years from now. And I am already hearing from my
friends on the faculty at the university that they received
phone calls from NIH saying do not hire anybody. Hold off. Your
grant has been approved, but we are not sure we are going to be
able to give you the money. And in my view, that is like the
Indian tribes in the West where we always knew when a tribe was
going to end when they began to eat the seed corn. The seed
corn is what you save for next year's crop. And we are, in this
country, beginning to eat our seed corn when we do not fund
research.
Thank you.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. McDermott.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Keith Ellison, for 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH ELLISON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Ellison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to
thank the ranking member.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus is a caucus, a
collection of members, which I am here representing today to
discuss our budget. The name of our budget will be The Back to
Work Budget. And our budget focuses on America's number one
priority which is job creation. We bring unemployment in our
budget down to 5.3 percent within 3 years by including robust
investments in construction workers, teachers, cops, fire
fighters, and youth.
We are also fiscally responsible, reducing the deficit over
the long term by nearly $2 trillion relative to current law.
On the issue of jobs, we focus our attention not on deficit
reduction, but on getting Americans back to work, which is the
best deficit reduction you can have. While the U.S. economy is
growing, ordinary Americans continue to struggle and
unemployment remains unacceptably high. The Back to Work Budget
creates nearly 7 million jobs in this year alone, putting
Americans back to work rebuilding and repairing our country and
laying the groundwork for future economic growth.
We substantially increase infrastructure investment to a
level the American Society of Civil Engineers says is necessary
to close our infrastructure gap. We fund modernization of at
least 35,000 public schools. We help States rehire nearly
300,000 teachers who have been laid off since 2008, as well as
laid-off cops, fire fighters, and other public employees. We
also boost consumer demand by reinstating the Make Work Pay tax
credit for 2 years and protect the struggling long-term
unemployment by extending emergency unemployment compensation.
Investment. Investment, not austerity, is what our economy
needs to get working again. Working families have been working
harder and harder for less and less. Our budget rebuilds our
economy so that it works for everyone not just a privileged
few.
Also, we have been cutting core programs that Americans
rely on to the bone, slashing everything from student loans to
medical research to nutrition assistance. In 2011, the budget
alone included $500 million in cuts to the Women, Infants, and
Children Nutrition Program; $1.6 billion in cuts to
environmental protection; $400 million in cuts to home energy
assistance; $300 million in cuts to the Community-Oriented
Policing Services program. If this year's Republican budget is
like the last two, it will continue to decimate programs that
protect the middle class, gutting Medicaid, and giving low-
income people a ladder into the middle class.
We need to take a look at spending reductions, and we
propose that we take a look at Pentagon spending. We need a
sustainable Pentagon budget that reflects a sound national
security strategy. Defense spending doubled over the last
decade. With two wars drawing to a close, we need a leaner,
more agile Pentagon to combat 21st century threats. Our budget
focuses on the needs of modern warfare and national defense,
simply reducing Pentagon spending to 2006 levels.
Finally, we talk about a fair tax system. We also need to
replace a broken tax system that favors corporate special
interests and the wealthy with one that works for all
Americans. Income inequality is getting worse. Over the last 3
decades, the income of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans
rose 155 percent while the bottom 80 percent saw incomes rise
just by 41 percent. And our income tax system exacerbates this
inequality. Workers who earn money from wages often pay a
higher effective tax rate than individuals like Mitt Romney or
Warren Buffet who earn money from stocks and dividends.
Our budget gets rid of the tax preference for investment
income, an approach President Reagan signed into law. It also
creates fair tax rates for millionaires and billionaires,
enacts a financial speculation tax, and eliminates corporate
tax subsidies for oil, gas, and coal companies.
This approach is supported by the American people. In a
recent polling comparing the Republican budget plan to replace
the sequester with the Progressive Caucus plan, nearly twice as
many people supported the Progressive Caucus plan. In fact, 47
percent of Republicans who participated in this survey
preferred the Progressive Caucus plan to the sequester.
Americans want Congress to ask the wealthiest and
corporations to pay a fair share in order to protect the
security of millions of Americans to get health care and other
assistance in the social safety net when people face tough
times. Americans want Congress to focus on getting them back to
work now rather than gutting the very investments we need to
grow our economy.
Thank you.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Ellison.
The chair now recognizes Mrs. Donna Christensen from the
Virgin Islands.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Chairman Rice, members. Good
afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this
important budget which will set the stage, I think, for whether
this country continues to lead or becomes a secondary player.
The latter I know we all agree is unacceptable.
First of all, I would recommend the Congressional Black
Caucus budget to the committee. In brief, the CBC budget would
cancel the sequester, offer several options for raising a
significant amount of revenue. We invest in education,
infrastructure, housing, job training, and modernize our
military. It includes Assistant Leader Clyburn's 10-20-30
program that ensures a portion of funds in all programs will be
targeted to distressed communities. In it, we strengthen Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all of the safety net
programs, and we still reduce the deficit. Once it is
finalized, I hope that the committee would accept it as part of
my testimony.
I also want to address a few specific areas.
First is the Affordable Care Act. Regardless of what
position any one of us may have taken on the bill, it is now
the law of the land, and it must be fully funded. It is not
only a moral imperative, but it is an economic imperative that
the access to health care that this bill promised be fulfilled
for the over 30 million Americans who are now uninsured. There
are many scientifically sound reports that demonstrate the
savings that would be realized by the preventive care and the
expanded access to treatment, whether it is diabetes care,
prevention of end-stage renal disease, or early heart disease
care or others. The new approaches to care tied to payment
reform, such as the Accountable Care Organization or medical
homes and others, will likewise realize savings in lives and in
costs. And the health equity provisions that were included
through the work of the Tri-Caucus which will reduce health
disparities are more savings. As a frame of reference, a recent
report by the Urban League found the excess health care costs
annually due just to disparities is about $82 billion per year.
The work of the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute
that the ACA created also promises to improve health care and
outcomes which will further result in improved health and
health care savings.
This is not an all-inclusive list. There are other
provisions that will also improve the health of our residents
and the health of our economy. Not only should both be our
goal, but we should also be determined to change our poor
standing in health internationally. Although we spend more on
health care than any other industrialized country, we are 37th
in health status and 40th and 41st in infant and maternal
mortality. We can change this shameful standing by just
eliminating health disparities.
For the health and well-being of our fellow Americans and
to reduce the escalation of health care spending, we cannot
afford to not fully fund and implement the Affordable Care Act.
Secondly, I want to refer you to H.R. 6482 introduced in
the last Congress by Congressman Burgess and myself and which
will be reintroduced this year. It would amend the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 respecting the scoring of
preventive health savings. If we scored savings, including
outside of the customary 10-year window, I do not believe we
would be having the budget battles with the gridlock over
deficit reduction that is currently paralyzing the Congress and
holding back our recovery.
Third, I want to speak to the concerns of the offshore
territories. We are often left out of important programs or
underfunded at levels that do not allow us the benefits that
the States realize. Our allotment for LIHEAP is a good example
where the .1 to .5 percent allotment for all of the territories
does not make a dent in the Virgin Islands where the cost of
our electricity is over 50 cents per kilowatt. And some seniors
and low-income families are already going without electricity.
An excerpt from a CRS memo is included in my written testimony
which illustrates this point.
Our residents do not benefit from SSI. Medicaid is capped
and underfunded with an unfair match. We are left out of
important education, health care, labor, and other programs
that inhibit our ability to provide the services our residents
need and deserve. I remind the committee that we are Americans
who serve our country in the armed forces alongside of our
fellow citizens from the 50 States and in greater numbers per
capita than many States.
Lastly, I want to alert the committee to legislation we
have recently reintroduced for the fourth time. It is H.R. 374,
the Derek Hodge Virgin Islands Improvement Act of 2013. This
legislation which creates a new IRA based in the Virgin Islands
has the potential to raise revenue for the Virgin Islands but
also an even more significant amount of revenue for the Federal
Treasury. In this time of extreme economic distress in the U.S.
Virgin Islands, I hope we can get it passed this year to
provide needed relief at home, as well as to help this Congress
provide a needed offset where it may be needed or help our
efforts to reduce the deficit.
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs.
Elizabeth Esty.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH ESTY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
fiscal year 2014 budget resolution.
As the committee prepares this year's budget resolution, I
want to emphasize the need for smart cuts to reduce the deficit
while maintaining important investments in priorities that
reflect our values as a country. That means supporting the hard
work and innovation of American businesses that are creating
jobs and helping to bring back our economy.
Throughout a tough economy, manufacturers and small
businesses in Connecticut and across the country have been
innovating and making major strides. In my district, I have
heard from manufacturers, small business owners, and labor
leaders alike a shared sense that we are finally on the verge
of better days. Mr. Chairman, their struggles and hard work to
make it through the recession are about to pay off.
But now they are concerned that this Congress may
inexplicably ruin their gains by making dangerous, across-the-
board cuts. My friend, John Herrity, President of the
Connecticut State Council of Machinists, put it perfectly when
he said that after all the progress our manufacturers have
made, quote, to lose all that momentum just defies common
sense. Now more than ever, we must preserve investments in
American products and the highly skilled employees who make
them.
And now more than ever, we need to make smart investments
in our infrastructure. These investments will create immediate
jobs in construction and engineering industries, and
investments in our transportation infrastructure will allow our
businesses to move their products and services to market more
efficiently and lay the foundation for future economic growth.
A major complaint I have heard from businesses in Connecticut
is the time and money they lose from delays caused by
congestion and gridlock. Washington budget politics should not
add to that gridlock.
Additionally, now is the time to make strategic investments
in research and development so that we continue to lead in
cutting-edge technologies and new products people around the
world want and need.
Our budget should also reflect our commitments to our
seniors. More than 125,000 people in my district receive Social
Security. More than half a million people in Connecticut rely
on Medicare. Many seniors in my district are concerned about
the future of these critical programs and they have every
reason to be, having seen proposals out of Congress in recent
years to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare. I
urge you to reject proposals that would end Medicare as we know
it. It would be a mistake to endanger these programs and break
long-held commitments to our seniors instead of adopting common
sense reforms to preserve and strengthen Social Security and
Medicare for current and future generations.
With increases in severe weather affecting Connecticut and
many other parts of the country, we also need to ensure that
families have the support they need to survive and get by. This
winter and for several past winters, Connecticut has endured
historic winter storms. We must fund home energy assistance
programs like LIHEAP for families across the country who are
struggling to stay warm. LIHEAP serves around 120,000
households in Connecticut, and this critical program has
already received drastic cuts in recent years. Before
sequestration, Federal funding for LIHEAP in Connecticut stood
at $72 million, down from $98 million in 2011. We face
additional cuts if sequester goes through. During harsh
winters, it is not right to leave families struggling to heat
their homes and to keep their children safe from the weather.
We need to make LIHEAP funding a priority in 2014.
Finally, I would like to emphasize the need for funding to
help prevent gun violence. As a Representative for Newtown,
Connecticut and as a mother, I feel a special responsibility to
help meet the needs of that community and to the parents who
have suffered such unimaginable horror. Gun violence is costing
lives in cities and towns across the country and it is a
national crisis. Again, budgets reflect our priorities and I
think we can all agree that fewer priorities are greater than
protecting the lives of our children. I urge the committee to
restore funding for public safety and law enforcement
initiatives to reduce gun violence. We need funding for
research on the causes of gun violence, for mental health, and
for States to upload their information to the national data
system.
We can and should start with easy, smart cuts and revenue
increases. There are already several proposals on the table
that I support to repeal subsidies for big oil and big gas,
eliminate outdated subsidies for agriculture, and to enact a
Buffett rule so that the wealthiest are paying their fair
share. It is certainly not an exhaustive list and we have a lot
of work to do, but the American people are frustrated, and
rightly so, with our punting responsibility to make these tough
choices. We need to get acting doing our jobs so the American
people can get back to doing theirs.
Thank you for your time and attention and thank you for
your hard work.
[The prepared statement of Elizabeth Esty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Connecticut
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and members of
the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
fiscal year 2014 budget resolution.
As this committee prepares this year's budget resolution, I want to
emphasize the need for smart cuts to reduce the deficit while
maintaining important investments in priorities that reflect our values
as a country. That means supporting the hard work and innovation of
American businesses that are creating jobs and helping to bring back
our economy.
Throughout a tough economy, manufacturers and small businesses in
Connecticut and across the country have been innovating and making
major strides. In my district, I've heard from manufacturers, small
business owners, and labor leaders alike, a shared sense that we're
finally on the verge of better days.
Mr. Chairman, their struggles and hard work to make it through the
recession is about to pay off, but they're now concerned that this
Congress may inexplicably ruin their gains by making dangerous, across-
the-board cuts.
My friend John Harrity, President of the Connecticut State Council
of Machinists, put if perfectly when he said that after all the
progress our manufacturers have made, ``to lose all that momentum just
defies common sense.'' Now more than ever, we must preserve investments
in American products and the highly skilled employees who make them.
Continuing to construct two Virginia-class submarines a year, a
recent gain championed by my friend Congressman Joe Courtney, has both
helped boost our nation's defense and helped manufacturers save and
create jobs in Connecticut. This effort has included the work of around
120 suppliers in my own district--high tech manufacturers like Ward
Leonard Electric Company in Thomaston and Jonal Laboratories in Meriden
who are making top-quality, cutting edge products. We should do right
by our national security and our manufacturers and maintain funding for
the construction of two Virginia-Class subs a year.
Our budget should also reflect our commitments to our seniors. More
than 125,000 people in my district receive Social Security. More than
half a million people in Connecticut are on Medicare. Many seniors in
my district are concerned about the future of these critical programs,
and they have every reason to be--having seen proposals out of Congress
in recent years to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare. I
urge you to reject proposals that would end Medicare as we know it. It
would be a mistake to endanger these programs and break long-held
commitments to our seniors instead of adopting commonsense reforms to
preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare for current and
future generations.
With increases in severe weather affecting Connecticut and many
other parts of the country, we also need to ensure that families have
the support they need to survive and get by. This winter and for
several past winters, Connecticut has endured historic winter storms.
We must fund home energy assistance programs like LIHEAP for families
across the country who are struggling to stay warm.
LIHEAP serves around 120,000 households in Connecticut, and this
critical program has already received drastic cuts in recent years.
Before sequestration, federal funding for LIHEAP in Connecticut stood
at about $72 million, down from $79.5 million in 2012 and down from
around $98 million in 2011. Connecticut will now face additional cuts
as sequestration cut LIHEAP nationally by $185 million. During harsh
winters, it's not right to leave families struggling to heat their
homes and keep their kids safe from the weather. We need to make LIHEAP
funding a priority in 2014.
Finally, I want to emphasize the need for funding to help prevent
gun violence. As the Representative for Newtown, Connecticut and as a
mother, I feel a special responsibility to help meet the needs of that
community and to the parents who have suffered such unimaginable
horror. But gun violence is costing lives in cities and towns across
the country. It's a national crisis.
Again, budgets reflect our priorities, and I think we can all agree
that few priorities are greater than protecting the lives of our
children. The Budget Committee should restore funding for public safety
and law enforcement initiatives to help reduce gun violence. In
addition, funding for research into the causes of gun violence, for
mental health, and for the states to improve the upload of criminal
records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to
keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
We can and should start with easy, smart cuts and revenue
increases--there are already proposals on the table that I support to
repeal subsidies for big oil and big gas, eliminate outdated subsidies
for agriculture, and to enact a ``Buffet Rule'' so that the wealthiest
are paying their fair share.
That's certainly not an exhaustive list of the cuts we can make,
nor are the programs I've discussed an exhaustive list of what I
believe we can and should fund. But I respectfully urge all to keep in
mind, as you write this budget resolution, that we were elected to make
decisions that are in the best interest of the American people. We
can't keep punting the responsibility of making tough choices when it
comes to our budget, as this Congress did by allowing mandatory across-
the-board cuts to go through on March 1.
Our constituents are looking for us to do our job, so that they can
do theirs. Let's pass a budget that reflects our values as Americans.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mrs. Esty.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr.
Joe Courtney.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE COURTNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, I
want to compliment my colleague from Connecticut. This is her
maiden presentation before the House Budget Committee, and I
compliment on her great testimony and associate myself with
her, again, broader range of issues that definitely affect our
great State.
My focus here this morning really is to talk about one
issue which is Medicare. This is a committee which last year
and apparently this year again seems to be the place where the
strongest effort is being made, in my opinion, to butcher a
program which has done so much in terms of raising life
expectancy for seniors since it was enacted in 1965, signed
into law by Lyndon Johnson out in Independence, Missouri, the
first cards issued to Harry Truman and Bess Truman, and has
also in my opinion helped create a health care system that
again has done great things in terms of pediatric--excuse me.
Not pediatric care but care for seniors and people on
disability.
In essence, what the committee proposed last year was to
take this program, basically convert it into a private health
insurance program for people aged 55 or less, and raise the age
of eligibility to people aged 67. Again, if we go back to 1965,
we had a private health insurance market for seniors in this
country. The problem is only half of seniors either had the
means or could satisfy the risk analysis that insurance
companies imposed on any book of business that they have. And
obviously, people over the age of 65 are a high-risk population
in this country.
The genius of Medicare was to create a universal pool of
tens of millions of seniors, spread risk out, create a standard
premium, provide a payroll tax system of revenue. And again,
the results are clear. Life expectancy has been added by a
factor of 8 years for Americans since the passage of the
Medicare law.
Despite the fact that we have had ups and downs in terms of
its financial strength measured by the trustees for Medicare,
we are now at a place where this committee last year and
apparently this year is using budget reasons as an excuse to,
again, fundamentally restructure this program despite the fact
that even in the last year, we have seen tangible progress in
terms of the financial solvency of this program. Doug Elmendorf
testified through CBO just a few weeks ago that the projected
baseline for the next 10 years for Medicare was actually going
to be $230 billion less than the year before.
And I brought with me, Mr. Chairman, a chart prepared by
Standard & Poor's which shows why this is happening. The per
capita expenditure on Medicare which, again, going back just to
2008, was running probably three times higher than the
inflation rate, has dropped dramatically. And actually this
number has even gone down since this chart was prepared just in
the last few months or so. We are seeing a historic drop in
terms of per capita spending for Medicare. Why is that
happening? Mr. Elmendorf has told us it is for structural
reasons created by the Affordable Care Act. Whether it is
hospital readmission penalties, that again is changing
dramatically hospital practices just in the last 3 years,
equalization of payments for Medicare Advantage which is saving
the taxpayer billions of dollars without endangering access to
Medicare Advantage, and prevention and wellness programs
covering cancer screenings, closing the donut hole, smoking
cessation, annual checkups. These are all working. And Standard
& Poor's chart, which I just showed you, demonstrated that. And
it is working without, again, damaging people's eligibility or
access to this program or the scope of their benefits.
We can do more. There is no question we can do more. And
again, thoughtful people on the right and the left are already
having serious conversations and discussions about the fact
that it is time to phase out fee-for-service over the next 8 or
9 years. Hospitals are ready for it. Providers are ready for
it. This is what will work. Raising the eligibility age,
kicking 65- and 66-year-olds off of Medicare, according to CBO,
would save about $113 billion. But the damage it would do to
employer programs--- and I was with a shipyard in my district,
EB, Electric Boat, which has some older workers who actually
would like to maybe move on in terms of retirement, but they
are frozen by the fact that their retirement benefits--their
health benefits are something that they do not want to concede
and let up. If we push that retirement eligibility age for
Medicare to age 67, you are going to create job block in the
older sectors of our population and not allow our workforce to
refresh itself and creating new opportunities for younger
people.
We can do better. We can save more money than any of these
proposals that have been put forth in terms of privatizing
Medicare or raising the age of eligibility. Coming from the
insurance capital of America, we know a little bit about
insurance in this country, and there are better ways that we
can, again, save money, which is a clear challenge in terms of
demographics in this country, without, again, damaging the
basic structure of a program which has transformed the lives of
seniors over the last 47 years.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Rice. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that a copy of
the graph shown by Mr. Courtney be included in the record.
Mr. Rice. No objection?
[The graph provided by Joe Courtney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rice. Thank you very much, Mr. Courtney.
The chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the Honorable Mr.
Connolly from Virginia.
STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cicilline,
members of the committee. It is great to be back at the Budget
Committee. I served in my first term here on the Budget
Committee, and I have sat through this session as a members of
the committee in terms of members' comments. And so in light of
that experience, I will not read my prepared statement, and
with permission, I will enter it into the record.
I will only make two points, echoing everything my
colleagues have said, but I want to make two points. And I
understand, given the partisan division here and in the
Congress, these two points will fall on deaf ears, but I still
think they are worth making.
One is that sequestration and the pending Ryan budget, like
the previous two Ryan budgets, only this one is going to be
worse, constitute a disinvestment in America. We are
disinvesting in R&D. We are disinvesting in education. We are
disinvesting in infrastructure, and we are disinvesting in
human capital. No great country stays great when it does that.
China is not doing that. And we will pay a price a generation
hence for these disinvestments.
And so it seems to me every budget represents our values,
and the budget that is about to come before the floor I fear
does not represent these values and will do harm to our country
in the long run.
The second point I want to make is on behalf Federal
employees. Just today, you know, we considered a rule and later
today we are going to vote on a continuing resolution that will
freeze salaries for Federal employees for the third year in a
row. Now, we have already changed the compensation package, the
retirement benefit package, for prospective Federal employees.
We have frozen their salaries for 2 years, and they have
already contributed over $100 billion to debt reduction. The
only employee group, working group, in America that was asked
to do that.
We face a crisis. 47 percent of Federal employees are
eligible for retirement in the next decade. How will we recruit
and retain the talent we need, the skilled workforce we need
for the future? It, after all, serves our constituents. Every
one of us will feel that pinch over time in our respective
districts.
Public service is a noble calling. Most Federal employees
do a superlative job. They work hard. They work long hours.
They provide quality skills on behalf of our constituents. They
deserve our respect, and I urge that, whatever we do in the
next budget, we try to reflect that respect, that dignity, and
not ask them to continue to be the only group in America to
make a sacrifice in the name of the national debt.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your hard work
and Mr. Cicilline. And thank you so much for giving us this
opportunity today.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Connolly, for putting up with me.
The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada, Mrs.
Titus.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEVADA
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. I
also want to thank Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen
for holding this hearing and for their hard work to resolve our
Nation's fiscal challenges.
It is important that we remember the Federal budget is more
than a theoretical document that is only debated in Washington
with no impact on families throughout the United States.
Instead, the Federal budget is a blueprint for our Nation's
future. It is a statement of our national priorities. Our
budget should be a path forward for a strong middle class and
jobs for every person who is looking for a chance at the
American dream.
The choices we make here determine if a family in Las Vegas
is living paycheck to paycheck or is saving money for their
children's education. Our budget determines if States like
Nevada will become the Saudi Arabia of solar power and home to
thousands of clean energy jobs that cannot be outsourced or if
we will continue to rely on fossil fuels that harm our
environment and create jobs overseas instead of here at home.
Accordingly, I would like to take the few minutes I have
today to highlight what I believe should be the pillars of our
budget. First, we must make it very clear that we will preserve
and protect Medicare and Social Security. We cannot change
these programs in any way that will break the safety net that
has sustained the most vulnerable in our society. I do not
support raising the retirement age for Social Security
recipients because I do not feel it is fair to ask the
construction worker building the next great resort on the Las
Vegas Strip to work 2 more hours in the blazing sun so we can
protect tax breaks for billionaires. And I will not support
turning Medicare into a voucher program because I do not think
it is fair to ask a senior in District 1 to choose between
medicine and food so we can continue to provide tax breaks for
big oil.
Second, our budget should be a serious investment in our
Nation's ability to compete well into the 21st century. The
Silver State is also the solar State with more than 300 sunny
days a year. The development of this renewable energy source is
smart policy in a number of ways. Congress should continue
supporting funding for our State energy programs which leverage
funds in support of renewable energy projects and energy
efficiency programs. Our budget should preserve the solar
Investment Tax Credit, which is particularly important to
developing large solar projects. The extension of the ITC will
give the solar energy industry the long-term certainty that is
so vital to any business sector.
We should make investments in infrastructure and energy
efficiency by continuing incentives for utilizing green
building practices. We should also prioritize reducing energy
usage in older construction with retrofit programs for office
buildings, retail stores, schools, and homes.
And when it comes to building an economy geared toward
middle class growth, it is essential that we also invest in our
critical infrastructure and transportation systems. Our roads,
railroads, and airports are central to America's economic
success, and we must make them a priority.
Congress must continue to support the FAA's NextGen
implementation that is at the heart of modernizing our air
traffic control system. It will lead to increased safety for
the flying public while also reducing fuel costs and increasing
efficiency for our airlines.
Our railroad infrastructure also remains critical to our
economy. I believe that development of a high-speed rail is a
challenge that we must take on. Congress must work with private
industry and the States to advance high-speed rail projects
that hold so much promise for the job creation and economic
success we need.
In the end, the most crucial investment we can make for the
future of our Nation is in the next generation of Americans. We
must make education a top priority and give our children the
skills and training they need to be the innovators of the
future. In short, we cannot afford to be penny wise and pound
foolish when it comes to supporting education and research and
development.
Again, I thank you for your attention, and I look forward
to working with you and our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to produce a budget that takes a balanced approach to
improving our economy and investing in our Nation's future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dana Titus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Nevada
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I want to also thank
Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen for holding this hearing
and for their hard work to resolve our nation's fiscal challenges.
It is important we remember that the federal budget is more than a
theoretical document that is only debated in Washington, with no impact
on families throughout the United States.
Instead the federal budget is a blueprint for our nation's future;
it is a statement of our national priorities. Our budget should be a
path forward for a strong middle class and jobs for every person who is
looking for a chance at the American Dream.
The choices we make determine if a family in Las Vegas is living
paycheck to paycheck, or saving money for their children's education.
Our budget determines if states like Nevada will become the Saudi
Arabia of solar power, and home to thousands of clean energy jobs that
cannot be outsourced. Or, if we will continue to rely on fossil fuels
that harm our environment and create jobs overseas instead of here at
home.
Accordingly, I want to take the few minutes I have today to
highlight what I believe should be the pillars of our budget.
First, we must be clear that we will preserve and protect Medicare
and Social Security. We cannot change these programs in any way that
will break the safety net that has sustained the most vulnerable in our
society.
I do not support raising the retirement age for Social Security
recipients because I do not feel it is fair to ask a construction
worker building the next great resort on the Las Vegas Strip to work
two more years in the blazing sun so we can protect tax breaks for
billionaires.
And, I will not support turning Medicare into a voucher program
because I do not think it is fair to ask a senior in District One to
choose between medicines and food so we can continue to provide tax
breaks for Big Oil.
Second, our budget should be a serious investment in our nation's
ability to compete well into the 21st Century.
The Silver State is also the Solar State, with more than 300 sunny
days a year. The development of this renewable energy source is smart
policy in a number of ways.
Congress should continue supporting funding for our State Energy
Programs which leverage funds in support of renewable energy projects
and energy efficiency programs.
Our budget should preserve the Solar Investment Tax Credit which is
particularly important to developing large solar projects. The
extension of the ITC will give the solar industry the long-term
certainty that is so vital to any business sector.
We should make investments in infrastructure and energy efficiency
by continuing incentives for utilizing green building practices. We
should also prioritize reducing energy usage in older construction with
retrofit programs for office buildings, retail stores, schools, and
homes.
When it comes to building an economy geared toward middle class
growth, it is essential that we invest in our critical infrastructure
and transportation systems. Our roads, railroads, and airports are
central to America's economic success, and we must make them a
priority.
Congress must continue to support the FAA's NextGen implementation
that is at the heart of modernizing our air traffic control system. It
will lead to increased safety for the flying public while also reducing
fuel costs and increasing efficiency for our airlines.
Our railroad infrastructure also remains critical to our economy. I
believe that development of high speed rail is a challenge we must take
on. Congress must work with private industry and the states to advance
high speed rail projects that hold so much promise for job creation and
economic success.
In the end, the most crucial investment we can make for the future
of our nation is in the next generation of Americans. We must make
education a top priority, and give our children the skills and training
they need to be the innovators of the future.
In short, we cannot afford to be penny wise and pound foolish when
it comes to supporting education, and research and development.
Again, thank you for your attention. I look forward to working with
you and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to produce a budget
that takes a balanced approach to improving our economy and investing
in our nation's future.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mrs. Titus.
The chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Barber.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON BARBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Barber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. I
am pleased to be here today to bring to your attention some
funding needs that are critical in my district in southern
Arizona and to the Nation.
I agree that spending must be reduced to address our budget
deficit and national debt. I have five grandchildren and I do
not want their future weighed down by the debt that we have
created. I am sure I join with millions of parents and
grandparents across the Nation who feel this way.
There is no doubt that spending must be reduced to address
our national debt, but spending across the board, spending
mandated by sequestration, is not the way to make the kind of
responsible and fact-based spending cuts that this Nation
needs.
Let me talk about the impact on our State, my district, and
on the Nation. Sequestration is already taking its toll.
Because Arizona is on the U.S.-Mexico border, sequestration
cuts are especially serious, and those consequences, if allowed
to continue for long, will degrade the security of our entire
Nation. In a letter this week to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer,
the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet
Napolitano, wrote: reductions mandated by sequestration will
necessitate furloughs, hiring freezes, and the elimination of
overtime pay for a significant portion of our front-line law
enforcement personnel which will impact negatively on staffing
levels in Arizona.
This is not the right way to go. Reduced overtime and
furloughs on CBP border patrol agents will result in diminished
capability and capacity to detect and interdict illicit
activities along southern Arizona's border with Mexico, one of
the most porous areas of the border in the whole Nation. It
will also reduce the income of these agents by 20 percent. That
is the wrong way to treat these brave men and women who put on
the uniform every day to protect the homeland.
So first and foremost, Mr. Chairman, before we make any
decisions about spending for the future, we must give the
American people certainty and reverse the sequester before the
full impacts are felt by the American families, businesses, and
our economy. We must work immediately to adopt a bipartisan and
balanced budget package.
Moving forward, Mr. Chairman, we must clearly show our
commitment to a more secure border with Mexico. We have made
improvements but there are many yet to be made. As only one of
nine members with a border district on the southwest border, I
know firsthand that many of the people I represent still feel
unsafe in their own homes. That is not right. No American
should feel unsafe in their homes because of incursions from
across the border. We need robust funding for agents,
technology, and communications on the border.
We must also make new investments in our ports of entry to
improve infrastructure and to increase staffing levels to
ensure that the ports are secure and that legal commerce flows
expeditiously.
Mr. Chairman, let me now speak about defense. Among the 50
States, Arizona ranks fifth nationally in the number of
employees in defense-related jobs. More than 42,000 Arizonans
work in the aerospace or defense industry jobs, and the
industry is responsible for more than 153,000 indirect jobs in
our State. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, for example,
manufactures Tomahawk, Maverick Sidewinder, and many of the
other missiles that we need in our current conflicts. Raytheon
also partners with Israel on the Iron Dome protection system
that is essential to Israel's safety and security.
Also in my district, we have two military installations
that are essential to our national security: Davis-Monthan Air
Force Base and Fort Huachuca. I am very proud to represent
these patriotic service members and their families and our
civilian workforce that works in Department of Defense-related
jobs.
We must protect these assets that are so critical to our
national defense and security. Morale in the armed forces has
been seriously affected by the uncertainty in the cuts imposed
by sequestration. By making robust investments in our national
defense, we will ensure our readiness and security while
dispelling economic uncertainty and creating new economic
growth.
Southern Arizona is also home to over 85,000 veterans.
America's veterans have made every sacrifice we have asked of
them to protect our Nation and protect our freedoms. As we set
our budget priorities for this fiscal year and each one after
that, we must honor the promises that we have made to our
veterans.
And finally, many Americans come to my district from other
parts of the country to retire. As a result, we have over
128,000 seniors living in my district. They have invested all
of their working lives in a retirement income and medical care
assurances in Social Security and Medicare. They are concerned
and I am concerned about the long-term solvency of these
programs. But we know for a fact that Medicare is solvent till
2024, Social Security till 2033. We have time to do the right
thing to continue their solvency without making drastic cuts or
privatizing these critical systems and services.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the fiscal challenges facing our Nation. They cannot be
overstated. But neither can we afford to shrink from our
responsibilities----
Mr. Rice. Mr. Barber----
Mr. Barber [continuing]. To stop investing in this Nation's
future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ron Barber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Barber, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Arizona
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on the Budget: Thank you
for inviting me to be with you this morning to address some funding
needs that are critical to my district in Southern Arizona.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the impacts
that the sequestration has had on my state and on my district. And I
mean the very real impacts that already have occurred.
Because Arizona is on the U.S. Mexico border, sequestration
consequences are especially serious. And those consequences--if allowed
to continue for long--will degrade the security of our entire nation.
In a letter this week to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Department of
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wrote that, ``Reductions
mandated by sequestration will necessitate furloughs, hiring freezes
and elimination of overtime pay for a significant portion of our
frontline law enforcement personnel, which will impact staffing levels
in Arizona.''
Reduced overtime and furloughs of CBP Border Patrol agents will
result in a ``diminished capability and capacity to detect and
interdict illicit activity along Arizona's border with Mexico.''
So first and foremost, Mr. Chairman, before we make any decisions
about spending for the future we must give the American people
certainty and reverse the sequester before the full impacts are felt by
American families, businesses and our economy. We must work immediately
to adopt a bipartisan and balanced budget package.
Spending must be reduced to address our national debt. But the
across-the-board cuts mandated by sequestration are not the way to make
the kind of intelligent, fact-based spending cuts that this nation
needs.
Mr. Chairman, moving forward, our budget must clearly show our
commitment to a more secure border with Mexico.
We have made improvements in securing our border--but the job
remains unfinished.
As one of only eight members in the House representing the
Southwest border and as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I
know that we still have more to do so the people who live and work
along our southern border feel safe in their homes and on their land.
That is not the case today in some areas of my district--and in
other areas of the border.
We need robust funding for agents, technology and communications at
the border.
We also must make new investments in our ports of entry to improve
infrastructure and increase staffing to ensure that the ports are
secure and commerce flows.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn now to defense.
Among the 50 states, Arizona ranks fifth nationally in the number
of employees in defense-related jobs.
More than 42,000 Arizonans work in aerospace or defense industry
jobs and the industry is responsible for more than 153,000 direct,
indirect and induced jobs.
Our aerospace industry, from the workers at the plant, to the
pioneering scientists and engineers at the drafts board, work
tirelessly to provide this country the ability to meet any threat,
around the world, and here at home.
Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson manufactures Tomahawk, Maverick
Sidewinder and many other missiles. Raytheon also partners with Israel
on the integral Iron Dome protection system that is imperative to
Israel's safety and security.
In addition to our state's thriving defense industries, southern
Arizona is home to two major military installations and an Air National
Guard Wing:
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson
the Army's Fort Huachuca in Sierra Vista
And the 162nd Fighter Wing of the Arizona Air National
Guard just across my district line
I am proud to represent these brave service men and women, their
families, and our civilian workforce in Southern Arizona.
Pilots at Davis-Monthan train every day in A-10s so that they can
provide close air support for our soldiers when deployed overseas,
flying low and slow and picking off insurgents.
Soldiers at Fort Huachuca learn human intelligence tactics to
provide us with critical insights in the field on our enemy's
capabilities, to help find the vulnerabilities that will turn the tide
of war.
Pilots at the 162nd fighter wing of the AZ Air National Guard train
foreign allies and build future relationships that strengthen our
global security and international partners.
By making robust investments in our national defense we will ensure
our readiness and security while dispelling economic uncertainty and
creating new economic growth.
Southern Arizona is also home to over 85,000 veterans. America's
veterans have made every sacrifice to defend our nation and protect our
freedoms. As we set our budget priorities this fiscal year and each one
after it, we must honor the promises we have made to our veterans and
ensure that they receive the compensation, health care, educational
opportunities, and employment assistance that they deserve.
Our budget must also honor and reflect our commitments to seniors
who have put in a lifetime of hard work, helping to make our economy
grow and make our nation strong. They deserve a safe, healthy and
secure retirement. I represent nearly 130,000 seniors and am committed
to protecting and preserving Social Security and Medicare for the
seniors in my district and for generations to come. I oppose any
efforts to phase out Social Security and Medicare or proposals to
replace these programs with privatized systems that jeopardize the
livelihood of the millions of seniors who depend on them.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity. The fiscal
challenges facing our nation cannot be overstated. But we can neither
afford to shirk from our responsibilities nor can we stop investing in
this nation's future.
I look forward to working with all of my colleagues--from both
sides of the aisle--to reach a fair, balanced and bipartisan approach
to sequestration.
And I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in putting
our nation on a solid financial footing so we can face our challenges
with the strength that can come only from lowering our debt.
Thank you.
Mr. Rice. Thank you very much, sir.
The chair recognizes the Honorable Mr. Salmon from Arizona.
STATEMENT OF HON. MATT SALMON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Salmon. Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
I would ask for unanimous consent to have my written
testimony entered into the record.
Mr. Rice. Without objection.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is my second opportunity to serve in Congress. I
served back in--I started in 1994 to the year 2000. We had some
fiscal issues then. In fact, when I first came to Congress, I
think we had about $135,000,000 deficit, and I was apoplectic
about that because I was concerned that we were mortgaging our
children's future away then.
But, boy, how times have changed. In the last decade since
I have been gone, we went from a $1.789 trillion budget in the
year 2000 to a $3.796 trillion budget this year, 53 percent
higher than it was when I was here.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is responsible. I believe
that we have got to pay as we go just like every American
family has to do, just like every American business, every
hospital, every church. Nobody spends the way that we spend
like drunken sailors on shore leave. And I think that we owe
the American public a little bit more.
In fact, last year in our budget, 43 cents out of every
dollar that we spent was borrowed and we continue to borrow
like there is no tomorrow. In fact, I have heard jokes about
some families saying that they tried to use their MasterCard to
pay off their Visa bill. It seems like that is what we are
doing time and time again.
But there will be a comeuppance. There was a commercial
that used to run when I was a kid. It was the FRAM man, and he
used to say you pay me now or you will pay me a lot more later.
Well, that is where we are at. We see the calamities that are
happening across the water in Greece and we think that could
never happen to us. But, Mr. Chairman, it can. If we do not get
our fiscal house in order, there are going to be a lot more
people hurt a lot worse than--people are talking about the
sequester that is hurting people's lives. Well, the fact is if
we do not do something now, people will be hurt a lot worse,
and the longer we punt this thing, the more difficult it is
going to be to dig our way out.
So, Mr. Chairman, I came back to Congress--actually I left
voluntarily. I did a term limit pledge and I left after three
terms. I came back to Congress not just because I like
Washington, D.C. I came back because I really do believe that
we have got to fundamentally change the way we do things. We
just had our fifth grandchild last year, and as I look into
that precious baby's eyes and I think what kind of future is
that baby going to have if we do not get our financial house in
order right now.
And so, Mr. Chairman, my biggest goal is to balance this
budget as quickly as we possibly can and to start paying down
the debt. And I think that in order to do that, we ought to
look at everything. No sacred cows. And we ought to cut out
things that are not big priorities. I think that we ought to
look at something that we tried back when I was in Congress
before with the Contract with America. We identified three
cabinet-level agencies that we were willing to get rid of. The
Federal Department of Commerce has not had a Secretary of
Commerce in over a year. Well, if it is so easy to do without a
Secretary of Commerce for a year, maybe it is easy to do
without the whole Department of Commerce. What value are they
really adding?
I also believe that we ought to take a look at our taxation
policies. We are driving companies overseas. If we really want
to fix things, then let's stop having the most oppressive, high
corporate tax rate in the entire world. Right now, we are at 35
percent. It is the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
President Obama has said that that policy is actually hurting
American businesses and driving them overseas. Well, let's take
him up on it. Let's lower the corporate tax rate to about 25
percent or lower and let companies repatriate into this country
without penalizing them. Let them come back to this country and
bring their assets.
Marco Rubio said something I think that is very
appropriate. He said we do not need more taxes. We need more
taxpayers.
Now, the goal is to run the Government. I understand that.
We want to run the Government. We want to take care of this
country. But let's stop confusing what our goals are. It seems
like sometimes our goals are to punish people for being
successful. How about we reward people for being ingenious? And
that means in Government too. If we find better ways of doing
things, cheaper ways of doing things, we ought to reward agency
heads for doing that and the people that work in those agencies
for finding better ways, more cost effective ways to do things.
I also would like to change the way we do our budgeting in
general. This baseline budgeting to me is for the birds. No
company, successful company, looks at what they got last year
and says, well, you will get that plus some next year
regardless of how effective you were at spending that money and
how effective you were at achieving your goals. Let's try to
move toward a baseline budget and reward people for getting the
job done. I understand that with our food stamp program, we
actually have a bonus program where we bonus people, we bonus
States for the amount of people that they pay out welfare to or
give out food stamps to. How about we reward people for getting
folks off of food stamps and getting them into jobs instead of
rewarding people for growing Government?
Mr. Chairman, I can see that my time is just about expired,
but I would just like to inject a little bit of common sense
back into the equation and do things like the rest of America
has to do it: pay as we go and not borrow our way into
oblivion.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Matt Salmon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Matt Salmon, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Arizona
Chairman Paul Ryan, Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen, Members of the
House Budget Committee, good morning and thank you for calling this
hearing for Members to come and share their concerns with the current
fiscal health of the United States and express our hopes for the future
direction of our Federal budget. I appreciate the opportunity to
participate in this year's Members' Day and I look forward to working
with the members of this committee to bring common sense spending
reforms to the 113th Congress.
reviewing current fiscal conditions
As many of you know, from 1995 through 2001, I was honored to
represent the people of Arizona in this esteemed body. When I left,
adhering to my three term limit pledge, a Republican Congress had
worked with a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, to change our budget
trajectory from endless deficits to a budget surplus of $236 billion in
2000. We also accomplished many government reforms that not only made
government more efficient and less expensive, but also lifted the heavy
and costly burden of government regulations, mandates and taxes. We
released America's greatest asset: our entrepreneurs who created jobs
and wealth that benefited the whole country and enabled us to balance
our budget. It is important to note that those reforms and spending
reductions did not come easily. In fact, as many of you remember, we
actually shut the government down for 28 days while we haggled, argued
and ultimately found a compromise. As painful as it was, the budget
show down of 1995, set the stage for the prosperity that followed.
Now, let me be clear, I am not advocating a budget shut down. I'm
illustrating that the choices we faced back then were tough, but we did
it. Now, we as a Congress face an even more enormous challenge; but in
the end we must be responsible, lead, and make tough choices in order
to confront those challenges and emerge a better nation. Just as in the
90's, this will be hard. Because of the enormity of our current fiscal
situation it will require that we work together and make those
difficult choices that will allow our country and our economy to emerge
better than before.
The economy's performance, both short term and long term, depends
heavily on how we conduct our fiscal policy. The fiscal challenges
facing this Congress are not new. It is important that we put the
federal budget on a sustainable, long-term path that promotes economic
growth. We've proven before that a divided government can act in a
fiscally responsible way, and, the need is far greater than ever now.
To put it in perspective, total government spending in outlays in 2000
was $1.789 trillion--today, that number is 53% higher ($3.796
trillion). Even more concerning, in just four years (2008 to 2012),
government spending increased by over 21%. That is simply
unsustainable.
Some have tried to say that we need a ``balanced'' approach that
increases taxes again on the American people. I reject that premise.
This year, according to CBO, the government is expected to have the
highest revenues in the history of this country; yet, we will still
have a budget deficit of about $850 billion. This is proof: we have a
spending problem. As Senator Marco Rubio has said before, ``We don't
need more taxes. We need more taxpayers.''
combatting government duplication, redundancy, and waste
First and foremost, this Congress must start reducing the actual
size of the government. In order to do that, we must begin to identify
and consolidate redundant programs. According to a recent report, if
the government would even just follow the recommendations given to them
by the duly appointed Inspectors General, we could save an additional
$67 billion. That is just scratching the surface.
Also, important to solving short-term budget deficits is the
elimination of purely wasteful government spending. Some of the more
ludicrous examples include: (1) $27 million on Moroccan pottery
classes; (2) $4.5 billion on improper food stamp payments; and (3) $25
billion each year to maintain vacant federal properties. In a time
where average American families are tightening their belts and looking
for ways to stretch their stagnant or diminishing paychecks, it seems
insulting that the Federal government dumps billions of dollars each
year into inefficient (and often times pointless--i.e.: $947,000 for
food on Mars, the planet) government pork.
To prove that we are serious about cuts, we should have a top down
review of our government. We need to seriously look into reducing the
number of agencies and departments. As the annual GAO study shows,
there's duplication and ineffective programs throughout the government.
One easy example is the duplication that exists between the Department
of Education and the Department of Labor.
It is critical that the U.S. government treat its budget like any
normal family or business would. Congress should be allocating our
resources based on needs and benefits, rather than history.
addressing future fiscal concerns (mandatory spending/medicare)
While finding and eliminating government waste is critical, that
alone will not address the looming long-run budgetary crisis. We must
tackle our mushrooming entitlement programs. One necessary step to
reduce our long-run spending is to begin tackling our mushrooming
entitlement programs--most importantly, Medicare. The dramatic growth
in Medicare spending and the accumulation of total future obligations
are weighing down the program. One solution I have advocated for would
be, over time gradually increasing the retirement age for both Social
Security and Medicare to 72. With Americans living longer, healthier
lives it makes sense to raise the retirement age in order to preserve
these programs' solvency. Just by raising the retirement age to 70, the
Business Roundtable estimated a savings of $300 billion in Medicare
spending and an extension of Social Security's solvency for 75 years.
Failing to act to reform and therefore save these entitlement programs
is irresponsible. In fact, if we don't act now, there may not be enough
resources in the systems to provide promised services to the couple
retiring today.
zero-based budgeting
Finally, to help Congress reduce wasteful spending, I advocate we
adopt a zero-based budgeting process. Through this approach, every line
item of the budget must be approved versus just the year to year
changes. With zero-based budgeting, we can begin to properly identify
and eliminate wasteful and obsolete programs while bringing a new level
of transparency to our constituents. By justifying each line item in
the Federal budget, we can begin to truly identify where the Federal
government has overstepped its constitutional authority, created
duplicative or ineffective programs and thereby reduce spending while
transferring power back to the States where it belongs. Zero-based
budgeting would enable us to start lowering our deficit, bringing us
towards a balanced budget within ten years (FY2024).
balanced budget amendment
Balancing the budget should be the number one priority of every
Congress, especially the 113th. This is why I hope the House Budget
committee will support a balanced budget amendment. With a balanced
budget amendment, Congress would finally be held accountable for
reckless spending using our grandchildren as collateral. It is our
responsibility as Members of Congress to ensure a brighter future for
our future generations.
pay-for-performance legislation
This responsibility to our constituents is why I suggest adopting
legislation requiring a pay cut should Congress fail to pass a budget
that balances within 10 years. When I go back to the district to meet
with constituents, the number one complaint is the lack of progress
Congress has made in the past two years in balancing the budget. Pay-
for-Performance legislation would add the extra incentive some may need
to find common-sense, effective budget reductions.
taxation policy
When trying to balance the budget, some of my colleagues in
Congress have suggested higher taxes on corporations and individuals. I
cannot stress how opposed I am to this proposition. As it stands now,
the United States has the highest corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent
(Japan is now at 36.8 percent after their recent cut). Having a
corporate income tax rate well above the 25 percent average of other
developed nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) puts us at a large disadvantage when competing for
new investment. To bring more jobs back to American shores and restore
a friendly economic environment for businesses to prosper, we must act
to reduce our corporate tax rate. Reducing the corporate income tax
rate is a bipartisan effort, supported openly by President Obama on his
website and in recent press conferences. We must lead our nation back
towards the path of prosperity by incentivizing companies to move back
to the U.S. and bring much needed jobs, research and development, and
growth with them.
conclusion
Again, I thank the Committee for their time, and for the warm
invitation from Chairman Ryan and Ranking-Member Van Hollen. I hope the
House Budget Committee takes into consideration my thoughts on how to
address government waste, long-run mandatory spending, the benefits of
a zero-based budgeting process, the need for a balanced budget
amendment, and my ideas on Pay-for-Performance legislation to help
incentivize a balanced budget. In addition, I urge my colleagues on the
Budget Committee to take to heart my suggestions to lower corporate
income tax rates in order to help further stimulate our sluggish
economy. I look forward to working alongside this great committee as
the House brings the FY 2014 budget to the House floor for a vote.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Salmon, very much.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank the committee for the opportunity to share with you some
of the budget priorities I hold for the coming year and which I
am here to emphasize on behalf of the people of the 6th
Congressional District of Kentucky.
As a new Member of the House, I strongly support the call
of the American people to reduce Government spending and bring
the national debt under control. As I have traveled around my
district, people have consistently told me that restoring
fiscal responsibility is their number one priority and that
they sent me to Washington to force the Government to live
within its means. Accordingly, I am committed to cutting
spending, reducing the size of Government, promoting economic
growth, and putting our budget on a path to balance.
Today I would like to talk about a number of things, namely
entitlement reform so that these programs can be sustainable
for the future, a permanent fix to the sustainable growth rate
for physicians, properly budgeting for natural disaster relief,
keeping taxes low to encourage economic growth, and the
importance of ensuring a strong national defense in a tough
budget environment.
Our debt is currently $16.7 trillion. It was $16.4 trillion
when I took office only 8 weeks ago, and we all know that the
debt, even with the $620 billion tax increase the President got
at the start of the year, will continue to skyrocket in the
coming years if nothing is done to reform our Government.
Mandatory spending has consumed a growing share of our
Nation's budget over the years, and the trend, if left
unreformed, will only make our budget crisis worse. In 1972,
mandatory spending accounted for 37 percent of the budget. 30
years later in 2012, nearly 58 percent of our spending is
devoted to mandatory programs. If the status quo spending is
left unreformed, the reality is that the growth in mandatory
spending programs will continue to consume an increasing share
of our budget and squeeze out our ability to devote resources
to other important priorities. In fact, the anticipated growth
in health care spending, other entitlement spending, and the
interest on the national debt is projected to consume 100
percent of Federal revenues in the next 15 years. This means
that every single dollar of spending that Washington puts
towards discretionary programs in the future would be adding to
the debt. This puts our children and grandchildren in an
unacceptable and untenable position. So we need to reform
Medicare and our other entitlements if we want to maintain the
ability and flexibility to invest in other important priorities
without adding to an unsustainable debt.
As part of comprehensive Medicare reform, we have to reform
our payment policies without diminishing seniors' access to
physicians. I hope the committee can encourage efforts to
repeal the current sustainable growth rate formula. This, of
course, was originally developed to control the amount that
Medicare will pay for health care services. However, it has
proven to be an ineffective drain on our budget that gets worse
each year that it is left unresolved. Further, the uncertainty
each year of whether Congress will come up with a fix causes
tremendous anxiety for physicians. It harms their ability to
budget properly for their practices and jeopardizes their
ability to take in and treat more seniors. Rather than
reimburse per service provided, we need to replace the SGR with
a program that incentives quality, efficiency, and access. This
will provide certainty for health care providers that is
permanent and durable and allow them to get back on focusing on
patients, helping patients heal while reining in out-of-control
overall costs in health care.
Another reform that I would like to encourage the committee
to focus on is the need to properly budget for natural disaster
relief. Anytime a natural disaster strikes, I share the
sympathy of all Americans and support a prompt and
compassionate Federal response where needed. But rather than
add to the debt every time we face a difficult decision, I
believe we should work to find ways to budget for and pay for
natural disaster aid packages. This means adequately prefunding
disaster relief accounts bringing disaster spending under
spending caps and additional reforms to ensure that disaster
relief designation is being appropriately applied. I am willing
to work with the committee on a number of potential reform
proposals to improve how we pay for disaster relief.
I would also like to emphasize the importance of focusing
on economic growth when it comes to discussing taxes. While
many in Washington are short-sightedly calling for another
round of tax increases on top of the $620 billion that the
President pushed for in January, I strongly believe that this
is the wrong approach. Raising taxes will only further weigh
down the economy and slow job creation efforts in the private
sector. And we know that additional revenue is never actually
dedicated to deficit reduction. Instead, it is always used to
finance more Government. It is always used as an excuse to not
reform Government.
The bottom line is that tax increases are a lousy deficit
reduction strategy. If we want to maintain the most vibrant,
dynamic economy in the world, I believe we must reform the tax
code in ways that broadens the base, gets serious about
simplification and closing tax loopholes, and lowers and
consolidates marginal rates. This approach will enable American
businesses to better compete and provide much needed tax relief
to American families.
Finally, I would like to talk about defense and national
security. Defense spending represents approximately 18 percent
of the Federal budget yet has been forced to absorb nearly half
of the spending reductions occurring in the past 2 years. Given
our military's already disproportionate contribution to deficit
reduction, I encourage the committee to use its tools to ensure
that our military has the resources it needs to properly defend
the American people. We must always ensure that our military's
readiness is not compromised by an inability in Washington to
reform our mandatory spending objectives.
Thank you very much. I would like to thank the committee
for the opportunity to present my priorities in the coming
year. I look forward to working with the committee. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Andy Barr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Andy Barr, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Kentucky
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank this Committee for the opportunity to
share with you some of the budget priorities I hold for the upcoming
year, and which I am here to emphasize on behalf of the Sixth District
of Kentucky.
As a new Member of the House, I strongly support the call of the
American people to reduce government spending and bring our national
debt under control. As I have traveled around my district, people have
consistently told me that restoring fiscal responsibility is their
number one priority, and that they sent me to Washington to force the
government to live within its means. Accordingly, I am committed to
cutting spending, reducing the size of government, promoting economic
growth, and putting our budget on a path to balance.
Today, I'd like to talk about a number of things--namely,
entitlement reform so that these programs can be sustainable for the
future; a permanent fix to the sustainable growth rate physician fee
schedule; properly budgeting for natural disaster relief; keeping taxes
low to encourage economic growth; and the importance of ensuring a
strong national defense in a tough budget environment.
spending and entitlement reform
Our debt is currently $16.7 trillion. It was $16.4 trillion when I
took office only 8 weeks ago, and we all know that the debt--even with
the $620 billion tax increase the President got at the start of the
year--will continue to skyrocket in the coming years if nothing is done
to reform our government.
Mandatory spending has consumed a growing share of our nation's
budget over the years, and the trend, if left unreformed, will only
make our budget crisis worse. In 1972, mandatory spending accounted for
37 percent of the budget; thirty years later, in 2012, nearly 58
percent of our spending was devoted to mandatory programs.
If the status quo spending is left unreformed, the reality is that
the growth in mandatory spending programs will continue to consume an
increasing share of our budget and squeeze out our ability to devote
resources to other priorities. In fact, the anticipated growth in
health care spending, other entitlement spending, and interest on the
debt is projected to consume 100% of federal revenues in the next 15
years.
This means that every single dollar of spending that Washington
puts towards discretionary programs in the future would be adding to
the debt--this puts our children and grandchildren in an unacceptable
and untenable position. So, we need to reform Medicare and our other
entitlements if we want to maintain the ability and flexibility to
invest in our other programs, without adding to an unsustainable debt.
sustainable growth rate
As part of comprehensive Medicare reform, we have to reform our
payment policies without diminishing seniors' access to physicians. I
hope the committee can encourage efforts to repeal the current
Sustainable Growth Rate method, also known as the SGR physician payment
schedule. The SGR was originally developed to control the amount that
Medicare will pay for healthcare services; however, it has proven to be
ineffective and a drain on our budget that gets worse each year it is
left unresolved. Further, the uncertainty each year of whether Congress
will come up with a fix causes tremendous anxiety for physicians--it
harms their ability to budget properly for their practices, and
therefore jeopardizes their ability to take in and treat more seniors.
Rather than reimburse per service provided, we need to replace the
SGR with a program that incentivizes quality, efficiency, and access.
This will provide certainty for healthcare providers that is permanent
and durable, and allow them to get back to focusing on helping their
patients heal, while reining-in out of control overall costs in
healthcare.
properly budgeting for natural disaster relief
Another reform that I'd like to encourage the committee to focus on
is the need to properly budget for natural disaster relief. Any time a
natural disaster strikes, I share the sympathy of all Americans and
support a prompt and compassionate federal response where needed. But
rather than add to the debt every time we face a difficult decision, I
believe that we should work to find a way to budget and pay for
disaster aid packages. This means adequately pre-funding the disaster
relief accounts, bringing disaster spending under the spending caps,
and additional reforms to ensure that the disaster relief designation
is being appropriately applied. I am willing to work with the committee
on a number of potential reform proposals to improve how we pay for
disaster relief.
keeping taxes low to encourage economic growth
I'd also like to emphasize the importance of focusing on economic
growth, when it comes to discussing taxes. While many in Washington are
shortsightedly calling for another round of tax increases--on top of
the $620 billion that the President pushed for on January 1--I strongly
believe this is the wrong approach. Raising taxes will only further
weigh down the economy and slow down job creation efforts in the
private sector. And we know that the additional revenue is never
actually dedicated to deficit reduction--instead, it is always used to
finance more government; it is always used as an excuse not to reform
government. The bottom line is that tax increases are a lousy deficit
reduction strategy.
If we want to maintain the most vibrant, dynamic economy in the
world, I believe that we must reform the tax code in a way that
broadens the base, gets serious about simplification and closing tax
loopholes, and lowers and consolidates marginal rates. This approach
will enable American businesses to better compete and provide much-
needed tax relief to American families.
strong national defense
Finally, I'd like to talk about defense and national security.
Defense spending represents approximately 18 percent of the federal
budget, yet has been forced to absorb nearly half of the spending
reductions occurring in the past two years. Given our military's
already disproportionate contribution to deficit reduction, I encourage
the committee to use its tools to ensure that our military has the
resources it needs to properly defend the United States and keep its
citizens safe in the future. We must always ensure that our military's
readiness is not compromised by an inability in Washington to properly
set spending priorities.
Protecting the military from disproportionate and discriminatory
cuts is important in Kentucky's Sixth District, where the Blue Grass
Army depot provides essential munitions to the Defense Department and
the U.S. warfighter overseas.
I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak here
today. I am eager to support your efforts to reduce the size of
government, promote economic growth, and put our nation's budget on a
path to balance in the near future.
Mr. Rice. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. Are
there any questions?
Seeing none, thank you.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico,
Ms. Grisham, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you
for having me here today and to have the opportunity to talk
about some issues that are important to my constituents. I
would like to talk about the nexus between job creation and the
health care system and how the choices made by this committee
on both areas can secure a strong future that produces long-
term economic growth.
Although the economy continues to recover, it has been far
too slow in creating jobs. In fact, if the economy continues to
grow at the same pace as the last 18 months, it will take
another 10 years for the labor market to fully recover. We
cannot afford to wait that long. And the millions of
individuals and families in need of a job cannot wait either.
I believe we need to strengthen and invest in critical
infrastructure like the health care system as a key way to
create jobs here at home and to protect our most vulnerable
citizens. According to a 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics study,
the health sector is going to be the leader in job growth
throughout the rest of this decade. The BLS projected the
health sector to create 4.3 million jobs by 2020, a 30 percent,
while the rest of the economy creates jobs at a 13 percent
rate. It is no surprise that the health care providers are
major employers in my district, including Presbyterian Health
Care, Lovelace Health System, Molina Health Care, and the
University of New Mexico Hospital. Simply put, health care
services and delivery is where the jobs are.
Unfortunately, the budget path chosen by this committee in
the recent past has put this job growth in jeopardy. Medicare
is going to suffer $11 billion in cuts due to sequestration. In
addition, it plans to turn Medicare into a voucher program and
block grants Medicaid to States. This is exactly the wrong
approach.
The continuing resolution does not include a requested $949
million to implement health insurance exchanges under the
Affordable Care Act which are scheduled to begin enrolling
participants in October of this year. Funding is needed for IT
infrastructure to process eligibility verifications, call
centers, and other assistance to help individuals and small
businesses select and enroll in health plans. These cuts and
proposed changes will have a devastating effect in my district
and on each of those providers I mentioned who will lose
critical funding in fiscal year 2013 and 2014, translating into
further loss of jobs and lifesaving medical care to New
Mexicans.
For example, Presbyterian is expected to lose $10 million.
UNM Hospital could lose between $10 million and $20 million in
funding. Lovelace will lose upwards of $5 million. They also
have a low occupancy rate, around 65 percent, and are losing a
Medicaid contract.
At the same time, New Mexico is experiencing a 12-month job
growth rate of negative .9 percent, including a rate of
negative .4 percent in December, equaling a loss of 3,200 jobs.
While the Veterans Administration programs are exempted
from sequestration budget cuts, veterans themselves are not
protected. VA facilities are not easily accessible,
particularly in rural and frontier States such as New Mexico,
and veterans often must rely on Medicare or Medicaid for health
and long-term services. To the extent that access to care is
impacted by cuts to Medicare or Medicaid, veterans are also
impacted.
I want to also highlight the unprecedented cut to Indian
Health Services, which is permanently authorized by the
Affordable Care Act. IHS is reliant on Medicare and HHS for
their funding and is persistently underfunded. And now this
year IHS will get twice the cuts. The sequester will cut $198
million from IHS services, $22 million from IHS facilities, and
$3 million from the special diabetes programs for Native
Americans. But we must keep in mind that IHS also receives
funding from Medicare and will experience a 2 percent decrease
in these payments. This will make it much harder for IHS to
deliver the services and care to their populations. The cuts
will also make it harder for people in rural areas to access
the care they need.
Let me close with this. In between serving my constituents
here in Congress and at home, there is one special constituent,
my mother, for whom I also serve as her primary caregiver. And
like many other adult children that serve as caregivers for
their parents and their adult disabled children, we navigate
the health care system together to get them the care and
support they need. But caregiving requires time and many have
to spend personal resources in order to make sure their loved
ones get the services that they need. Cutting Medicare and
Medicaid will put additional financial pressure on millions of
family caregivers and threatens their short-term and long-term
financial security.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, we can undo the damage
done to job creation and make a concerted effort to strengthen
our investments in health care with the 2014 budget. I look
forward to working with you on a balanced approach to find
solutions that will solve these problems. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Michelle Grisham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Representative in
Congress From the State of New Mexico
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Van Hollen, thank you for having me
here today and to have the opportunity to talk about some issues that
are important to my constituents.
I would like to talk about the nexus between job creation and the
health care system, and how the choices made by this committee on both
areas can secure a strong future that produces long term growth.
Although the economy continues to recover, it has been far too slow
in creating jobs. In fact, if the economy continues to grow at the same
pace as the last 18 months, it would take another ten years for the
labor market to fully recover. We cannot afford to wait that long, and
the millions of individuals and families in need of a job can't wait
either.
I believe we need to strengthen and invest in critical
infrastructure like the health care system as a key way to create jobs
here at home and protect our most vulnerable citizens.
According to a 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics study, the Health
sector is going to be the leader in job growth throughout the rest of
this decade. The BLS projected the Health sector to create 4.3 million
jobs by 2020--a 30% increase--while the rest of the economy creates
jobs at a 13% rate.
It is no surprise that health care providers are major employers in
my district, including Presbyterian Healthcare, Lovelace Health System,
Molina Healthcare, and the University of New Mexico Hospital. Simply
put, health care services and delivery is where the jobs are.
Unfortunately, the budgetary path chosen by this committee in the
recent past has put this job growth in jeopardy. Medicare is going to
suffer $11 billion in cuts due to sequestration, in addition to plans
that turn Medicare into a voucher program and block grants Medicaid to
states this is exactly the wrong approaches.
The Continuing Resolution does not include a requested $949 million
to implement health insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act,
which are scheduled to begin enrolling participants in October of this
year. Funding is needed for IT infrastructure to process enrollments
and payments, eligibility verification, call centers, and other
assistance to help individuals and small businesses select and enroll
in health plans.
These cuts and proposed changes will have a devastating effect in
my district and on each of those providers I mentioned who will lose
critical funding in FY13 and FY14, translating into further loss of
jobs and lifesaving medical cuts for New Mexicans services--for
example:
Presbyterian is expecting to lose $10 million because of
sequestration.
UNMH could lose between $10-20 million in funding. They
recently announced that they finished the previous quarter with a $5
million dollar loss. While they think they can make up that loss
throughout the year, the additional cuts they will experience because
of sequestration will make it hard without cuts to services and jobs.
Lovelace will lose upwards of $5 million. They also have a
low occupancy rate around 65% and are losing their Medicaid contract,
which represents a third of their revenue, putting jobs and services to
the whole community at risk.
At the same time, New Mexico is experiencing a twelve month job
growth rate of negative 0.9%, including a rate of negative 0.4% in
December equaling a loss of 3200 jobs.
Veterans will suffer because they are not protected by the proposed
cuts to healthcare. VA facilities are not easily accessible,
particularly in rural and frontier states such as New Mexico. It is
difficult for a disabled veteran to travel hundreds of miles to the
closest VA facility. Veterans often rely on Medicare or Medicaid for
health and long-term care services. Cuts to Medicare or Medicaid will
hurt veterans.
I also want to highlight the unprecedented cut to Indian Health
Services, which was permanently authorized by the Affordable Care Act.
IHS is reliant on Medicare and HHS for their funding and is
persistently underfunded. And now this year, IHS will get hit twice by
the cuts. The sequester will cut $195 million from IHS Services, $22
million from IHS Facilities and $3 million from SDPI.
But we must keep in mind that IHS also receives funding from
Medicare, and will experience a 2% decrease in those payments. This
will make it much harder for IHS to deliver the services and care to
their populations. These cuts will also make it harder for people in
rural areas to access the care they need.
Let me close with this. In between serving my constituents here in
Congress and at home, there is one special constituent, my mother, for
whom I also serve as her caregiver. Like many other adult children that
serve as primary caregivers for their parents and disabled adult
children, we navigate the health care system together, to get them the
care and support they need.
But caregiving requires time and many have to spend personal
resources in order to make sure their loved ones get the care they
need. Cutting Medicare and Medicaid will put additional financial
pressure on millions of caregivers and threatens their short term and
long term financial security.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Van Hollen, we can undo the damage to
job creation and make a concerted effort to strengthen our investments
in health care with the FY2014 budget. I look forward to working with
you to find a balanced approach. If we close corporate tax loopholes,
cut subsidies to big oil and reduce Medicare and Medicaid prescription
drug costs, we can invest in our healthcare infrastructure, prevent
cuts in services and cut the budget deficit. We need to get it right
today, or it will be a missed opportunity for years to come.
Mr. Rice. Thank you for your testimony.
Are there any questions?
If not, thank you very much.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington, Mr.
Larsen, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
and thanks for the opportunity to testify on the need to invest
in our economic future to create jobs and opportunity in this
country and in northwest Washington State.
At the beginning of each Congress, I write a set of goals
that guide my and my office's actions. These goals create a
focal point for my office and they are a daily reminder of what
is important for my district and for our State. My number one
goal is to invest in the foundation of long-term economic
growth that creates jobs and opportunity in the Pacific
Northwest. It is with this goal in mind that I come here to
advocate for essential programs that promote growth and
opportunity.
40 percent of all jobs in Washington State are linked to
foreign trade. More than 8,500 Washington State companies
exported their products in 2010. 91 percent of those were
small- and medium-sized businesses with fewer than 500
employees. So when we export our products around the world, we
create jobs at home.
As a result, I urge this committee to fully fund the State
Trade and Export Promotion program, or STEP, which helps States
work with small- and medium-sized businesses to find new
markets and overcome hurdles to exports. Although STEP is a
pilot program, it has a proven track record that helps
businesses grow and create jobs in our State. Washington State
received less than $1.5 million in Federal funds for STEP in
fiscal year 2012. But that small pot of money went a long way.
Our STEP activities have helped over 400 businesses and helped
generate more than $200 million in export sales. Unfortunately,
Congress did not appropriate funds in fiscal year 2013, but I
urge this committee to restore funding to STEP this year.
The U.S. Commercial Service is another effort that is
essential in helping our businesses export. Inexperienced firms
look to the Commercial Service for advice and guidance when
they want to export their products. The Commercial Service
facilitated $54 billion in U.S. exports in 2011, helping 18,500
companies, including 317 companies in Washington State. I urge
the committee to fully support the U.S. Commercial Service.
Growing our exports will only work if manufacturers are
strong. So I urge this committee to adequately fund the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, which helps small-
and medium-sized U.S. manufacturers become more profitable and
productive and is known in my State as Impact Washington. MEP
helped create or keep more than 60,000 high-wage jobs in the
U.S. last year. For every $1 of Federal investment, MEP
generates nearly $20 in new sales growth and $20 in new client
investment, translating to $2.5 billion in new sales annually.
In Washington State last year, MEP created or saved more than
1,500 jobs.
Mr. Chairman, we need a next generation of highly skilled
workers to maintain our strength in manufacturing and trade,
and that is why I ask you to fully fund post-secondary
education programs that invest in our students. The Pell Grants
program and the Carl Perkins Career and Technical Education Act
help today's students to gain the skills they need to become
tomorrow's workers. As the price of higher education continues
to increase, we need to make sure that students and their
families keep their access to college and training programs
that allow them to get the best jobs. Pell Grants help 8,500
students and families that I represent in the 2nd District of
Washington State. Many of these students and the 5.5 million
students who receive Pell Grants nationwide could not afford
college without Pell Grants. Higher education, whether at a 4-
year university, a 2-year community college, a 2-year technical
college, is a young person's best path to a higher salary and
great opportunities. Loans and grants through the Carl Perkins
Education Act help students get critical job skills that they
can use to get jobs. In northwest Washington, 949 students use
Perkins Grants and Perkins Loans to gain skills in advanced
manufacturing, engineering, and nursing.
With that, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate
the opportunity to testify before you today, and I encourage
this committee to invest in what I see as the foundation of
long-term economic growth that creates jobs and opportunity in
this country. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Rick Larsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Washington
Chairman Ryan/Ranking Member Van Hollen, and members of the
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the need to
invest in our economic future to create jobs and opportunity in
Northwest Washington state.
At the beginning of each Congress I write a set of goals to guide
my and my office's actions. These goals create a focal point for my
office and are a daily reminder what is important for my district and
Northwest Washington. My number one goal is to invest in the foundation
of long-term economic growth that creates jobs and opportunity in the
Pacific Northwest. It is with this goal in mind that I come here to
advocate for essential programs that promote growth and opportunity.
Forty percent of all jobs in Washington state are linked to foreign
trade. More than 8,500 Washington state companies exported their
products in 2010. Ninety-one percent of those were small and medium-
sized enterprises with fewer than 500 employees. When we export our
products around the world, we create jobs here at home.
I urge this committee to fully fund the State Trade and Export
Promotion (STEP) program, which helps states work with small- and
medium-sized businesses to find new markets and overcome the hurdles to
exports. Although STEP is a pilot program, it has a proven track-record
of helping businesses grow and create jobs in Washington state.
Washington state received less than $1.5 million in federal funds for
the STEP program in Fiscal Year 2012. This small pot of money went a
long way. Washington state's STEP activities have helped over 400
businesses and helped generate more than $200 million in export sales,
bringing a huge benefit to our overall economy. Unfortunately, Congress
did not appropriate funds in Fiscal Year 2013 for this program. I urge
this committee to restore funding to STEP this year.
The U.S. Commercial Service (USCS) is another effort that is
essential in helping our businesses export. Inexperienced firms look to
the Commercial Service for advice and guidance when they want to export
their products. The Commercial Service facilitated $54 billion in U.S.
exports in 2011, helping 18,500 companies nationwide, including 317
companies Washington state. I urge the committee to fully support the
U.S. Commercial Service.
Growing our exports will only work if our manufacturers are strong.
I urge this committee to adequately fund the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP), which helps small- and medium-sized U.S.
manufactures become more profitable and productive, and is known in my
state as Impact Washington. MEP helped create or keep more than 60,000
high wage jobs in the United States last year. For every one dollar of
federal investment, MEP generates nearly $20 in new sales growth and
$20 in new client investment, translating to $2.5 billion in new sales
annually. In Washington state last year, MEP created or saved more than
1,500 jobs.
We need a next generation of highly skilled workers to maintain our
strength in manufacturing and trade. That is why I ask you to fully
fund post-secondary education programs that invest in our students. The
Pell Grants program and the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act help today's students to gain the skills they need to
become tomorrow's workers. As the price of higher education continues
to increase, we need to make sure that students and their families keep
their access to colleges and training programs that allow them to get
the best jobs. Pell Grants help 8,500 students and families I represent
in the Second District of Washington state. Many of these students, and
the 5.5 million students who receive Pell Grants nationwide, could not
afford college without Pell Grants. Higher education, whether at a
four-year university, a two-year community college, or at a two-year
technical college, is a young person's best path to a higher salary and
great opportunities. Loans and grants through the Carl D. Perkins Act
help students get critical job skills that they can use to get jobs. In
Northwest Washington, 949 students use Perkins Grants and Perkins Loans
to gain skills in advanced manufacturing, engineering, and nursing.
With that Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today and I encourage the Committee to invest in
what I see as the foundation of long-term economic growth that creates
jobs and opportunity.
Mr. Rice. Thank you for your testimony.
Are there any questions? Mr. McDermott?
Mr. McDermott. Tell me, Mr. Larsen, what you think the
impact of sequester will be on your district. You have got a
number of military establishments there and other research
facilities and so forth. Tell me what you expect from that.
Mr. Larsen. Well, thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
With regard to the sequester, what we do know is that about
1,200 civilian employees at the naval bases in the district
will be furloughed.
Mr. McDermott. Is that a 1-day furlough or month-long
furlough?
Mr. Larsen. Well, up to 22 days total each between now and
the end of the fiscal year. That is what we do know.
We also know that housing authorities in my district are
making decisions now about which folks do not get vouchers,
making the waiting lists longer because of the impact of the
sequester. We know that 10,000 fewer seniors--I am sorry--
seniors in Snohomish County receive 10,000 fewer meals
delivered to them who currently receive their meals through the
Meals on Wheels program through the Snohomish County Senior
Services.
So there are impacts that we all read about in the paper,
and there are impacts that no one is covering. But the fact of
the matter is there are real impacts to middle class folks, to
seniors due to the sequester.
As a result, it does seem more reasonable to replace it
with a more balanced approach. It would still include cuts. It
would include reductions in spending growth over 10 years, and
it would also include tax revenue. That seems reasonable to me.
There does not have to be a lot of vitriol about that. It just
seems that if you want to address the impacts, that you can
take a more balanced approach to it and still achieve the
deficit reduction goals that most of us all share.
Mr. McDermott. I was waiting to hear if you would say
anything about airports.
Mr. Larsen. I can do that too.
Mr. McDermott. What is that?
Mr. Larsen. I can address airports if you would like.
Mr. McDermott. Well, my understanding is that the FAA has
closed some smaller airports because they feel like they cannot
cover them with the kind of folks that you need to have to make
an airport safe.
Mr. Larsen. There are really two categories here. There are
what we call contract towers, and then there are FAA towers. So
the contract towers are those that are operated through
contracts with other groups, private groups, and the FAA has
come out with a list of about 249 contract towers with the
potential of being closed. About 100 of those will be closed.
And that list has gone out, and many of those are smaller
airports around Washington State.
In addition to that, on the next list, the additional list,
are other airports that are currently FAA-operated towers,
including Paine Field in Snohomish County. And it is on the
list because it falls below--I will be as quick as possible,
Mr. Chairman. It falls below the number of operations that FAA
has identified as being eligible for closing. The issue with
Paine Field, however, is not only is there a lot of general
aviation operations, it is also the home of the Boeing facility
where we manufacture. Most of the Boeing airplanes in the world
are manufactured in my district. And as well, it is a major hub
for repair. It is a repair station operated by a different
company. And these are large platform airplanes that have to
fly in and out. If you close that tower, you are going to slow
down operations. You are going to slow down the efficiency of
Boeing operations and as well of the repair station operations,
and that will have a ripple impact throughout the entire
Northwest economy, which obviously has a large dependency on
our aerospace suppliers.
Mr. McDermott. Thank you.
Mr. Rice. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Larsen.
The chair is pleased to recognize the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Foster, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL FOSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for
the opportunity to speak before the committee today.
So as this committee prepares its budget for fiscal year
2014, I urge you to consider the differences between the
fraction of investment that our country makes with the idea of
maximizing economic growth and the fraction of the investments
our country makes because of the kind of people we are. There
are things like military investments, taking care of our
elderly that, if viewed honestly, do not have any economic
return on investment, and yet we have to make these. There are
other investments that we make because of the long-term and
short-term economic growth.
And so I would like to highlight the importance of
preserving our investments in the highest payoff activities
that our government is involved in, namely education and
research and development. Both of these have, obviously, been
severely threatened by the sequestration and other budget cuts
that are talked about.
My district in the Chicago area spans two great scientific
centers, Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory where I worked for 20 years. The
economic impact of Argonne and Fermi Lab in Illinois is
estimated to be more than $1.3 billion annually and has
historically and will in the future have enormous spinoff
benefits throughout our country. Projects in the pipeline at
these labs hold even more promise for revitalizing our energy
and manufacturing sectors.
For example, the Argonne National Laboratory was recently
selected for an award of $120 million over 5 years to establish
a new batteries and energy storage hub, which is a very serious
and well thought-out effort, competitively bid and won by
Argonne National Lab in an effort to achieve revolutionary
advances in battery performance. They are targeting battery
improvements in excess of a factor of 5, which will make
battery driven cars a reality and an economic reality as well
as a theoretical one.
This project like many others that could and will create
new industries and support thousands of jobs now faces an
uncertain future. By some estimates, the cuts from
sequestration to R&D will result in the loss of 600,000 jobs
over the next 3 years, and we would not only lose these near-
term R&D jobs, we will see the ripple effects in communities,
and we will see the long-term damage from the loss in economic
competitiveness in our country.
With wages as a record low percentage of the economy, it is
not time to retreat or to stop investing in American innovation
which supports the high-wage activities. We need to maintain
this competitive advantage now and more in the future.
And the second subject that I would like to highlight is
the issue of donor States and the redistribution of wealth
among the States in our country. Illinois is one of many donor
States, that is, a State that is under financial distress in no
small part because of the fact that Illinois only receives back
about 75 cents for every dollar in taxes that it pays to the
Federal Government. There are many other States in a similar
situation. In Illinois' case, this multiplies out to about
$1,600 per person in Illinois and roughly $20 billion for the
entire State. If even a fraction of this money returned to the
State, we would not have a fiscal crisis in Illinois at this
moment.
So Illinois and other donor States can no longer afford to
continue subsidizing the recipient States to the extent that
they do. I urge the leadership of this committee to craft a
budget that replaces the mindless cuts of the sequester with
sensible investments that maximize the return on investment of
Federal investments instead of mindless cookie cutter cuts and
also one that begins to address the imbalance of donor and
recipient States. While there are areas where cuts are
reasonable and necessary, it is unreasonable and irresponsible
to make these deep cuts in programs like investments in
research and development that do provide a high return on
investment and are already underfunded.
Thank you. I will yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Bill Foster follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Foster, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Illinois
I'd like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for the
opportunity to speak before the Committee today.
As this committee prepares a budget for fiscal year 2014, I urge
you to reverse the devastating cuts to education and R&D that have been
enacted by sequestration.
The Chicago area is home to three scientific centers: Fermilab,
Argonne National Laboratory, and the University of Illinois' National
Center for Supercomputing Applications.
The economic impact of Argonne and Fermilab in Illinois is
estimated to be more than $1.3 billion annually, resulting in a twenty
percent return on investment for the federal government.
Projects in the pipeline hold even more promise for revitalizing
our energy and manufacturing sectors.
For example, the Argonne National Laboratory was recently
selected for an award of up to $120 million over five years, to
establish a new Batteries and Energy Storage Hub, in an effort to
achieve revolutionary advances in battery performance.
This project, and many others that would create new industries and
support thousands of jobs, now face an uncertain future.
By some estimates, the cuts from sequestration to R&D will result
in a loss of 600,000 jobs over the next three years.
We won't only lose these R&D jobs, but we'll see ripple
effects in communities. Tax receipts and consumer spending that would
otherwise have helped grow our economy and create thousands of jobs,
will be extinguished.
When wages as a percentage of the economy, are at an all-time low,
it's not the time to retreat and stop investing in American innovation.
We need to maintain a competitive advantage now more than ever.
What's more, as a donor state, Illinois isn't responsible for our
national debt, and shouldn't be forced to shoulder even more of the
burden.
Illinois currently spends $1 in taxes to every 75 cents it
receives in federal funding. This discrepancy accounts for $20 billion
a year flowing out of the state and redistributed to others.
Illinois and other donor states can no longer afford to
continue subsidizing recipient states at the expense of our own
economies.
I urge the leadership of this Committee to craft a budget that
replaces these mindless, across the board cuts with a responsible and
balanced alternative. While there are areas where cuts are reasonable
and necessary, it is unreasonable and irresponsible to make deep cuts
to programs, like investments in research and development, that provide
a high return on investment and are already underfunded.
Thank you.
Mr. Rice. Thank you for your testimony.
Any questions?
Seeing none, thank you for your testimony, Mr. Foster.
The chair sees no more witnesses. If there is no objection,
the committee will take a brief recess with the intention to
adjourn when votes are called.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rice. The chair sees no further witnesses, and if there
is no objection, the committee will stand adjourned.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Julia Brownley, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
As we look toward the Fiscal Year 2014 budget, Congress has a
tremendous responsibility to work together to find a balanced approach
that addresses our budget deficit, while allowing for smart and
strategic investments toward our long-term economic growth.
In this testimony, I will address two very specific examples in
Ventura County where smart investments would yield significant economic
growth not only in my district, but smart investments across our great
nation.
I proudly represent Ventura Harbor, which is one of our nation's
ten largest fishing harbors. Ventura Harbor serves a critical role in
my county's infrastructure and economy, and it requires regular
maintenance to ensure its efficient use, but the funds appropriated to
maintain Ventura Harbor have repeatedly fallen short of what is needed.
In fact, according to the Army Corps of Engineers, nearly 1,000
federal ports and harbors across the nation have not been adequately
maintained due to inadequate budget requests and appropriations despite
the funding being available through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
We cannot grow our economy if we are not keeping these critical
components of our infrastructure operational and I would ask the
committee to fully appropriate the funds needed to maintain the ports
and harbors in my district, and across the country.
Another important economic driver in Ventura County is agriculture.
Altogether, farming and farm-dependent businesses provide an
estimated 31,000 jobs in Ventura County, generate $2.1 billion in
revenue, and occupy more than 28% of my county's land.
However, Ventura County farmers are constantly under threat from
invasive species and diseases that threaten our crops and our family
farms.
Most recently, citrus farms--that account for nearly 40% of
harvested acreage in my district--are facing a new battle against the
devastating and deadly disease-spreading Asian Citrus Psyllid which is
a disease to citrus without any remedies.
Citrus growers in Florida have been fighting this deadly pest for
years, and economists estimate the disease caused more than $4.5
billion in economic damage and more than 8,200 jobs since it was
discovered in 2005. We, as a nation, should offer learned and
preventive solutions to ensure we never replicate the same economic
disasters that our sister state has endured.
We need to ensure our own federal agencies that provide essential
services to safeguard our country's agriculture industry from
destructive invaders get the resources they need to protect the farms
and farmers across the country and in a district like mine where
agriculture is the life blood and the historical fabric of communities
like Oxnard, Camarillo, Filmore, and Santa Paula.
Our nation's economic recovery depends on a vibrant agriculture
industry--how could we possibly turn our backs on a pest that has
almost destroyed an industry in Florida and not use our knowledge to
proactively fight a deadly crop-destroying pest in other parts of our
country? We must protect my county's economic vitality, which if it
were destroyed, could take at least a decade or more to recover.
These are only two examples of many where our priorities can lead
to economic opportunities or economic destruction, not only in Ventura
County, but across the nation. I urge this committee and my colleagues
to address our budget priorities using a balanced approach that allows
us to invest in our future economic growth.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cheri Bustos, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Illinois
Thank you Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen for the
opportunity to testify before the House Budget Committee today.
I'm here today to talk to you about the first piece of legislation
that I introduced as a member of Congress last month that has picked up
support among both my Democratic and Republican colleagues. That is a
bill called the Government Waste Reduction Act.
Before I talk about the specifics of the bill, let me start by
telling you a little bit about why I introduced this bill and why I
think it is so important. Like so many people across my region of
Illinois, I learned at a young age that balancing the family pocketbook
and living within our means is a question of values.
While some advocate getting our fiscal house in order by balancing
the budget on the backs of the middle class, I think this is the wrong
approach. I also think the across-the-board, automatic spending cuts
known as sequestration that took effect on March 1, and that could harm
vital interests in my district, like the Rock Island Arsenal, are also
the wrong approach. That is why I have been against sequestration from
the very beginning.
What we need to do is to come together in a bipartisan fashion and
work on a replacement to sequestration. We need to focus on common
sense solutions that would reduce the deficit while preserving the
important programs that so many middle class people across Illinois
rely on.
The Government Waste Reduction Act does just that. The bipartisan
bill moves forward on recommendations the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) made in reports issued in 2011 and 2012 that would reduce
duplication in government, save taxpayer money, enhance revenue, and
root out waste. Some estimates suggest that just implementing these GAO
recommendations would save the government 200 to 300 billion dollars.
Here is how the bill works. This bill establishes the Independent
Government Waste Reduction Board tasked with implementing these GAO
recommendations. The Board would consist of 15 Members, 6 determined by
the House, 6 by the Senate, and 3 by the Administration.
The Members would develop detailed and specific proposals related
to the GAO recommendations, and they would be required to submit a
legislative proposal that implements the recommendations. This proposal
would then come to Congress for an up or down vote. Nothing in the
proposal could cut benefits for veterans, members of the Armed Forces,
or for seniors.
Here are some highlights from the GAO report that might be good
places to start when looking for cost savings.
The federal government has 47 job training programs, 44 of
which overlap. Simply consolidating these programs that overlap can
save taxpayer money while not impacting program quality.
Our federal approach to surface transportation is
described by GAO as ``fragmented, lacks clear goals, and is not
accountable for results.'' There are over 100 programs and 5 agencies
within the Department of Transportation that are involved in surface
transportation. Again, looking at ways to smartly consolidate some of
these programs would save money while not impacting quality.
Finally, our ``fragmented'' approach to food safety has
been described as ``an inefficient use of resources.'' The Department
of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and an additional
dozen or so agencies are involved in food safety in some way. We should
look at ways to smartly consolidate these programs where it makes
sense.
As you can see, unnecessary duplication in government programs
leads to inefficiencies and the loss of taxpayer money. My bill will
serve as a bipartisan starting point for efforts to reverse this trend
and lower our deficits in a responsible, common sense way that protects
the middle class people of Illinois and our nation.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
today.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Judy Chu, Chair,
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC)
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC). I am honored to
have the opportunity to share some of the issues that are facing the
Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community and ways that
Congress can address our community's concerns.
civil rights
Civil Rights Enforcement
The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is
critical to protecting the rights of all Americans. Unfortunately, the
AAPI community continues to face a variety of issues: hate crimes are
on the rise, voting rights are under attack, and employment
discrimination is rampant. DOJ's Civil Rights Division is critical in
combating these problems.
According to the FBI, 6,628 hate crime incidents involving 7,699
offenses were reported by law enforcement agencies in 2010.\i\ Nearly
half of the attacks were racially-motivated, with anti-AAPI bias
accounting for 5.1 percent of the incidents (up from 3.4 percent in
2008). Anti- Muslim bias now accounts for 13.2 percent or reported
incidents (up from 7.5 percent in 2008).\ii\ Without the proper
resources, the Civil Rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice
will be unable to ensure that hate crime offenses are aggressively
investigated and prosecuted.
AAPIs continue to face discrimination at the polls and numerous
barriers that disenfranchise certain communities.\iii\ With more
resources, the Civil Rights division can expand efforts to protect
citizens' voting rights by addressing voting rights violations.
A record number of Muslim workers in the United States have
experienced alleged employment discrimination, including claims that
co-workers called them ``terrorist'' or ``Osama'' and employers barring
them from wearing religious garb or taking prayer breaks.\iv\ Muslims
make up less than 2 percent of the United States population, but they
make up about one-fourth of the 3,386 religious discrimination claims
filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2009. Many of
these practicing Muslims are of Asian descent. The Civil Rights
division must be funded fully to increase efforts to eradicate this
type of discrimination.
Community Relations
Not only must we protect our civil rights, but we must foster an
environment where all citizens feel respected and accepted. The
Community Relations Service (CRS) in the Department of Justice can help
promote these types of attitudes. CRS serves as the Department's
``peacemaker'' for community conflicts and tensions arising from real
or perceived discriminatory practices based on race, color, or national
origin and helps communities prevent and respond to alleged violent
hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color,
national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion
or disability. To carry out its goal, CRS implemented several
strategies and programs including an Anti-Racial Profiling Program and
Sikh Cultural Awareness program. We support full funding for CRS.
immigration
Immigrant Integration and Citizenship
The Office of Citizenship plays a key role in immigrant integration
by leading initiatives to promote citizenship awareness; supporting
national and community-based organizations that prepare immigrants for
citizenship by providing grants, educational materials, and technical
assistance; and building collaborative partnerships with state and
local governmental and non-governmental organizations to expand
integration and citizenship resources. This office must be fully funded
to support immigrant integration efforts, including funding for new
programs supporting English language acquisition and citizenship
education.
We strongly support this request because these funds will greatly
benefit the AAPI community and are critical to the success of the
United States. Immigrants who integrate into U.S. society go on to
become informed voters, active community members, innovators,
entrepreneurs and job-creators.
The Office of Citizenship has already helped thousands of people
prepare to become citizens through Congress's support and it has helped
to reinforce the network of excellent state service providers around
the country. Strong support for integration programs boost human
potential and make us a stronger nation.
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
We also support funding for the Department of Homeland Security's
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. It is important for the
AAPI community that OCRCL--which oversees the 287(g) and Secure
Communities programs--has the funding to support proper oversight and
training so that ICE is not a conduit for discriminatory and abusive
law enforcement practices.
education
Early Education Programs
For many Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, achievement gaps
begin well before kindergarten. Multiple studies have shown that
investing in quality early learning programs can yield a significant
return-on-investment by reducing the costs of special education, high
school dropouts, teen pregnancy, crime, incarceration, and dependence
on social services later in life, and increasing the likelihood of
college attendance and completion. Nearly 13% of Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders live in poverty,\v\ and certain subgroups such as the
Hmong and Tongans have poverty rates of 29.9% and 18.1%
respectively.\vi\ Access to early childhood education is critical to
breaking this cycle and giving children a chance to succeed. For this
reason, it is critically important to the AAPI community that our
budget protect funding for Head Start, the Early Learning Challenge
Fund, Child Care and Development Block Grants, and IDEA Part C grants
to expand access to high-quality early childhood education.
English Language Learners
One of the primary education challenges facing Asian American and
Pacific Islander students are language barriers due to the high rates
of limited English proficiency (LEP) within the AAPI community.
Hispanic and Asian children are much more likely to be limited English
proficient and linguistically isolated than non-Hispanic black and
white children.\vii\ Approximately 24 % of all LEP students are Asian
American.
In addition, many AAPI students come from homes where English may
not be the primary language spoken. As a result, many of these students
enter school with limited English proficiency, and it may take several
years for them to develop the language skills needed for academic
success. According to the Census Bureau, the four languages spoken by
the largest LEP populations after Spanish are Chinese (6%), Vietnamese
(3%), Korean (2.5%), and Tagalog (1.9%). In addition, Southeast Asian
immigrant and refugee communities report drastically higher rates of
limited English proficiency than the general U.S. population. While
only 8.7% of the U.S. speaks English ``less than very well,'' the rate
is much higher for Southeast Asian populations: 39% for Cambodians, 37%
for Hmong, 38% for Laotians, and 52% for Vietnamese Americans.
The English Learner Education program is the Department of
Education's primary program for serving English language learners and
providing critical resources to help AAPI students develop and improve
their English language acquisition. Therefore, CAPAC requests that
funding for this critical program remain intact.
Higher Education
Although Asian Americans are sometimes portrayed as universally
excelling in school, disaggregated data shows that a large number
within the community fall well below national averages with respect to
both income and education. While AAPIs had the highest overall college
graduation rates (44 %) of any group of students in 2000, certain
subgroups have much lower rates of degree attainment. Only 13.8 % of
Pacific Islanders, 13.8 % of Vietnamese Americans, 5.8 % of Laotian
Americans, 6.1 % of Cambodian Americans, and less than 5.1 % of Hmong
Americans successfully completed college.
In addition, a large proportion of AAPI students are from low
income backgrounds, the first in their families to attend college, and
struggle to secure the financial resources to support themselves while
in school.\viii\ Based on analysis of the National Postsecondary
Student Aid Survey (2008), AAPIs also have greater financial need than
other racial groups when taking into account expected family
contribution and total aid. To increase degree attainment, institutions
must recognize the unique needs and challenges that exist within the
AAPI community, and begin addressing factors that are contributing to
the low completion rates among these groups.
AANAPISI Program
The authorized Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-
Serving Institution (AANAPISI) program was created to designate
Minority Serving Institutions that support low-income Asian American
and Pacific Islander students with a variety of targeted services to
help them overcome barriers to a college degree and put them on a path
to success. The AANAPISI federal program is unique because it
acknowledges the distinctive challenges facing AAPI students in college
access and completion. It is important to our community that the
committee provides $5 million in discretionary funding to the AANAPISI
program to ensure that the higher education needs of underserved AAPI
students are met.
TRIO Program
Likewise, TRIO programs provide hundreds of thousands of students
with the necessary support to enroll in and graduate from college and,
ultimately, help narrow the gap between low-income, first-generation
students and their peers. Adequate funding for TRIO programs is
essential to helping the estimated 4,700 AAPI participants pursue and
complete postsecondary education.
housing
Housing Counseling Assistance and Foreclosure Relief Programs
Housing counseling programs that are able to work with the
community in a linguistically and culturally appropriate manner have
been essential in assisting AAPIs in navigating through various housing
opportunities and the foreclosure crisis. In fact, AAPIs make up a
substantial portion of the population in 6 of the 10 U.S. cities with
the highest foreclosure rates.
While homeownership rates between 2008--2009 for AAPIs have held
steady at 59%, some sub-populations have experienced major declines.
Hmong homeownership rates dropped from 50% to 42%, Bangladeshi
homeownership rates dropped from 48% to 42%, and Korean homeownership
rates from 51% to 49%.\ix\
A study by the Asian Real Estate Association and the UCLA Asian
American Studies Centers saw AAPIs experience a significant loss of
equity following the national foreclosure crisis.\x\ The average loss
from 2007 to 2009 was $42,900 for Asian Americans and $47,000 for
Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. The national equity loss during
that same period was $9,100.
Financial and foreclosure assistance is also much needed in AAPI
communities. AAPIs who defaulted on their mortgage loans were more
likely to enter into foreclosure because they were not aware of
alternative options like loan modifications. They were also at a higher
risk of predatory lending and scams.
In order to assist these homeowners, we must first consider how to
best reach and serve these communities. The AAPI community is
compromised of two-thirds immigrants and refugees, represents 50 ethnic
groups, and 100 language groups. Furthermore, there are nearly a
million Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders. With these diverse
needs, it is critical that there is support for housing counseling
organizations--organizations that have built trust and rapport with
minority and immigrant communities and can provide linguistically and
culturally appropriate services to these constituencies. Housing
counselors can provide these services only if they receive the proper
funding to do so.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
Generally speaking, HUD programs are critical to our local
communities and create opportunities for some of our most vulnerable
populations. In particular, the Community Development Block Grants are
important to the AAPI community because they provide funding to improve
housing, living environments and economic opportunities for those with
low and moderate incomes.
There is no question that the economic crisis has had a tremendous
impact on wealth. In the AAPI community, this impact has been more
pronounced since households have loss 54% of wealth between 2005-2009--
primarily through the loss of wealth in property.\xi\ The loss of
wealth has put significant restraints on the AAPI community's ability
to revitalize their neighborhoods.
Likewise, poverty rates have steadily increased within the AAPI
community. Some parts of the community are living at 38% poverty rates
and have larger than average households. Poverty has forced many AAPIs
who were once homeowners to become renters. At the national level and
for seven metropolitan areas, Asian homeowners live in overcrowded
conditions at a greater proportion than the total population.
That is why the Community Development Block Grant is vital to the
AAPI community since the formula for awarding grants takes into
consideration a community's poverty rate, population, and presence of
overcrowding. These funds must be protected to rehabilitate, improve,
and restore our communities.
Native Hawaiian Block Grants
One in five Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders live in poverty.
They are a population at high risk of foreclosure who continue to
experience adverse treatment as renters comparable to Hispanic and
African American renters.
The Native Hawaiian Block Grants have been vital for new
construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, infrastructure, and various
support services for Native Hawaiians. More specifically, these grants
provide affordable housing assistance to low-income native Hawaiians
eligible for residence on Hawaiian Home Lands. We must continue to
provide this vital assistance by funding the Native Hawaiian Block
Grant at previous levels.
healthcare
Access to healthcare remains a key issue for many AAPIs. 15.1% of
Americans are uninsured, but that rate is higher for certain AAPI
groups. In particular, South Asians, such as Bangladeshis (22.5%) and
Pakistanis (22.9%), and Southeast Asians, such as Cambodians (21.3%),
Hmongs (15.9%), Laotians (18.5%), Thais (19.9%), and Vietnamese
(18.7).\xii\
Affordable Care Act
The Affordable Care Act will provide these individuals and their
families with improved access to affordable healthcare and essential
health care services. Under the new law, Medicaid coverage will be
expanded to cover children and adults with incomes up to 13.3 % of the
federal poverty level. Almost 1.3 million AAPIs will be newly eligible
for Medicaid. This Medicaid expansion will provide coverage to many
AAPI individuals and families who would otherwise go without quality,
affordable health coverage.\xiii,xiv\ To ensure that health insurance
is affordable, the law will also provide refundable tax credits to
offset a portion of the cost of health insurance premiums. It is
estimated that close to 1.5 million AAPIs will be eligible for premium
tax credits to purchase coverage.
These coverage expansions should have a significant impact on AAPIs
with low or moderate incomes. It is critical that the FY 2014 Budget
fully funds the Affordable Care Act to ensure that we are on track to
providing health coverage to the neediest members of the AAPI
community.
Community Health Centers
For far too long, the health challenges of AAPIs have gone
unnoticed and the dangerous effects of this lack of knowledge and
awareness have been deeply felt by the community. Among some Pacific
Islanders, 20 percent of births are pre-term. Deaths from breast cancer
are four times higher among some Asian-born women compared to their
U.S. born counterparts. Rates of vaccine-preventable liver and cervical
cancer among the Hmong community in California are 3 to 4 times higher
than those of other Asian American groups.
One important way to address these disparities is to fund community
health centers. Community health centers provide quality, cost-
effective services, and are often the first in line to provide
affordable care to the communities they serve. These centers play a
critical role in expanding access by serving as a trusted safety net
for AAPI communities and providing culturally and linguistically
competent services to address some of the key barriers confronting
AAPIs. Community health centers bring healthcare providers, services,
and facilities to areas that are not often covered by other providers.
We urge the committee to provide adequate funding for community health
centers.
Hepatitis B
Among the most serious conditions affecting the AAPI community is
hepatitis B, an infection of the liver and the leading cause of liver
cancer worldwide. About 1.3-1.5 million people in the U.S. are
chronically infected with hepatitis B, with approximately 5,000-6,000
people dying each year from hepatitis B related liver disease or liver
cancer. Over half of the chronic hepatitis B cases and resulting deaths
in the U.S. are concentrated among AAPIs. What is tragic about these
deaths is that they are completely preventable with a vaccine that has
been available for 20 years, but a lack of funds, limited patient and
provider awareness, as well as heightened stigmas, have precluded many
AAPIs from seeking the screenings and treatment needed to prevent these
unnecessary deaths.
We must protect funding for testing initiatives, surveillance, and
the viral hepatitis coordinator programs to increase awareness and
vaccinations for Hepatitis B.
Addressing Sequestration
Sequestration comes at a time when major federal health initiatives
are underway, including rapid implementation of the Affordable Care
Act. If sequestration remains in place, the ACA's Prevention and Public
Health Fund, the best tool the nation has to fight chronic diseases and
improve the nation's health, would be slashed by 7.6 % or $76 million--
greatly harming community health programs already under way. I urge my
colleagues to protect this funding for preventive initiatives that
benefit AAPIs and all Americans.
territories
The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) carries out the Secretary's
responsibilities for U.S.-affiliated insular areas. These include the
territories of Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI),
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), as well as
the three Freely Associated States (FAS): the Federated States of
Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the
Republic of Palau. OIA is the primary federal program aimed at
combating the economic and fiscal problems in the insular areas.
Any reductions in OIA funding will translate to cuts to vital
projects which foster development of the insular areas in
accountability, financial management, tax systems and procedures,
insular management controls, economic development, training/education,
energy, public safety, health, immigration, labor, and law enforcement.
I am requesting that the committee protect funding to the Office of
Insular Affairs.
endnotes
\i\ US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010
Hate Crime Statistics.
\ii\ US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
2010 Hate Crime Statistics.
\iii\ Meeting the Challenge: National Platform for Advancing
Justice. Policy Priorities & Recommendations for Achieving Equity,
Equality, and Justice in Asian American & Pacific Islander
Communities.'' http://www.advancingequality.org/attachments/files/391/
Platform--for--Action.pdf
\iv\ Greenhouse, Steven. ``Muslims report rising discrimination at
work,'' The New York Times. 23 September 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/
2010/09/24/business/24muslim.html?--r=3&pagewanted=1&ref=business
\v\ ``Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders- Facts, not Fiction,''
The Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy, NYU. 2008.
\vi\ ``American Community Survey,'' US Census Bureau. 2009.
\vii\ http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/311230--new--demography.pdf
\viii\ ``Federal Higher Education Policy Priorities and the Asian
American and Pacific Islander Community'' The Asian and Pacific
Islander American Scholarship Fund. 2010.
\ix\ U.S. Census Bureau Data, 2008, 2009.
\x\ Asian Real Estate Association of America. ``AAPIs Experience
Significant Loss of Home Equity,'' AsianWeek.
\xi\ Pew Research Center, ``Wealth Gap Rises to Record Highs
Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics,'' July 2011.
\xii\ American Community Survey, 2009.
\xiii\ ``How Health Reform Helps Asian Americans,'' Families USA,
September 2010.
\xiv\ How Health Reform Helps Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific
Islanders,'' Families USA, September 2010
Prepared Statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Illinois
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen and members of the
committee, I thank you for holding today's hearing affording Members of
Congress an opportunity share our principal interests regarding the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014.
It's no secret that I have and will continue to advocate for
programs that empowers individuals to be self-sufficient. Programs like
the:
Second Chance Act, a bi-partisan approved reentry process
that brings together a ``bucket of resources/services'' vital to
removing barriers to successful reintegration. At its current funding
level, the program cannot begin to service the roughly 700 thousand
citizens released annually, of whom 400+ are returning parents, seeking
a second chance in life. Indeed, for every cut made to the Second
Chance Act, key provisions like housing, skill development and job
placement, mental health and substance treatment and prevention and
mentoring are being compromised. These reductions are hindrances to
reducing recidivism and increasing public safety.
Health Disparities: Services are needed to address health
disparities in the United States to provide access to quality health
care for African Americans and other historically underserved
communities, particularly those families living with Sickle Cell
Disease (SCD). This disease is an inherited blood disorder that is a
major problem in the United States. There is an estimated 72,000
Americans live with the disease. More than 2.5 million Americans have
the Sickle Cell Trait, including 1 in 12 African Americans. The average
life span of an adult with SCD is 45 years. Rep. Danny K. Davis will
reintroduce the Sickle Cell bill, ``To extend for 5 years the
authorization of appropriations for the sickle cell disease prevention
and treatment demonstration program,'' in the 113th Congress. Funding
this national program will improve the lives of SCD patients through
disease management programs to help them live longer, healthier lives
while supporting research toward a comprehensive cure and providing
community education about this disease and its treatment options.
Education Priorities: To improve the well-being of our
citizens and our nation's competitiveness in a global economy, our
Budget must invest heavily in the education of our youngest citizens,
from preschool to graduate school. This investment is necessary to
build the early childhood education system, to improve school
readiness, to reduce achievement gaps among students from different
backgrounds, and to improve graduation rates. To this end, we must
maintain strong funding for Head Start and Early Head Start, K-12
education, Title I, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
and for critical college preparation programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP.
We must increase funding for Pell Grant to help low-income students
succeed in college. No youth should be denied the opportunity to go to
college; the federal Pell Grant is the federal program that helps low-
income students access and succeed in college. Further, we must support
under-resourced institutions that educate and support large percentages
of low-income students, such as Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Minority Serving Institutions, and community colleges. We
must invest in education and training, including Transitional Jobs
programs, the Workforce Investment Act Adult Program, Employment and
Training Services, and Trade Adjustment Assistance programs. If we do
not invest in education and training, our citizens suffer and our
nation suffers.
Children Budget: Given that children make up a quarter of
our nation's population and form the foundation of our nation's future,
I ask that the Committee consider examining the federal investment in
children and children's programs within the Budget. Accounting for
federal dollars in this way will help us understand how well we are
making the health and well-being of our children a national priority.
Without this analysis, policymakers and the public are limited in our
ability to know how children fare in funding proposals. Precedent
already exists for examining the federal budget based on key areas of
interest, including spending on programs related to homeland security,
meteorology, climate, and drug control. By creating a children's budget
at the federal level we can bring a renewed attention to children's
issues and programs and guarantee a fair look at our national
investment priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I am always concerned about the amount of money that
we spend for defense and other military purposes. We never allocate
what I feel is appropriate and greatly needed for adequately investing
in training opportunities for disadvantaged individuals prepare them
for today's global service-oriented society. Let alone the core
problems associated with poverty and criminal justice issues such as
substance abuse and crime.
In closing, we cannot ignore racial and economic divisions that
continue to beset our nation's cities accompanied by rising inequality
in social domains such as the quality of family and neighborhood life,
equal access to education and health care, employment opportunities,
and political participation. Together, we must embrace a comprehensive
agenda to that ensures the well-being and safety of our children and
Thank you very much and I yield back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Suzan K. DelBene, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Washington
Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen, I thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the House Budget Committee on the fiscal
year 2014 budget resolution and its impact on Washington state and the
nation.
Like many families across my district, I have been disappointed by
Congress' inability to address our nation's fiscal challenges. Moving
from one manufactured crisis to the next and budgeting 60 or 90 days at
a time is not the way to govern. I am deeply troubled by Congress'
failure to stop the indiscriminate budget cuts known as sequestration,
which must be replaced by a balanced, responsible approach to deficit
reduction. It is time for us to craft policy that reduces our deficit
and encourages job growth, not job losses.
Businesses and families deserve a responsible, long-term budget
that provides them with the clarity and visibility needed to plan and
invest for the future. Every day we fail to provide this certainty is
another day we are damaging our economy. We must draft a budget that
cuts wasteful spending while protecting investments that preserve and
create jobs. We need to cut the federal programs that we know are not
working, and strengthen those programs that provide working families
with the opportunity for success.
The key priorities I identify here are centered on accelerating our
economic recovery. As a businesswoman and entrepreneur, I know that
government can build the foundation for long-term economic growth with
smart policies and targeted investments. I am hopeful that this
Congress will be able to do better than it has in the past, and I
appreciate the opportunity to share a number of my priorities for the
2014 budget resolution.
For America to stay competitive in the global market, we must
provide high-quality educational opportunities to all our students. I
strongly urge this Committee to invest in our nation's education system
by providing adequate funding for early learning, elementary and
secondary schools, public universities and career and technical
education programs. Rising tuition costs are making it increasingly
difficult for low- and middle-income families to afford a college
education for their children. The erosion of funding for workforce
training programs is hurting our efforts to build a strong
manufacturing base here in the U.S. These are trends we must reverse.
It is vital that we fully fund the Pell Grant program and other forms
of student aid to ensure that all students have the opportunity to get
a great education and acquire the skills needed to compete in a global
economy.
I also urge the Committee to protect our investments in health
care, which includes sufficiently funding the agencies charged with
implementing the Affordable Care Act. We must invest in key programs
that keep Washingtonians healthy, including the Prevention and Public
Health Fund, mental health services for military families, and funding
for the Indian Health Service, which helps deliver quality care to
tribal nations in my district.
Another priority for this Committee must be funding for our
nation's local infrastructure. All of our states have roads, railways,
ports or bridges that are in desperate need of repair. In my district
we have heavily-traveled rural roads and a major interstate that
require significant maintenance and safety upgrades. Investing today in
this aging infrastructure, which acts as a lifeline to our local
economy, will promote economic growth and ultimately save us money in
the long run. As the most trade-dependent state in the nation,
Washington's local economy is particularly reliant on a safe, working
transportation system that efficiently moves people and goods. To get
our economy back on track, it is essential that we provide adequate
federal funding for these important projects.
It is also imperative that this Committee continue our investments
in research and development at the National Institutes of Health, the
Department of Agriculture, the National Science Foundation and other
federal agencies. The research and development projects funded by
federal agencies will generate significant economic activity and help
spur job growth in both the public and private sectors. Farmers in my
district, for example, depend on the innovative research conducted at
Washington State University with USDA funding to help improve
efficiency, assure food safety and combat pests and diseases.
Federally-funded research conducted at the University of Washington has
led to innovations that inspired new start-up companies in the
technology and life sciences industries, which are the source of many
jobs in the southern part of my district. Without a doubt, basic
research is a key component of an innovative and entrepreneurial
economy, and is essential for the U.S. to remain a global leader in the
medical, technological and agricultural discoveries of tomorrow.
Finally, I hope that this Committee will demonstrate its commitment
to federal programs that millions of Americans depend upon for their
health care and income security. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security
and veterans' benefit programs all offer federal assistance to some of
the nation's most vulnerable communities. Deficit reduction must be
achieved in a commonsense way that doesn't just shift costs to our
seniors or those with disabilities.
Chairman and Ranking Member, I thank you again for the opportunity
to testify. As you begin work on the fiscal year 2014 budget
resolution, I urge you make wise choices that cut unnecessary spending
but preserve the investments that are vital to our long-term economic
growth.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Ohio
Thank you Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen for the
opportunity to submit testimony for the record. My testimony will focus
on those programs in the budget that are most crucial to ensuring that
the needs and concerns of my constituents are a part of the roadmap
this committee sets for our future.
supplemental nutrition assistance program
Our economy is slowly improving, but not fast enough when it comes
to our low-income families. The essential and life-saving Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the cornerstone of the nation's
nutrition safety net, helping prevent millions of Americans from going
without food. SNAP recipients are some of the most vulnerable among us
with the average household earning an income of only 58.5% of the
federal poverty guideline, and 83% of all benefits going to households
with a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person.
In recent years, SNAP has been the bearer of several
mischaracterizations. It should be acknowledged that the recent
increase in SNAP can be attributed to a record number of food insecure
people in America, which in turn was directly related to the economic
downturn and high unemployment. In fact, the number of unemployed
people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, and SNAP responded with a
70% increase in participation during this time period. SNAP
participation growth has begun to flatten out as unemployment slowly
begins to fall. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted that SNAP
participation will begin to decline in 2015, with unemployment and SNAP
participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.
Funding SNAP is a critical and sensible investment in hunger
prevention and relief. Research has shown that hunger increases health
care costs, lowers worker productivity, harms children's development,
and diminishes children's educational performance. If the SNAP program
is reduced, millions of children, people with disabilities, the
elderly, and struggling, working families will be severely harmed. As a
result, our country will witness more hunger and food insecurity,
soaring health costs, and poor educational outcomes. Simply put, our
citizens cannot afford cuts to a program that has consistently put food
on their tables. We must sufficiently fund SNAP to ensure the program
can carry out its charge of providing food assistance to low-income
households.
the emergency food assistance program
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) provides food
commodities at no cost to low-income Americans in need of short-term
hunger relief through organizations like food banks, pantries, soup
kitchens, and emergency shelters. TEFAP has been viewed as a role model
of public-private partnership because food banks combine it with
private donations to maximize benefits beyond the budgeted amount for
the program. However, as successful as the program has been, food banks
and the like are still struggling to provide food to those in need. In
2012, in my home state of Ohio, there were 8.6 million visits to
emergency food pantries.
Many of our food banks and pantries rely heavily on the commodities
provided by TEFAP. Last year, 37 million people, one in eight
Americans, received emergency food assistance through the nation's food
banks. This figure represented a 46% increase in the number of clients
served between 2006 and 2010. Food pantries are no longer simply being
looked as a means to meet temporary acute food needs; they now have
become part of many households' long term strategy to supplement
monthly shortfalls in food. It is imperative to sustain the program
though full funding for mandatory commodities given the steady demand
for food assistance. There should also be a clarification of the
Secretary of Agriculture's authority to purchase bonus commodities in
times of high need for emergency food relief. Upholding this broadly
supported bipartisan program demonstrates our country's commitment to
the fight against hunger.
pell grants
The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-
income undergraduate and certain post baccalaureate students to promote
access to postsecondary education. For Fiscal Year 2011-2012, in my
home state of Ohio, there were 343,822 Pell Grant recipients, receiving
a total of $1,124,927,585. With the assistance of Pell Grants, 45,450
students were able to attend colleges and universities located in my
Congressional district
Too many students are forced to either forgo a college education or
take on enormous sums of debt. The benefits of a college education
cannot be overstated. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
median weekly income for an individual with a bachelor's degree was
$1,038 in 2010 whereas the median weekly income for an individual with
only a high school diploma was $626 a week.
No American child should be denied the opportunity to go to college
and the Federal Pell Grant is the single largest source of federal
grant aid supporting students in college. Any reduction to this program
would make it difficult for many Americans to afford the cost of a
higher education. We must continue to make the investment in our
student's education in order to prepare them for the jobs of tomorrow.
Pell grants are a major part of the educational investment we make in
the lives of many low-income students. We must provide sufficient
funding to this program to ensure the maximum grant amount is available
to all eligible students.
head start
Head Start is a federal program that promotes the school readiness
of children from low-income families, ages birth to 5, by enhancing
their cognitive, social and emotional development. Head Start programs
ensure that children who are at high risk of failure are provided a
world class preschool education along with other comprehensive services
that give them a better, healthier start in life. These children enter
school prepared for a formal education, and their parents, who are also
in a high risk category, are offered interventions in a wide range of
life skills. As a result, the parents leave their Head Start experience
far better prepared for parenting and their own successes.
In Fiscal Year 2011, 964,430 children nationally were enrolled in
Head Start programs. Of these 964,430 children, 4,842 of the children
and families reside in my Congressional district. The investment our
country makes in the Head Start program ensures that many of our
nation's most vulnerable students start school ready to succeed. It is
crucial to our future that we continue to support Head Start funding.
promise neighborhoods
Promise Neighborhoods significantly improve the educational and
developmental outcomes of children and youth in our most distressed
communities. Promise Neighborhoods carries out this mission by helping
create communities where our youth can have access to great schools and
strong systems of family and community support. In doing so, our
children and youth will be prepared to attain an excellent education
and successfully transition to college and a career.
Promise Neighborhood dollars originated through the Obama
Administration's attempt to replicate the success of the Harlem
Children's Zone in Harlem, New York. Since Promise Neighborhood's
origination, the Administration has awarded both planning and
implementation grants to various neighborhoods. While many communities
are currently benefiting from these dollars, there are many more
applicants across the country with strong developing neighborhoods that
need federal support. Many of these neighborhoods have continued the
goals and mission of a Promise Neighborhood even though they have not
received Federal funding. I strongly encourage the Budget Committee to
invest in our high-risk neighborhoods by continuing to support Promise
Neighborhoods.
national institutes of health
Nested under the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH is
one of eight health agencies of the Public Health Service and
encompasses 27 separate Institutes and Centers. NIH's mission is to
``seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living
systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health,
lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.''
Guided by their mission, NIH is regarded as the most powerful economic
engine that annually invests more than $31 billion in medical research
for the American people. Not only does NIH serve as the primary
founding source for the research medical community, academia, and small
business, but it is also the underpinning for the entire U.S.
biomedical industry.
The U.S. biomedical industry annually exports an estimated $90
billion in goods and services and employs 1 million U.S. citizens with
wages totaling an estimated $84 billion. As our workforce continues to
diversify and grow, it will be critical to create viable employment
opportunities that reach all Americans. NIH does just that, by endowing
research in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In Fiscal Year
2011, NIH-funded research supported an estimated 432,000 jobs in the
U.S. and generated $62 billion in new economic activity--more than
double the taxpayers' investment. In order to create a sustainable
local and national economy, we must remain committed to advancing
technology, pursuing scientific innovation, and promoting cutting edge
research.
In addition to their role as an economic catalyst, NIH's research
greatly impacts the lives of everyday citizens. This includes
individuals diagnosed with diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart
disease, immune-mediated diseases, and Alzheimer's, as they are in dire
need of treatment as they pursue healthy and productive lives. It would
be detrimental to reduce NIH funding given the agency's substantial
contribution to the U.S. economy through job creation and research. NIH
creates jobs, saves lives, reduces health costs, and strengthens the
nation. We must do all we can to protect its funding.
job corps
Job Corps has and continues to play a pivotal role in the success
of our nation's youth. It is the largest career technical training and
education program for low-income students ages 16 through 24. For 45
years, Job Corps has been America's premier drop out recovery program.
Over 85% of its graduates find jobs, enroll in higher education, or
enlist in the military. It is the most rigorously evaluated and
accountable job training program in the Department of Labor's
Employment and Training Administration. A program designed to assist
our low-income youth learn a career, earn a high school diploma or GED,
and find and keep a good job must be strongly supported. The Job Corps
program must be adequately funded to ensure our youth have the
opportunity to succeed.
national infrastructure bank
The current condition of the infrastructure in the U.S. is
particularly lackluster. Our country spends less than 40% of what it
needs to meet its infrastructure needs. It has been estimated that more
than $250 billion is needed annually for the next 50 years just to
bring transportation infrastructure up to par. Nearly 700,000 bridges
in the U.S. are structurally deficient. One-third of our roads are in
poor, mediocre, or fair condition. Repairing the nation's crumbling
infrastructure is not just a safety issue: it is an economic issue. It
has been established that infrastructure projects create immediate
jobs. According to the Federal Highway Administration, for every $1
billion spent on highway and bridge construction, nearly 25,000 jobs
are created. The concept of a National Infrastructure Bank has received
broad bipartisan support and it is critical it be funded.
graduate medical education
Direct Graduate Medical Education (GME) payments help fund the
teaching costs of residency programs, such as resident salaries and
benefits, faculty salaries and benefits, and administrative overhead
expenses. Under GME, the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education
(CHGME) program assists freestanding children's hospitals by providing
funding to assist residents at these facilities. Since CHGME came into
existence, many children's hospitals, including those located in my
Congressional district, have been able to train the next generation of
pediatricians.
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),
there are over 1,030 teaching hospitals that directly employ over 2.5
million people. Often time, these teaching hospitals are among the
largest employers in their communities. Additionally, teaching
hospitals are major economic engines--generating business, employment
and tax revenue in the regions they serve. It will be vital to maintain
the funding for GME payments as we continue to prepare our next
generation of doctors who can offer reasonable and accessible health
care through the Affordable Care Act.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. I
respectfully request that the budget priorities I have outlined be
given full consideration and included in the record.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tulsi Gabbard, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Hawaii
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and members of the
committee, I appreciate the chance to testify before you today.
My testimony today is guided by the principle that deficit
reduction should not increase unemployment and poverty, nor harm the
disadvantaged. In Hawaii, we understand that we are all in this
together and that each of us must be part of the solution. We recognize
that spending cuts that would disproportionately fall on the backs of
most vulnerable here and abroad will damage the very fabric of our
communities.
As we all know, we face many fiscal and economic challenges, and as
a nation, we will have to make some difficult decisions to put our
budget on a more sustainable path. Meeting these challenges requires a
balanced approach. We cannot cut out way to prosperity and we cannot
ask the least among us to solve our nation's fiscal crisis.
I cannot overstate the importance of the defense industry as a
driver of our economy in Hawaii. Reductions in defense spending must be
responsible and cannot come at the expense of our military readiness.
We must bring our troops home from Afghanistan and continue the
transformation of our military into an agile force for good that can
meet the growing and evolving threats of today, as opposed to the
conflicts of yesterday.
Foreign aid also plays an important role in addressing the
complicated and numerous issues affecting the United States' interests
abroad. The small investment we make--historically, just one percent of
our budget--is critical in preventing the need for military
interventions across the globe. Programs like the National Guard State
Partnership Program require minimal expense with a great return on
investment by building positive relationships and through cultural and
military exchanges.
After waging war for more than a decade overseas, our nation must
do more to ensure that the brave men and woman who have served receive
the support, benefits and opportunities they so richly deserve. By
providing the necessary funding, and instilling additional efficiency,
we can reduce the lengthy backlog at the Department of Veterans
Affairs. We should do all that is within our power to make sure the
transition from servicemember to veteran and civilian is seamless. The
social cost of failure is too great.
I support a plan that combines common sense tax reform with
pragmatic spending cuts don't disproportionally affect our middle class
families or seniors. This balanced approach will allow us to make
investments now which will promote economic prosperity, growth, and
innovation while also strengthening our national defense and upholding
our responsibilities to our kids, our seniors, and our communities.
Making smart investments in the short term will not only grow our
economy and create good jobs for the middle class, it will reduce
future costs. Strategic spending on infrastructure, defense, and the
development of the green energy technologies of tomorrow will save the
taxpayer billions in energy costs and will cement America's status as
the world's leading innovator. Acting now to strengthen our social
safety net by focusing on prevention allows us to spend less on the
back end for our social ills. Finally, investing in the education of
tomorrow's leaders is the best investment we can make to ensure a
strong and stable economy and future for all people.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Hon. William R. Keating, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Massachusetts
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Van Hollen, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Budget Committee.
My constituents on Cape Cod, the Islands of Nantucket and Martha's
Vineyard and the South Shore of Massachusetts have strong opinions
about how their taxpayer money should be spent. Moreover, many are
concerned about the divided atmosphere in Congress and across the board
cuts that will impact thousands of families across Massachusetts.
Further, the long-term costs of this manufactured crisis on healthcare,
education, security and US competitiveness in the global arena are
still yet to be seen, but are worrying many of my constituents. I am
here to communicate their views.
When I testified before the committee last year, I focused on the
importance of women's safety and healthcare, community block grants,
drug abuse prevention and job creation. Since then, there have been
many positive developments including the passage of the Violence
Against Women's Act just last week and the restoration of over 140
critical positions at the Otis Air National Guard Base. Some of my
proposals--like tax credits to hire veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan--have found consensus and been implemented. Yet, job
creation and employment protections for jobs going overseas still
remain on the top of my list of priorities. For this reason, I urge the
Budget Committee to be weary of shortsighted austerity that will
eliminate job-creating initiatives and compromise our safety for the
sake of immediate savings. Further, I would urge a proactive solution
to this budgetary crisis. Mr. Van Hollen, I wholeheartedly support and
have cosponsored your bill to replace the sequester with smart,
targeted cuts to the oil and gas industry as well as refocusing direct
payments to large, corporate farms.
Most importantly, I would urge the Committee to protect our budget
from impeding the growth of the renewable energy sector, marine
technologies as well as job training and workforce development
initiatives.
My district, particularly the South Coast, is inexorably linked to
the ocean. Throughout the 19th century, what is now my district was the
heart of the global whaling and fishing industries. Today, we are in
the midst of a disaster as our fishermen wait for supplemental relief.
I know that relief is not under this Committee's jurisdiction, but I
would urge for funding toward NOAA's National Marine Fisheries' Service
be devoted to cooperative research efforts between scientists and
fishermen. The cost of monitoring by NOAA should not have to fall on
the backs of our fishermen.
We can create more opportunities by harnessing our Nation's rich
coastal and marine resources. Our region is perfectly suited to
cultivate the marine and renewable energy industries--and benefit from
the multiplier effect of the jobs they will produce. My district alone
is poised to supply our country with 20% of its offshore wind energy
needs.
Last month, I had the pleasure of bringing together various federal
agencies and local development groups in New Bedford to conduct the
first meeting of the New Bedford Terminal Working Group.
The construction of South terminal is estimated to expand business
output by $44 million and generate $19.2 million of additional
household income in Bristol County over a two year period; General
operations are expected to increase business output by $15.6 million
and generate $5.6 million in additional household income each year.
Further, construction and maintenance of the 130-turbine
installation of Cape Wind is expected to provide an increase of $457
million in business output and generation of over $160 million in
household income across the state over an estimated three-year
construction period;
And it doesn't end there.
Various transportation options, including SouthCoast rail, and
potential job training opportunities will incorporate our academic
facilities with the men and women from New Bedford's fishing industry
and other industries and serve as a model for coastal communities
throughout the country.
I am testifying here today because this budget is intricately
linked to the future of my district.
I am concerned that unexempted programs under sequestration, which
include programs directly linked to South Terminal and related
developments in New Bedford like the EPA, SBA and the Army Corps, will
suffer. I urge this committee to safeguard investments that have
already been made to increase innovation and grow our economy. I hope
that we can communicate and realize the potential of certain projects
for our country while admitting to the repetition and waste of others.
Further, I would urge the Committee to take a second look at the
importance of conservation programs like the Prescott Grant Program and
others that protect our marine resources.
These programs not only safeguard a very unique National resource
but also attract tourism and create jobs in areas that are only
seasonally productive. In this regard, I would also like to take a
moment to ask to maintain funding for program like the Small Business
Innovation and Research Program and the Navy's Defense University
Research Instrumentation Program, which will help promote undersea
technologies as well as others both domestically and abroad.
Finally, I would like to talk about something that is at the heart
of my public service career: combating substance abuse. It is a sad
fact that 1.7 people die a day in Massachusetts from opiate-based drug
overdoses. And, the effects of addiction can be seen throughout our
country.
As a former DA, I am a strong proponent of drug courts and SAMHSA
funding to assist those working to prevent abuse and overdose. The Drug
Court Discretionary Grant program helps to develop treatment drug
courts that integrate substance abuse treatment, mandatory drug
testing, and transitional services for non-violent, substance abuse
suspects.
The American people understand: this is the year of budget
constraints. My testimony not only reflects the priorities of the Ninth
Congressional District of Massachusetts, but echoes the messages I have
heard from across the country.
We must ensure that this budget incorporates effective funding
decisions that encourage efficiency but do not overlook the critical
needs of Americans of all backgrounds.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, March 11, 2013.
Hon. Paul Ryan, Chairman; Hon. Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member,
Committee on the Budget, 207 Cannon House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen: Thank you for
your invitation to submit comments regarding the budget for fiscal year
2014. For the first time since I have taken office in 2009, this
Congress has an opportunity to draft its budget without being in the
midst of the financial crisis of 2008. Slowly but surely, a recovery
shows signs of taking hold across the country. For the third
consecutive year, real GDP rose in 2012 by 1.5 percent. Housing prices
have finally stopped their free fall and actually rose 9.7% year-over-
year in January, the largest gain since 2006. Just last week, the
Department of Labor announced that our economy added 236,000 jobs as
the unemployment rate dropped to 7.7%.
As the recovery strengthens, much work remains to maintain its
momentum and protect our gains. My state of New Mexico continues to
suffer from 6.7% unemployment, a rate that exceeds the state
unemployment rate for the decade before the crisis. New Mexicans have
given back much to our country, through the search for scientific
knowledge at our national labs to the proud tradition of service in our
nation's armed forces. When our county has needed us, New Mexicans have
been there. The people that I have talked to in my travels around the
state do not want and do not expect to be handed something for nothing.
They want to work, to have a sense of purpose, to be able to provide
for their families. But too often of late those opportunities have not
been there for them. That is why I urge the members of this committee
to come together with a focus on the concerns that are most pressing in
the lives of the people we are honored to represent. With many issues
needing our attention, let us not lose focus on the need to spur job
creation and get our economy moving.
For the past two years, the House has devoted much attention
towards the cause of deficit reduction, but at the expense of our
current need to create new jobs and our long-term need to invest in
education and innovation. House Republicans have conditioned the full
faith and credit of the United States government upon the sequester's
imposition of arbitrary budget cuts to even the most critical programs.
Despite reports that the sequester could lead to the loss of 750,000
jobs and cut our economic growth by a third, the House has yet to pass
a plan to prevent it this Congress and has not even publicly announced
an intention to negotiate with the Senate or President Obama on a more
balanced plan. Most alarmingly, the past two House budgets have asked
seniors and the less fortunate to shoulder the largest burdens of
deficit reduction, and House Republican leadership has asked that this
be a prerequisite for ending the sequester as well.
As we all know, the nation's long-term budget deficit remains to be
a concern. After a decade of raising inadequate tax revenue, fighting
two of the longest wars in our history, and suffering the greatest
financial crisis in almost 80 years, the nation's fiscal surplus
rapidly deteriorated and the debt increased once again. As we look
towards the future, there are troubling signs on the horizon--an aging
population having to make do with an inefficient and expensive health
care system, an economy struggling to provide opportunities for the
long-term unemployed, and a resistance to making the investments we
need to spur innovation and growth. For the past two years, this
committee has attempted to respond to these issues with budget
resolutions that avoid confronting them in favor of shifting
responsibility onto seniors and low-income Americans. Instead of
addressing the root causes that threaten to increase our health costs
at an exponential rate, this committee has proposed benefit cuts to
Medicare recipients that would make our system more expensive for
everyone and weakened the support of Medicaid for low-income and
disabled Americans. Instead of working to stabilize the economy and
increase opportunities for unemployed workers and struggling
businesses, this committee has proposed extreme and rapid cuts that sap
our economy of its vitality and force the uncertainties of an unending
series of ``cliffs.'' Instead of taking advantage of historically low
interest rates to rebuild America with new infrastructure and education
resources, this committee has sought indiscriminate cuts to even our
most vital programs in the name of deficit reduction.
As this committee prepares a budget resolution for the next fiscal
year, I urge you to come together to reduce our current budget deficits
in a balanced way that rejects benefit cuts to our crucial entitlement
programs or budget cuts for programs that benefit the country in ways
that far outweigh their deficit impact. A number of our colleagues in
the House, including Ranking Member Van Hollen, have made proposals to
do this, and I urge the committee to heed their advice to attain
balanced deficit reductions and avoid the harmful job losses of the
sequester. We must work towards a sustainable path for our federal
budget, but we cannot force our seniors, veterans, military families,
and least fortunate Americans to shoulder the largest share of the
burdens of deficit reduction.
With the growing number of troops coming back from Afghanistan and
those who have served in Iraq and past conflicts, it's important to
deliver care and services to the individuals and families who have
earned it. It is irresponsible to allow the sequester to threaten the
quality of life for our military families while their spouses or
parents are away from home to fight for our country. While much of the
VA is exempt from the sequester, we must ensure that moving forward we
fund the VA at adequate levels so that we can address the increasing
number of troops coming home, while providing adequate care to veterans
currently in the system.
The United States also must abide by its treaty responsibilities to
the sovereign people of tribal nations. Under the sequester, tribes
could lose almost $130 million, impacting areas such as human services,
law enforcement, BIE schools, economic development and natural
resources. Specifically, for the Indian Health Service, sequestration
could result in about 3,000 fewer inpatient admissions and 804,000
fewer outpatient visits provided by IHS and Tribal hospitals and
clinics. In addition, some key education programs could feel the impact
of sequestration immediately. Many school districts qualifying for
Impact Aid receive a high percentage of their overall funding from
federal sources and use the money during the current school year.
Sequestration would eliminate about $60 million for this program, which
serves approximately 113,000 Native students. Many of these schools are
counting on federal funds to meet the basic needs of students and to
pay teacher salaries this spring, potentially forcing districts to make
wrenching, mid-year adjustments. There are smarter and more balanced
ways to achieve deficit reduction without placing this burden on the
backs of those who need help, and tribal communities should not be
disproportionally affected by budget cuts.
We must also look forward and invest in our nation's education
system, which can mean a stronger America for generations to come. If
our goal is a better economy--education is how we get there. As global
competition in the development of advanced technologies increases, our
country risks losing its preeminence in the global community for
innovation in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. As a
Congressman from a minority-majority state, I well aware of the severe
shortage of Hispanic and Native American students in science,
mathematics and engineering fields. The continuing under-representation
of Hispanic and Native American STEM students and the growing shortage
of scientists, mathematicians and engineers require serious investment
in the development of STEM education pipelines for minority
communities. The higher education needs of our Native American and
Hispanic students can be unique, and Tribal Colleges and Universities
and Hispanic Serving Institutions provide vital educational
opportunities for these under-represented communities. As you draft the
next budget, I urge you to reverse the painful cuts to education
programs that make it even more likely that New Mexicans from Tribal or
minority communities or those who are living in poverty will drop out
of school. These cuts to education funding are cuts to our nation's
long-term future, and I urge you to hold them harmless from the
sequester and future cuts.
We must protect research and development as these drive our long-
term security and prosperity. In particular, our national laboratories
possess unique and valuable capabilities and perform some of the most
important research for the nation. The two national laboratories in my
home state of New Mexico, Los Alamos and Sandia, also provide crucial
national security expertise, including advanced technologies for cyber
security. By directing investments towards the research and development
projects done by the labs at Los Alamos and Sandia, we will reap
enormous benefits down the line. The labs are working on new
technologies that will make America safer, more energy-efficient, and
environmentally sustainable We must invest in their research
capabilities as a source of jobs today and of innovation for the
future. In order to reap the full rewards of these research
investments, we should fund technology maturation programs that
encourage promising new technologies, often in partnership with private
entities. Without this important step many promising technologies are
left undeveloped.
Investments in clean energy are important to the future of our
economy and the energy security of our nation. Over the past four
years, the renewable energy sector has begun to expand and the cost of
energy produced from renewable and clean sources has become more
affordable. Despite what some critics say, the DoE's guaranteed loan
program and other Federal governments programs have been successful in
helping develop clean energy. In fact, the government has had a long
and successful history of investing in research and development
projects that spur new technologies--the Internet being a prime
example. We must continue investing in our energy future and
investments in clean energy are no exception.
It is my hope that Congress passes a new Farm Bill with long term
budget priorities. While we continue to operate under the 2008 Farm
Bill, funding for Rural Development programs and drought insurance
programs is crucial. Rural Development provides direct investments to
help agricultural producers, small businesses, tribes and rural areas
build local economies. In addition, many of our traditional
agricultural producers in New Mexico, including acequia communities,
have been impacted by drought and we must ensure that assistance is
available for those who need it. During the past two years New Mexico's
dairy industry has been hit hard by the flawed Dairy Product Price
Support Program's pricing system. We can fix these issues by finally
passing a Farm Bill similar to those passed by the U.S. Senate and the
House Agriculture Committees during the 112th Congress and must not
lose sight of the needs of our agricultural producers during the
current budget process.
Finally, substance abuse is one of the most pressing public health
concerns facing our nation. According to the 2010 National Survey on
Drug Use and Health, an estimated 22.6 million Americans aged 12 and
older had abused illegal drugs over the past month. In New Mexico, our
communities in particular know the impact of illicit drugs and
overdose. For many years New Mexico has been among the states with the
highest rates of substance abuse. A strategy to combat substance abuse
must include a range of approaches including prevention, treatment, and
law enforcement elements, and it cannot be done in a purely top-down
approach. It will require all of us to work together to coordinate
federal, state, county, and local government responses and this
Committee must ensure that we have the resources for this important
work. The impact of the sequester will already severely limit resources
to families, communities, and organizations committed to tackling
substance abuse through prevention and treatment--and additionally
impacting the fight by hampering law enforcement's ability to pursue
criminals who would illegally market prescription or illicit drugs. Our
budget priorities must reflect our priorities for safe and healthy
communities, which requires the resources to combat and treat substance
abuse.
Thank you for your attention to these important issues as you craft
the Fiscal Year 2014 budget. Investing in priorities that will create
jobs and strengthen the middle class are critical to our efforts to
build a sustainable economy and federal budget. I urge you to work to
make these investments while seeking a balanced approach to deficit
reduction.
Respectfully submitted,
Ben Ray Lujan,
Member of Congress.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gloria Negrete McLeod, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Thank you Mr. Chairman, ranking member and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony on
the budget and the related programs that will be impacted as a result
of cuts to vital services.
The budget should reflect the ideals of compassion, fairness and
equality that Americans proudly share. When the budget proposals are
set forth by this committee, I would ask that it reconsider any further
cuts that would negatively affect our children, seniors, veterans, and
small businesses.
As a member of the Agriculture's Subcommittee on Department
Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition, I want to ensure our children and
students receive the best nutritional options available through
programs such as SNAP. More than half of children in my district
receive free or reduced lunch. Further cuts to federally funded
programs such as those put forward would threaten the ability to
adequately feed our nation's children.
I want to highlight the Women, Infants, and Children program, known
as WIC, which provides nutritious foods, nutritional education and
referrals to health and other social services to participants at no
charge. WIC serves low-income mothers and young children who are at
nutrition risk.
My district comprises one of the highest WIC participation
populations in California with more than 56,000 case loads in October
of 2012 alone. Participation in WIC results in positive health outcomes
for women, infants, and children while saving tax payer money. For
every dollar spent on pregnant women in WIC there is a significant
return in Medicaid savings for newborns and their mothers.
My district is reflective of the country's fastest-growing
population of people aged 65 and over. With the increase of seniors,
the need for in home-and community-based services also grows. Yet the
programs that finance these services have received no increased funding
for the past several years. I urge you to consider the long term
impacts budget reductions will have to our nation's senior population.
Through the reductions of the Medicaid program, states could be
forced to substantially reduce or eliminate Medicaid home care, home
health, and adult day services. These cuts would result in seniors
using more expensive services, such as hospitals and nursing homes.
Programs that are meant to sustain a senior's independence such as
the Older Americans Act programs have been underfunded for many years.
In view of the growing numbers of seniors who need these services and
their cost-effectiveness, I urge this committee to increase funding for
supportive senior services such as the National Family Caregiver
Support Program and Meals on Wheels which help older individuals with
care needs to receive services that enable seniors to remain in their
own homes.
Lastly, we should continue to support the Small Business
Administration and find ways to make it easier for small businesses to
create jobs while not generating fiscal uncertainty in our economy
through adverse policy making. The success of our overall economic
recovery depends on how well small businesses fare because more than 2/
3 of the jobs created in the United States come from small businesses.
There are economic indicators suggesting that the local economy in
my district and the surrounding area is improving. This is particularly
important for my district cities that faced some of the highest
unemployment rates in the nation during the past recession. Small
businesses are beginning to hire again and the Inland Empire is
experiencing an increase in the high-tech job sector. Many of these
high-tech jobs are also high-paying, making it essential that this
industry continues to stimulate further economic growth in the Inland
Empire.
In closing, I ask that my recommendations be considered in the
coming weeks as the federal budget is negotiated. The American people
want us to solve our differences and create a balanced budget however
it should not be at the expense of seniors, children, and small
businesses.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Markwayne Mullin, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Oklahoma
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and members of the
Committee: Following the enactment of President Obama's sequester, and
the failure of Congress to come together to resolve our budget crisis,
it is necessary now more than ever for us to find commonsense solutions
to our fiscal problems. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle
have agreed that some cuts are necessary in order to reduce our
national deficit, although the lack of consensus on how much and where
to cut have led to the painful, across-the-board cuts that we are now
experiencing. These widespread, untargeted cuts hurt good programs and
cause unintended consequences, affecting our troops, federal employees,
contractors, and everyday Americans.
It is the responsibility of Congress to do everything in our power
to find the most effective, least painful cuts in order to put our
country back on the path of fiscal stability. In a federal government
that has grown in size as much as ours, surely we can find many areas
of duplication, waste, and abuse to cut first.
I would like to draw to your attention one particular area where
savings can be found. Each year, the Federal Government makes roughly
$115 billion in improper payments to individuals, contractors, and
organizations annually. These payments are made in excess of what
should have been paid and are often made to ineligible Medicare,
Medicaid, Disability Insurance recipients just to name a few.
Astoundingly, our government has made improper payments in excess of
$100 billion in each of the past four fiscal years. Reported improper
payments for FY2012 reached $108 billion, although a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report found that not all agencies have
developed improper payment estimates for all of their programs, likely
pushing the real total of improper payments even higher.
Before cutting funding for things like our military's operations
and maintenance accounts that ensure our troops are well trained and
supplied, I would urge you to first reduce the amount of waste in
government, including the billions lost in improper payments.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert Pittenger, a Representative in
Congress From the State of North Carolina
Thank you Mr Chairman for allowing me the time to testify today
before the House Budget Committee.
Peter Orszag, former budget director for President Obama, recently
told a gathering of freshman Representatives that ``unless you deal
with the debt, you're playing games with the country. Unless you deal
with entitlements, you're playing games with the debt. You better go
fix it.''
For too many years, our leaders have irresponsibly put off the
tough decisions necessary to place our country on sound financial
footing. Even President Obama seems to be ignoring the problem, as he
never even mentioned our $17 trillion debt during his inaugural address
and State of the Union speech.
American taxpayers deserve and expect an accountable government,
not a bloated bureaucracy in need of credit counseling. Each passing
year makes the decision more difficult and the changes more painful.
Medicare will be insolvent by 2024, which means we are rapidly
squandering any chance to fix the problem.
Our $17 trillion debt, which currently results in $220 billion in
annual interest payments, is a drag on our economy, deterring our
ability to create jobs for American families. Reforming entitlements
must be done to help our economy grow today and provide for the future
Any plan to reform entitlements must preserve the current benefits
promised to this generation, while providing ample opportunity for the
next generation to prepare. However, we must be strong and take action.
We can enact a responsible plan to preserve these important safety nets
for future generations, or we can do nothing and watch as American
families suffer even more after Medicare and Social Security collapse.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Martha Roby, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Alabama
I want to thank the esteemed Chairman and the members of this
Committee for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the budget
situation. Thank you for your continued hard work on this most
important issue.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``The whole art of government consists
in the art of being honest.'' I fear that too often our government
fails to meet that basic standard. We've seen it from past Congresses,
from past Administrations, and, indeed, from the current
Administration. I believe I speak for the majority of the people in my
district who are, frankly, tired of the misleading statements, scare
tactics, and intellectual dishonesty that is so common in this
Administration's words and deeds.
We've witnessed this strategy most recently during the ongoing
dialogue about the Budget Control Act's automatic cuts known as
sequestration.
Let me point out three basic observations about sequestration.
First, sequestration will have a range of very important consequences
for our government and our national defense. Second, the federal budget
generally, and sequestration specifically, are complicated issues
foreign to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Third, even if
unfamiliar with the specifics, everyday Americans care deeply about the
fiscal and national security of our country.
Together, these basic facts emphasize why it is so important that
we, the elected leaders of this country, take every reasonable step to
accurately inform the public about the policies and procedure of its
government. It's hard enough for the elderly or hardworking parents or
young people getting started in their careers to follow the actions of
the federal government. Injecting misleading information in the public
debate only makes matters worse.
This Administration should be ashamed of its response to
sequestration. Spreading unsubstantiated rumors, making threats and
withholding critical information in order to scare the American people
is not leadership. Perhaps the pettiness of this Administration's
behavior was best symbolized last week when they announced the White
House would be closed to the public for tours due to sequestration. The
stuff of Lincoln and Churchill, this is not.
Regarding the larger budget situation, it is obvious that we need
to continue our effort to rein in spending and reduce the size of the
federal government.
Thanks to the leadership of many in this chamber, we have made
significant progress under rather difficult circumstances. The House
has stemmed the tide of reckless spending that washed across the
federal government in 2009 and 2010. Our efforts continue to right-size
government effectively, which is why I come before you today.
There is a smarter way to cut federal spending than the automatic
across-the-board cuts of sequestration. I am specifically worried about
the disproportionate cuts that the military is being forced to endure:
roughly one half of the cuts will affect defense accounts that make up
less than 20 percent of the federal budget. That is a fact people
across the country need to understand. As I mentioned, people in my
district are truly concerned about the consequences of this policy--
especially in areas near Ft. Rucker and Maxwell Air Force Base.
I am convinced that we can do better. This week, the House passed
legislation to keep the government operating through the end of the
fiscal year and to allow the Pentagon some flexibility to allocate the
required cuts to areas that will have less impact on national defense
and operational capabilities. That is a good first step.
I sincerely hope that this Committee will take the next budget
resolution as another opportunity to alter the disproportionate cuts of
sequestration. It is time to reprioritize these cuts and stop balancing
our fiscal future on the back of our military. These men and women and
their families who have dedicated their lives to this country deserve
better than to be treated as pawns in a game of political
brinksmanship.
In doing so, I hope the Committee will continue to recognize that
our country must address the true driver of future debt a serious
problem that we must tackle: mandatory spending.
Let me offer one other note about honesty. I remain committed to
finally ending the practice of using budget gimmicks to distort the
truth about federal spending. Next week, I plan to re-introduce the
Honest Budget Act, an important piece of legislation that would address
some of the most common accounting tricks used by politicians to hide
the truth, confuse the public, and run up the national debt. This
approach is endorsed by numerous conservative groups, including the
Heritage Foundation, Citizens against Government Waste, and Americans
for Tax Reform.
I strongly support approval of the Honest Budget Act in its
entirety, and I welcome any future hearings this Committee may hold to
examine its various provisions. That said, I believe a great deal of
good would result from the Budget Committee adopting the underlying
principles of this legislation while it considers the House budget
resolution.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I hope you know that I am proud of your
stated intent to balance our nation's budget. As we all know, it will
not be easy to fight those long addicted to spending, taxing, and
borrowing. They are well entrenched in Washington, and they will not
cede easily. But, I hope you will count me as a partner in your efforts
to restore fiscal sanity and commonsense to our federal government.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to
working with each of you in the future.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Illinois
Thank you, Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen, for giving
me the opportunity to testify on your committee's consideration of the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014.
It's been said before many times--and it remains true--that budgets
are moral documents. How we choose to allocate our resources is a
direct reflection of the values we hold and the goals we hope to
achieve to advance our nation and its people.
As you begin work on this year's budget resolution, I encourage you
to look with a clear eye towards the state of our economy, American
workers, and the nation as a whole.
Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial average hit an all-time high,
completing a full-scale comeback since the depths of the Great
Recession--more than doubling since hitting a low in March 2009.
Major corporations are seeing record profits, and the extremely
rich are seeing their incomes and wealth grow.
But those successes are not universally shared. Inequality is at
its highest point since the Great Depression, unemployment is stuck
hovering around 8 percent and wages are stagnant--as they have been for
decades--for most American workers.
I'd like to quote a New York Times article from earlier this week:
``So far in this recovery, corporations have captured an unusually
high share of the income gains. The U.S. corporate sector is in a lot
better health than the overall economy. And until we get a full
recovery in the labor market, this will persist.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-
profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That quote is not from some liberal commentator--it's from Ethan
Harris, the co-head of global economics at Bank of America Merrill
Lynch.
In early 2009, the President and Democrats took action to put a
trampoline under the falling economy and boost it back up. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a success, creating up to 3.6 million
jobs, stopping the economic freefall, and bringing us out of a
recession. But when Republicans took the House majority in 2011, they
halted any further action to create jobs and immediately put in place
efforts to cut spending, without regard to the potential economic
effects. Their resistance to raising a single dime more from the
wealthiest Americans lasted for two full years--and prompted multiple
fiscal crises along the way, including holding the debt ceiling hostage
in order to force through cuts. Finally, two months ago, we were able
to come to an agreement to address the so-called ``fiscal cliff'' with
a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.
But the damage has been done--too many Americans remain out of
work, too many are working part-time jobs when they want to work full-
time, and too many have seen their wages stay the same or even drop in
recent years. And if we don't act responsibly to repeal or replace the
sequester, another 750,000 jobs will be lost, according to the
Congressional Budget Office.
We are at a critical moment here. Not just whether we will replace
the sequester, but what it will be replaced with? Not just whether we
address our fiscal challenges, but how?
When crafting a budget that meets the true needs of our nation, we
need to ask the following questions: Does it create jobs? Does it
address inequality? Does it raise revenues in a fair way? Does it
protect the vital benefits of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
Does it preserve and boost investments that build the middle class,
including education, job training, infrastructure, scientific and
medical research, and renewable energy? Does it make smart cuts that
target true waste, not opportunity?
At the most basic level, we should not craft a federal budget that
makes everyone else's budgets--workers, seniors, state and local
governments, small businesses--worse.
We should pass a budget that meets those tests and never pass one
that doesn't.
I hope as you work to craft your budget you will look at proposals
that I have offered, including the Emergency Jobs to Restore the
American Dream Act, the Fairness in Taxation Act, the Public Option
Deficit Reduction Act, and the Corporate Tax Fairness Act. I also
encourage you to look at the Balancing Act, which I offered with other
members of the Progressive Caucus, as an alternative to the dangerous
sequester cuts. The principles these bills are based on are what the
American people say they want--job creation, more revenues from those
who can afford to pay--including millionaires and wealthy corporations
shipping jobs overseas, and smart spending cuts, including cuts in
military spending that eliminate out-dated weapons systems and refocus
our resources on 21st-century threats. Those are the principles that
should be reflected in this year's budget.
Thank you for your consideration and your time.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carol Shea-Porter, a Representative in
Congress From the State of New Hampshire
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the
fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget resolution and to share my concerns and
priorities.
As of March 1st, sequestration has taken effect across the nation,
and with it, the $85 billion budget decrease required by the Budget
Control Act of 2011. These sudden enormous and untargeted cuts across
all government and military programs and departments will shock our
recovering economy, both in New Hampshire and throughout the nation.
Sequestration will cut essential services and investments, impacting
everything from law enforcement and defense to education, medical
research, infrastructure improvements, and nutrition programs. These
government programs and departments ``promote the general welfare''
(U.S. Constitution, preamble) and are critical to ensure public safety,
economic growth and prosperity, and national security. Sequestration
cuts are bad policy and bad for the American people. Any cuts made to
vital programs, departments, and infrastructure must be made in a
targeted and gradual manner in order not to inflict severe harm on the
American citizens they serve. As you consider the FY 2014 budget
resolution, I hope you will work to replace these arbitrary cuts with a
balanced plan that responsibly cuts spending and removes unnecessary
tax breaks for special interests.
The cuts to the Department of Defense budget are destructive and
indiscriminate, and when added to the cuts of the last several years,
will weaken our national defense by making our active duty military and
reserve components less able to accomplish their mission.
Located at the eastern edge of the First Congressional District,
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNSY), with a workforce of over 5,000,
has both an essential defense mission and an enormous impact on the
region's economy. Both military readiness and the regional economy are
threatened by these drastic sequestration cuts.
The readiness of the U.S. Navy and the Shipyard will be impacted in
a number of adverse ways.
The Office of Management and Budget has announced that the
Navy's budget, which governs the four remaining U.S. public shipyards,
including the PNSY, will be reduced by $4.3 billion in 2013, with a
terrible impact on naval readiness.
The PSNY budget for 2012 was approximately $667 million,
which means a projected $52,693,000 in cuts from the 2013 fund
allotment for both payroll and operations.
According to a statement released by the Secretary of the
Navy, the $450 million in repairs required by the U.S.S. Miami will be
delayed due to sequestration.
PNSY performs critical repair, refit, and nuclear
refueling work on Virginia-class submarines. Timelines for the work are
scheduled years in advance and planned carefully to ensure maximum
efficiency. Sequestration makes it extremely challenging to meet
submarine availability schedules and deadlines. These sequester cuts
will ultimately impact the ability of the U.S. submarine force to carry
out its national defense mission. I'd like to note that the People's
Republic of China built 4 submarines in 2011 and 6 in 2012, while we
are only managing 2 per year. In order to maintain our naval security,
we must ensure that every submarine we have undergoes, and completes
necessary refits on schedule, which will be a near-impossible goal
under the capricious delays caused by sequestration.
There are also threats to the long-term effectiveness and
performance of the Shipyard's civilian workforce.
According to the Public Affairs Department at PNSY, all
civilian employees will be furloughed. PSNY will limit administrative
furloughs for Shipyard workers to 176 hours (approximately 22
workdays). Furloughs will commence on April 25, 2013 and will continue
for 22 weeks, ending on or after September 21, 2013.
In accordance with the Chief of Naval Operations'
directives, there is currently a civilian hard hiring freeze (including
both internal and external hiring) in effect for the Shipyard.
The hard hiring freeze means that workers who retire, move
away, or leave for any reason, cannot be replaced. Yet with tight work
schedules and highly skilled workers required to get the job done, any
reductions in workforce will soon have detrimental impacts on
readiness, on the ability to get the job done on schedule, and the
ability to deploy the submarine.
The civilian workers will have to endure a sudden,
unbudgeted 20% pay cut. In addition to the demoralizing and unsettling
impact of the uncertainty caused by sequestration, they may be unable
to meet mortgage payments, their children's college tuition or other
financial commitments. It is absolutely unfair to target these skilled
and essential national defense workers in this way. It is also
counterproductive. The newer, younger members of the workforce may just
leave for a more certain job--an especially damaging possibility to
readiness given the hiring freeze.
In addition, the cascading economic impact of the cuts to PNSY will
seriously damage the economy of the First Congressional District of New
Hampshire. Over 2,000 of my constituents work there, and in 2011
(latest figures available), the civilian payroll was $408.4 million,
the military payroll was $40.5 million, and $8.5 million in PSNY
purchased goods and services benefitted the New England economy. In New
Hampshire the 2,137 civilian employees were paid a total of about $151
million. The vast majority of those employees live in the First
Congressional District.
In order to keep our national defense strong, I ask you to restore
the budget of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard to the funding level that
existed prior to implementation of the defense sequester.
Sequestration cuts will adversely affect the readiness and
personnel of New Hampshire's highly active, highly successful Air
National Guard (ANG). The cuts would take a significant toll on Pease
Air Guard Base, home of New Hampshire's only Air National Guard Unit,
the 157th Air Refueling Wing.
These cuts will have an adverse effect on the personnel and the
regional economy.
The New Hampshire National Guard's 212 permanent ANG
Military Technicians (MILTECHs) and 202 permanent Army National Guard
(ARNG) MILTECHs, many of whom are based at the First District's Pease
Air Guard Base, will face 22-day furloughs with a resultant 22% salary
cut.
The National Guard expects these pay cuts to negatively
impact the economies of communities where MILTECHs are based, such as
the greater Portsmouth area.
These reductions may also result in highly trained
MILTECHs leaving the force, leaving behind a less experienced and less
capable unit.
These cuts also pose a threat to the readiness of the Guard and its
ability to respond quickly and effectively when called into duty.
The National Guard anticipates that furloughs of permanent
MILTECHs will directly correlate to reduced training and unit
readiness.
The National Guard has announced a MILTECH hiring freeze,
which will also directly correlate to reduced training and unit
readiness.
The National Guard has announced that all temporary
MILTECHs, including New Hampshire's 18 temporary ANG MILTECHS and 14
temporary ARNG MILTECHs, may face termination. Temporary MILTECHs fill
positions left empty when permanent MILTECHs deploy. They play an
essential role in maintaining unit equipment readiness in the absence
of permanent MILTECHs. Termination of temporary MILTECHs may prevent
the National Guard from meeting congressionally-mandated technician end
strength floors established in P.L.112-239.
The ANG as a whole is expected to cut flying hours and
weapon system sustainment by as much as 18%, leaving bases like Pease
at unacceptable readiness standards by the end of FY 2013.
The New Hampshire National Guard is a key component of our national
defense and emergency response capability, and I ask you to restore its
budget to the funding level that existed prior to implementation of the
sequester.
The First Congressional District's numerous defense contractors,
large and small, will also be harmed by the sequester.
Prime contractors in NH-01, including BAE Systems and L3
Insight Tech Inc., received $529 million in contracts from the Defense
Department for FY 2012. $4,179,100 could be cut from New Hampshire's
military procurement budget for FY 2013.
According to the Aerospace Industries Association, if a
solution to sequestration is not found, 2,705 private sector New
Hampshire jobs in industries that benefit from military procurement
will be at risk.
While the larger of the prime contractors will survive, suppliers
and subcontractors are likely to go under, as the primes cut back their
orders, resulting in more job losses as the impact spreads. The House
Committee on Appropriations also reports that 1,004 other New Hampshire
civilian employees can also be furloughed, taking approximately $6
million in lost wages out of their pockets and out of the New Hampshire
economy.
In conclusion, I implore the members of this committee to develop a
reasonable, responsible budget for FY 2014 that eliminates the
indiscriminate and damaging cuts found in the Budget Control Act. I
thank you for your time and consideration.
[Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]