[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:63663.wais]
MEMBERS' DAY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 2, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-10
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-663cc WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio, Chairman
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
Speaker's Designee Carolina,
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut Ranking Minority Member
WALLY HERGER, California JIM McDERMOTT, Washington,
BOB FRANKS, New Jersey Leadership Designee
NICK SMITH, Michigan LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California KEN BENTSEN, Texas
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JIM DAVIS, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ROBERT A. WEYGAND, Rhode Island
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JIM RYUN, Kansas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
MAC COLLINS, Georgia DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee KEN LUCAS, Kentucky
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL III,
GARY MILLER, California Pennsylvania
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
Professional Staff
Wayne T. Struble, Staff Director
Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC, March 2, 2000.................... 1
Statement of:
Hon. Ike Skelton, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Missouri................................................ 1
Hon. Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 11
Hon. Bob Filner, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 38
Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio.......................................... 41
Prepared statement of:
Mr. Skelton.................................................. 3
Hon. George W. Gekas, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 10
Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 10
Mr. Rohrabacher.............................................. 16
Mr. Filner................................................... 17
Executive Summary of the Independent Budget.............. 19
Mr. Kucinich................................................. 43
MEMBERS' DAY
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m. in room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Saxby Chambliss
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Chambliss, Collins, Bass,
Fletcher, Spratt, Bentsen, Moran.
Mr. Chambliss [presiding]. Our hearing will come to order.
Today is what we refer to as ``Members' Day'' before the Budget
Committee. This is a portion of the budget process that is
required by our budget law. And unfortunately, due to the
rescheduling of House business, some of our folks who were
scheduled to be here today have decided they would go home, I
guess, rather than being here. So we are going to proceed
anyway.
We have Members of Congress here today to present their
views because they know this is the most important committee on
the Hill. And folks like Ike Skelton know how important it is
to be here to talk to us about defense. Ike, we are pleased to
have you here. You are a great friend of Members on both sides
of the aisle, particularly on the issue of defense. We are very
pleased to have you here.
At this time before I turn over to you, I will turn it over
to my colleague, Mr. Spratt, for any comments he has.
Mr. Spratt. Mr. Chairman, I would like it if you could tell
us officially what the plan and schedule for markup is next
week.
Mr. Chambliss. Well, I do not think anybody knows right
now, very honestly. I don't think that we are going to mark
next week.
As of late yesterday, yesterday afternoon, there was no
definite schedule about the markup next week. Originally we
were scheduled for Wednesday. Frankly, I do not see how we can
do that because we do not come back in until Wednesday.
Mr. Spratt. That was my concern too. We would appreciate as
much notice as possible when the markup is to be held.
Mr. Chambliss. That is a reasonable request, and we will
accommodate you.
Mr. Skelton, we are glad to have you, and we will turn it
over to you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Mr. Skelton. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and Mr.
Spratt. I appreciate you allowing me to be with you this
morning, members of the Budget Committee. I appear before you
today to present my views about national security accounts of
the Federal budget for fiscal year 2001.
In many respects the administration defense budget this
year is a good news story. The total overall figure is
approximately $305 billion in budget authority for national
security activities in fiscal year 2001 which represents a real
inflation adjusted increase of about 1.3 percent in the defense
accounts over last year's total or about $12.2 billion more
than the fiscal year 2000 funding level if you include the
proposed $2.3 billion supplemental appropriation for Kosovo.
The defense budget includes about $292 billion for the
Department of Defense and $13 billion for nuclear weapons
related activities in DOE. While $300 billion seems like a lot
of money and it is, I nevertheless have concerns that the
budget is not adequate to meet our defense requirements in
three key areas: First, procurement; second, health care; and
third, readiness.
Although this year's defense budget includes some $60
billion for procurement accounts, the accounts through which we
buy major weapons systems, the funding level comes after years
of those accounts being underfunded relative to the large
military requirements. This year, Mr. Chairman, former
Secretary of Defense Bill Perry testified before our committee,
the Armed Services Committee, that the procurement funding in
this year's budget is at least $10 billion below what we need
to execute our national military strategy of being prepared to
fight two major wars. The Chiefs in the military services have
told us the same thing.
With respect to health care, the budget includes $11.6
billion dollars for our defense health program, which is $450
million above the fiscal year 2000 level. Because of a
combination of fewer on-base medical facilities as a result of
base closures and the aging retiring population, providing
health care for military retirees has become a pressing
problem. Several military health care bills have been
introduced.
No one disagrees that we must keep faith with the service
members, their families, and retirees who have served our
country at such great sacrifice. The fiscal reality is that
providing health care to aging retirees is very expensive. The
President's budget adequately provides for active duty service
members and their families, but it does not address health care
for retirees.
I urge this committee to provide the resources to enable
the Armed Services Committee to meaningfully reform the health
care system without robbing other accounts within the defense
budget.
Third, military readiness is also a source for concern.
With ongoing deployments in the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo,
the operational tempo for our forces have been steadily rising.
The operations and readiness accounts that fund training and
education activities, exercises, base and range maintenance,
and military operations are critical to the Defense
Department's ability to perform its missions and protect our
national security.
Unfortunately these accounts suffered last year. The
decision to apply .38 percent across the board cut last year to
all fiscal year 2000 appropriations did not affect military
personnel accounts. They were exempted. As a result, DOD's
operations and maintenance accounts were reduced
disproportionately by about $500 million. The total O & M
appropriation was about $600 million below the amount the
President requested in last year's budget. We need to do better
this year so that our military readiness does not suffer.
Mr. Chairman, the Armed Services Committee's ability to
authorize the programs necessary to protect our national
security interests depends on having sufficient resources. With
the caveats I just mentioned the President's budget this year
does a good job of enabling us to meet our challenges. I hope
the Budget Committee will be able to agree to a budget
resolution that provides enough funding for us to address all
of our priority concerns, especially those three, Mr. Chairman,
that I mentioned.
I appreciate the opportunity to express my views. I look
forward to working with the members of the budget committee in
the days ahead.
I might add this post-script, Mr. Chairman. I have had the
opportunity to visit with young men and young women at Army
posts, military bases here in our country in recent months and
also bases and posts overseas. All of us can be very, very
proud of the young men and young women who wear the American
uniform.
But I tell you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Spratt, we are wearing
them out. We are wearing out the young men and women in
uniform. The operational tempo in most cases is just
unbelievable. I just think we have to do something about it.
The only relief comes in this budget committee.
For instance, between 1945 and 1990, a period of 45 years,
the American military had a total of 50 deployments in 45
years. 1990 to date, a period of 10 years, the American
military has had a total of 60 deployments. We are wearing them
out.
So I think it is all the more important for us to show them
that we support them with procurement, with health care, and
with readiness dollars so they can do the best job possible for
our country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ike Skelton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ike Skelton, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Missouri
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Spratt, and members of the Budget
Committee, I appear before you today to present my views about the
national security accounts of the Federal budget for fiscal year 2001.
In many respects, the Administration's defense budget this year is
a good news story. The overall total of approximately $305 billion in
budget authority for national security activities in fiscal year 2001
represents a real, inflation-adjusted increase of about 1.3 percent in
the defense accounts over last year's total--or about $12.2 billion
more than the fiscal year 2000 funding level if you include the
proposed $2.3 billion supplemental appropriation for Kosovo. The
defense budget includes about $292 billion for the Department of
Defense and $13 billion for nuclear weapons related activities of the
Department of Energy.
While $300 billion seems like a lot of money and it is, I
nevertheless have concerns that the budget is not adequate to meet our
defense requirements in three key areas--procurement, health care, and
readiness.
Although this year's defense budget includes some $60 billion for
procurement accounts--the accounts through which we buy major weapons
systems--this funding level comes after years during which those
accounts were underfunded relative to acknowledged military
requirements. This year, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry
testified before the Armed Services Committee that procurement funding
in this year's budget is at least $10 billion below what we need to
execute our national military strategy of being prepared to fight two
major wars. The chiefs of the military services have told us the same
thing.
With respect to health care, the budget includes $11.6 billion for
the Defense Health Program, which is $450 million above the fiscal year
2000 level. However, because of a combination of fewer on-base medical
facilities (as a result of base closures) and an aging military retiree
population, providing health care for military retirees has become a
pressing problem. Several military health care bills have been
introduced, and no one disagrees that we must keep faith with service
members, their families and retirees who have served our country at
such great sacrifice. The fiscal reality is that providing health care
to aging retirees is very expensive. The president's budget adequately
provides for active duty service members and their families but does
not address health care for retirees. I urge this committee to provide
the resources to enable the Armed Services Committee to meaningfully
reform the military health care system without robbing other accounts
within the defense budget.
Military readiness is also a source of concern. With ongoing
deployments in the Middle East, Bosnia and Kosovo, the operational
tempo for our forces has been steadily rising. The operations and
maintenance accounts--the readiness accounts that fund training and
education activities, exercises, base and range maintenance, and
military operations--are critical to the Defense Department's ability
to perform its missions and protect our national security.
Unfortunately, these accounts suffered last year. The decision to apply
a .38 percent across-the-board cut to all fiscal year 2000
appropriations did not affect military personnel accounts--they were
exempted. As a result, DOD's operations and maintenance accounts were
reduced disproportionately, by about $500 million, and the total O & M
appropriation was about $600 million below the amount the president
requested in last year's budget. We need to do better this year so that
our military readiness does not suffer.
Mr. Chairman, the Armed Services Committee's ability to authorize
the programs necessary to protect our national security interests
depends on having sufficient resources. With the caveats I just
mentioned, the president's budget this year does a good job of enabling
us to meet our challenges. I hope the Budget Committee will be able to
agree to a budget resolution that provides enough funding for us to
address all of our priority concerns.
I appreciate the opportunity to express my views, and I look
forward to working with all the members of the Budget Committee in the
months ahead. Thank you.
Mr. Chambliss. Thank you, Ike. Just as an add-on to what
you said, I likewise have had the opportunity to visit with
folks on bases, had the opportunity to visit with folks all
over the world. I am finding out the same thing as you and I
were talking about earlier. It is not only with the active
forces but our Guard and Reserve folks are just worn thin. It
seems that we are continually calling on the Guard and Reserve
more and more. As a result, it is not only hurting our morale
but hurting our recruiting within the Guard and Reserve in
addition to the problems that we are having in recruiting and
retention in the active force.
Let me just make sure for the record that we get these
numbers right. Last year our fiscal year 2000 budget called for
$293 billion in Defense Department spending. The President has
come in with a request this year of $305 billion.
Mr. Skelton. That is correct. My figures are $292 billion
for Department of Defense and 305 this year. That excludes the
DOE.
Mr. Chambliss. Two hundred ninety-two and the President
requested 305. In addition to that, the service Chiefs
testified 2 weeks ago that their underfunded requirements are
approximately $16 billion in addition.
Mr. Skelton. That is correct. If you add all four service
unfunded requirements, that is correct.
Mr. Chambliss. Thanks. Mr. Spratt.
Mr. Spratt. Mr. Skelton, if you were to get the $10
billion, how would it be distributed?
Mr. Skelton. In the procurement account?
Mr. Spratt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Skelton. A lot of it would have to go to the necessary
spare parts. Young people do not mind working in bad
conditions. If they do not have spare parts to fix the
helicopters or whatever they do, a lot of that would help
immensely.
Mr. Spratt. Spare parts is not going to new procurement,
more in the category of O&M rather than R&D and procurement; is
that correct?
Mr. Skelton. You could be correct, yes, sir. There are
various major weapons systems. I am concerned personally that
if we do not ramp up the ship building in our country, we are
going to find ourselves as a 200 ship Navy. We are 300 ships
right now. You recall when we were doing our best to have a 600
ship Navy. When we get down to a 200 ship Navy, when they say
America go home, we will go home because we cannot cover the
waterfront as we are now.
There are several major weapons systems. We need to upgrade
the B-2 to keep that going. As you know, they have done an
excellent job. There is a continued need for a Navy aircraft.
The Air Force, of course, wants the F-22. The Army has come out
with a transition proposal which will end up purchasing--we do
not know what yet, but a type of lighter vehicle. Whether they
are tracked or wheeled vehicle, we are not sure. That of course
is going to cost a great deal of money.
Mr. Spratt. Mr. Abercrombie has proposed a Medicare
subvention, use of Medicare at military health treatment
facilities. Do we have an estimate on the cost of his bill yet?
Mr. Skelton. Yes, for all but two portions of it, Mr.
Spratt. The cost on the majority minus those two portions is
$910 million. If you really want a bottom line figure, the best
I can give you is a fair estimate of a minimum of $2 billion
overall. I would think that would cover the majority. We were
unable to cost out those two areas which are fuzzy in a never-
never land until you actually run the programs. I would judge
$2 billion would be sufficient.
Mr. Spratt. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chambliss. Mr. Collins. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Skelton, how do you feel about some of the
military health care proposals that have been more inclusive,
for example, offering the Federal employees health benefits
plan to all military retirees who lose their health coverage
after they turn 65?
Mr. Skelton. As was mentioned a few moments ago, I am a
principal cosponsor with Mr. Abercrombie on his bill. That is
one of the two areas in our bill that we cannot cost out. We
have not been able to cost that out. What that does is that
continues the pilot program, and those that have bought into it
are guaranteed that it will not be cut off in the future.
The problem with it is that to join that, people have to
write a check for about $1600. I think that has caused--plus
the fact they did not know it was going to be a permanent
thing, which we reviewed in our legislation, has caused the
project or demonstration program, whichever you want to call
it, not to be fully utilized. I think we might get at it in
another way through the subvention. We also have benefits--a
lot of money is involved--benefits for prescription drugs by
mail or otherwise which would be very, very expensive.
Mr. Moran. I appreciate that. I am a cosponsor of your
bill, I think as you know. But Mr. Shaw has a bill that is
considerably more expansive.
Mr. Skelton. Yes, we understand that. And I compliment him
and commend him for that. This is the Budget Committee, and as
you know, it is a matter of what we can do in the political
reality and to take three steps forward and rather than have a
promise of four steps.
I think his bill--the other gentlemen may correct me, but
my understanding and recollection is that his bill is around an
$8 billion price tag. I see people nodding. So ours is more
modest, but I think ours does make a major step to get to the
heart of the matter to keep our promise.
You see, the administration, to its credit, has included a
request in its total dollars to take care of the active duty
folks, to beef that up as it should be. But it does not touch
the retirees. We have taken a lot of years of these peoples'
lives and in many cases they are disabled. They have given the
best years of their lives, and I think we owe the retirees a
major benefit through the legislation that we introduced.
Mr. Moran. I appreciate that, Mr. Skelton. I missed the
first part of your testimony but you are basically saying you
need another $10 billion from what is in the budget here for
the defense appropriation?
Mr. Skelton. That is correct. There are three parts of my
testimony. The first is the health care part. And because we
were unable to cost out those two items that I mentioned, we
have a figure of $910 million. And probably around a $2 billion
total figure for the Abercrombie, Taylor, Skelton bill.
Readiness is one that we need to shore up. I do not think
that we have had enough hearings actually to glue together a
total figure on that, but we know it is going to be
substantial. Former Secretary of Defense testified the other
day and his exact words were ``the procurement account.'' he
limited his testimony that the procurement account should be a
minimum--or ``at least'' was the phrase--at least $10 billion
more to $20 billion. That was his high figure. In giving him
all of the benefit of the doubt, I used the figure of $10
billion.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Skelton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chambliss. Mr. Bass.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Skelton, or Ike, for your testimony. I have great admiration
for your expertise and understanding of the defense matters. As
you know we served on the Intelligence Committee. I wish you
were still there.
I know you were probably one of the most knowledgeable
Members of this body on this issue. I am just curious, and this
is not a trick question. I just want to know how much effort is
being undertaken to try to find items in the defense budget
that you could cut or eliminate that are unnecessary so that
some portion of this request could be paid for.
Mr. Skelton. I think our committee does a pretty good job
of that. I am being a little parochial, Mr. Bass, but I think
we do a pretty good job. We do not take at face value every
recommendation made. If you look at our history, we have cut a
number of items.
Of course there was an earthquake here last year when the
Appropriations Committee, as you recall, cut the F-22. Of
course there was finally a compromise on that. In the process
of reviewing each of the procurement items, which is a major
part of it, all of them are not funded and some are left out.
I am personally concerned that we should add substantial
money--and not to a billion dollars but over a period of time
several million dollars--in 250- and 500-pound smart
ammunition. The Kosovo conflict showed us with the 2,000 pound
bombs with the JDAM systems on them, without exaggeration, can
send a 2,000 pound bomb through a window of your choice.
I am doing a lot of work personally, my staff and I, on
urging 500 pound bombs and 250 pound bombs as opposed to just
the 2,000. You can do a package for a 2,000, 500, or 250 pound
bomb for $18,000 as opposed to a cruise missile at $1.2
million. And they accomplish the same thing.
So that is a roundabout answer to part of your question. I
think that we do a good job in trimming, not fully funding but
ramping up other areas such as ammunition.
I have to credit Duncan Hunter who is chairman of the
procurement subcommittee on understanding that over the last
several years the Pentagon has sent over recommendations for
ammunition way short of training rounds.
To answer your question, I think we do a good job of
gleaning the procurement accounts. I could go on and talk about
personnel, but I think your question applied mostly to
procurement.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chambliss. Mr. Bentsen.
Mr. Bentsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Skelton, I
apologize for missing your testimony but you certainly--at
least from this Member's perspective--are one of the most
respected voices on either side of the aisle when it comes to
U.S. defense policy.
I gather from talking to staff that you believe the
President's request of $306 billion for fiscal year 2001 is
insufficient to the tune of about $12 billion. I heard you
since I have been here lay out some of the reasoning for that.
I have a couple of questions about that. The first is what
this committee is going to have to grapple with as we go
forward is--and perhaps we will do it next week. I hear we may
markup a budget next week sometime--is at what level to set the
discretionary baseline and whether or not we completely abandon
the spending cap set in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act or go
back.
I think if we went back, we would be looking at caps of
about $590 billion gross discretionary spending including
defense and nondefense. Others have proposed a hard freeze at
the level set last year of about $606 billion, I think, in
total discretionary spending. The administration in their
budget has proposed that we at least go forward from the fiscal
year 2000 level and adjust for inflation.
Of course as you know, all of this has dramatic impact on
what size of a surplus we would be looking at over the next 5,
10, and 15 years, and what you do with that surplus, whether
you pay down debt, have a tax cut, fund new initiatives or do a
combination thereof.
I guess my question is sort of two part. If you could
explain for the committee what the current U.S. defense posture
is and why the need for continued increases in defense and why
even in the post-cold war world where the U.S. is clearly the
dominant military force in the world, why we must continue to
increase defense spending at levels and do you believe that we
have the correct defense posture?
I am not asking that as a loaded question, I am asking it
for the record because I think it is important that we have
these discussions.
Second of all, from your perspective on the defense side,
how that fits in with our overall Federal fiscal policy. And
now that the firewalls between defense and nondefense spending
have gone away, you are quite familiar with those--you have
been here for a while and been through those battles--how the
Congress is going to reconcile all of this if we increase
defense, which I think very well could be justified?
If we set this very hard cap going forward, do we have to
take it out of things like the FBI or do we take it out of the
Department of Education? Or do we need to look at all of these
programs in a broader sense?
Mr. Skelton. Next question.
Mr. Bentsen. I know you can answer all of those, Mr.
Skelton.
Mr. Skelton. First, as to the state of America's military,
it is excellent. We are having recruiting problems, retention
problems, but nevertheless the young men and young women are
marvelous in what they are doing.
That is not the bottom line. The bottom line is whether we
can successfully carry out a defense policy, and that has been
and should be the ability or to have the capability to fight
and win two major regional conflicts. There is argument over
that of course, but should we withdraw from that--and it almost
happened in 1994 when Saddam Hussein was rattling his saber
once again. The North Koreans started doing the same thing. The
question was, heaven forbid, should we end up in two major
conflicts and both of them, could we handle them. It would be
difficult to do so, and I am sure that substantial supplemental
appropriations would be requested to do so.
Can we do it now? I think we are on the cutting edge of
being able to do that now. I think that we should plan for
that. You see, so many folks--once the Wall came down and the
cold war ended, our traditional adversary, the Soviet Union,
went away for all intents and purposes at least momentarily.
But that also put us in a position of being the only
superpower in the world. As a result we have, as you have seen
and as I have seen, the mantle of responsibility in various
areas whether you are speaking of Haiti, whether you are
speaking of Panama, Kosovo, or Bosnia.
And our mere presence is a deterrent. That is why I spoke a
few moments ago about having a sufficient Navy to be present in
different parts of the world. The only major exception now has
been East Timor where to the credit of the Australians they
took the lead on this. However, they could not have done that
without our intelligence and logistics and communications.
It did not take a lot of people, but a fair amount of
dollars in those three areas. If we realize our position in the
world and the fact that we really do bring stability as opposed
to winning a war, and bring stability and have the capability
of successfully prosecuting two major conflicts, I think it is
going to take every bit of the dollars that I spoke of.
I hope I answered both of your questions.
Mr. Bentsen. You did. The only other thing and this is more
of a rhetorical question that we have to answer--is given the
responsibility of leadership that the U.S. has inherited and
the dollar costs associated with that in our defense budget, we
also have to weigh that as you know against our nondefense
domestic needs and international needs.
I think this is more for our own purposes, members of the
panel, and ultimately the Members of the entire House have to
take that into consideration, that we cannot rob Peter to pay
Paul. And I guess even in the times of surplus, the firewall
battles that you have been through since the 1980's when I was
staff years ago continue on and maybe even will become more
intense.
Mr. Skelton. I do not have an easy answer to that. I can
only tell you that second place does not count on the
battlefield. Should we be forced into a conflict--or two,
heaven forbid--second place does not count in either one of
them. Firewalls, budget issues that are issues of the day today
will vanish like vapor because the only thing that really
counts is whether we can prevent a conflict or, should we be
forced into one or two, successfully prosecute them. At the end
of the day that is the best security for our country.
Mr. Bentsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fletcher [presiding]. Are there any other Members who
have questions? If not--Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Skelton, do you see within the next 3
years the need for another round of BRAC?
Mr. Skelton. Probably so. It would politically be very
difficult to do. I know that those in the Pentagon are
requesting it. The easy rounds have already come to pass.
I wish to point out to my friends in the Pentagon that
there is a statutory authority right now whereby they can
choose 1, 2, 5, whatever bases they wish to close and do it,
but they have to jump through the number of hoops.
I remember very well when I first came to Congress in 1977,
I was greeted with the fact that the brand new Secretary of
Defense, Harold Brown, was going to close Richards-Gebaur Air
Force Base in my district and he did it. But he followed the
procedures and my folks, you bet they were unhappy. Did he
succeed? Yes, he succeeded. That is not the only route for the
Pentagon to follow.
However, probably for them the less painful and maybe for
everyone else less painful to have a series of base closings or
BRAC. However, I might add this as a footnote. The dollars that
were hoped to have been saved in the recent BRAC closings have
not added up to what they thought they would save. However
maybe they will over a protracted number of years. It will
probably be a recommendation, a continuous recommendation; and
we probably ought to look at it seriously in the future.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Fletcher. Thank you, Congressman Skelton. We appreciate
your testimony. If there are no further questions thank you
very much.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members of the House may
have 5 legislative days to submit written statements in the
committee record on the subject of the budget for fiscal year
2000. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George W. Gekas, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Pennsylvania
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for permitting me to testify at
this important hearing. I applaud your efforts not only for your work
on the Budget, and your successes in protecting the Social Security
surplus, restraining excessive government spending, giving tax cuts to
the American people, and dramatically paying down the Federal debt, but
also for your efforts on behalf of an issue that is near and dear to my
heart: preventing government shut-downs.
As you know, H.R. 142, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act,
removes the threat of the government shutting down due to an impasse in
budget negotiations between Congress and the President. It provides for
an automatic Continuing Resolution, at the previous year's spending
level, to prevent the government from shutting down if an
Appropriations bill has not been passed. This legislation has strong
bipartisan support.
Our efforts in this endeavor have brought us close to victory a
number of times: in 1995, the Congress passed an automatic Continuing
Resolution, but it was vetoed by President Clinton. Then, last year,
your Committee marked up a far-reaching Budget reform package, which
included the automatic CR provision. This bill, which was scheduled for
Floor action, unfortunately was pulled at the last minute.
As you know, this issue that has resonated very strongly with our
Republican Colleagues. It seems that almost every year the Congress and
the President go down to the wire in passing a budget, leaving Congress
with little bargaining room against a President who is willing to shut
the government down over his spending priorities. However, I must
commend Speaker Hastert for his leadership in avoiding that predicament
last year.
This legislation has, unfairly, I believe, been criticized as an
attack on the Appropriations Committee and an attempt to usurp their
power. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of
usurping the power of the Appropriations Committee, this legislation
would serve to weaken the bargaining power of the President in those
late bargaining sessions (hence his veto of this provision in 1995).
Further, it would give the Committee the extra time that it needs to
work out the wide-range of issues, and the pressure of finishing by a
time-certain deadline, that confront the Committee at the end of
Session.
Finally, let me commend the Budget and Appropriations Committee for
the hard, thankless jobs that you have to do to ensure that the
government's bills are paid on time. Your Committees have admirably
withstood the pressure to delve into the Social Security surplus and
have produced compromise spending bills that adequately fund the many
priorities of the Republican House (and I particularly would like to
thank you for your leadership and efforts to double the NIH budget),
while walling off the Social Security surplus. That is a tremendous
accomplishment, and those heroic efforts are indeed worthy of high
praise.
In closing, I would simply like to request that the Budget
Committee once again at least consider this modest, but important,
reform.
Thank you for your time and indulgence.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Pennsylvania
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing
me to speak briefly about the environmental devastation suffered by
eastern Pennsylvania, the current inadequacy of environmental mining
reclamation policies to address this region's needs, and the urgent
need for a comprehensive, regional approach to solving the problem. The
opportunity for such an approach is contained in the Administration's
budget request for $250 million in tax credit bonds that can be used to
clean up the anthracite coal region in Eastern Pennsylvania. I urge you
to include this item in the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2001.
Approximately 120,000 acres of land in twelve counties in eastern
Pennsylvania bear the environmental scars of the anthracite coal mining
industry from poor mining practices that took place more than 40 years
ago prior to the adoption of environmental laws meant to reclaim the
land. The U.S. Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining estimates
that nearly $2 billion is necessary to restore the land and water of
the anthracite region. However, only about $10 million per year is
spent from the Federal Abandoned Mine Land Trust Fund in the anthracite
region. At this slow pace, we will not remedy a critical environmental
problem for centuries.
More than 20 million people are affected by the quality of water of
the Susquehanna and Delaware Rivers, which carry acid mine drainage
from the anthracite region to the Chesapeake and the Delaware Bays,
respectively. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that contaminated
streams from the anthracite region dump 740 tons of sulfate and 51 tons
of iron into the Susquehanna River every day. The Susquehanna River in
turn provides more than half of the freshwater flow into the Chesapeake
Bay; the Environmental Protection Agency has determined that this acid
mine drainage is the greatest source of industrial pollution in the
Bay.
Current environmental policy is based on either preventing
pollution by regulation or providing funds to correct individual
environmental problems. Like the Everglades, eastern Pennsylvania needs
a long-term, comprehensive, regional environmental restoration program
to correct the mistakes of the past. This is fundamentally an issue of
fairness. Pennsylvania anthracite coal fueled the Industrial Revolution
that made America the superpower it is today. Unfortunately, the
physical scars left by the Industrial Revolution of the 19th and 20th
Centuries have decreased our competitiveness in the Information Age of
the 21st Century. By demonstrating that a single-purpose government
corporation can undertake a sustained effort over a long period of
time, we can serve as a model for other environmentally damaged regions
of the country that seek to clean up this degradation.
A comprehensive, regional approach would remedy this problem more
quickly and significantly reduce the cost of cleaning up the land and
water of the anthracite region. In January of this year, Representative
Sherwood brought the Resources Committee to Scranton, Pennsylvania for
a field hearing on this problem. At this hearing, I proposed
establishing a federally authorized organization to undertake a
comprehensive clean-up plan that would result in the complete
environmental restoration of the region over thirty years using a self-
financing program that would recover the entire cost of the
reclamation.
Toward the goal of the comprehensive cleanup of the anthracite
region, the Administration included, as part of the Better America
Bonds, an additional $50 million that would be authorized for each of
the 5 years beginning in 2001 for environmental assessment and
remediation of property damaged by anthracite coal mining. The
President's proposal of $250 million in tax credit bonds would begin to
finance a major portion of the environmental renaissance of eastern
Pennsylvania. By producing a certain and sustained dedication of
resources, our area would be able to complete the long-term restoration
plan that is necessary for success. Absent a bond issue of at least
this amount, a comprehensive restoration effort would not--and has
not--succeeded.
Not only do I support this budget request, but Representatives
Gekas, Holden and Sherwood support it as well. We will be forwarding a
bipartisan letter to the Budget Committee to that effect in the next
few days. I encourage the Budget Committee to give this request the
full and fair consideration that it deserves.
In closing, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
comment at this time. I look forward to continuing to work with you and
your committee on this important environmental restoration matter.
Mr. Fletcher. The next individual testifying, Congressman
Dana Rohrabacher. We welcome you here to the budget committee
and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANA ROHRABACHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank
all of you for the opportunity to testify before this committee
on H.R. 142, The Government Shutdown Prevention Act.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to give up the budgetary
equivalent of a nuclear weapon or what might be referred to as
mutually assured destruction. It is time to repeal for all time
the threat of the government shutdown. It is time to say that
we do not have to have the threat of doing something that hurts
ourselves and hurts the American people, that everybody thinks
is stupid just to give ourselves the incentive to do our job
and to enact appropriation bills. I guess what I am saying is
it is time to pass the Government Shutdown Prevention Act. We
have been talking about this for a number of years, and I still
do not understand why we have not acted upon it after the
debacle of the last government shutdown.
Mr. Chairman, whenever we propose the end--to end
government shutdowns, we always hear the same thing, how can we
pass appropriations bills without the threat of a government
shutdown? One answer is that almost every year we somehow
manage to enact one or more supplemental appropriation bills
even though we know for a fact that the government will not
shutdown if we do not pass them.
But the larger answer is are our appropriation bills so
badly written that the only thing worse than passing them is a
totally irrational alternative of shutting down the government?
I do not think so and I have more confidence in the
appropriations process than that. Even a step toward sanity
would be worthwhile; and if we can go in the right direction,
we need to do so.
The main reason that I support a 2-year budget cycle, which
is a step in the right direction, is that it would mean at
least every other year there would be no threat of a shutdown.
If we can eliminate that threat half the time, why not go all
of the way and eliminate the threat completely as far as I am
concerned?
I urge this committee to support H.R. 142 and it makes
sense to set up the system where if there is an impasse, we are
going to be able to go back and go back to last year's level
without having disruptions of services or having people make
decisions here, for example, in the wee hours of the morning.
Instead we should handle ourselves more professionally, and
that is what H.R. 142 is all about and I would urge it be
adopted.
Mr. Fletcher. Thank you, Congressman Rohrabacher.
Obviously, you said going to a biannual budget would be one
step of saying that we do not have to face that threat at least
every other year. Let me ask you, the advantages of the
Government Shutdown Prevention Act, how would that change the
balance of power? I mean Congress constitutionally is given
more of the power of spending and taxing. It may restore more
of that to Congress which because of the threat to shutdown it
seems like we sometimes have our hands tied toward the end and
we do end up with those midnight bills. I wish you would
elaborate a little bit on how that may change the shift in
power regarding----
Mr. Rohrabacher. It is going to make everybody more
responsible. The fact is that right now we have the power, but
we also have the responsibility. And we know that if by a
certain date we do not act and if there is an impasse, that
comes with the executive branch especially, that--I know what
happened last year in terms of Republicans getting blamed for
the shutdown.
Who deserves the blame, the President or the Congress? I
cannot tell you. All I can say is the American people were the
losers. We are here trying to do a job for the people. Whether
it is under this pressure that we are accepting appropriations
bills that we should not accept, either that or whether we are
shutting down the government and hurting people in the process,
those are two bad alternatives.
If we cannot reach an agreement, there is no reason--why
with the executive branch, there is no reason why I cannot see.
This does not shift power as far as I am concerned. There is no
reason why we cannot take things back to last year's level and
that would give us an incentive to try to find a reasonable and
responsible new spending level. That is what we are talking
about with appropriation bills, spending levels. I do not think
it shifts power. I think it just helps us do our job.
Mr. Fletcher. I agree with you and I appreciate that. I
hope that we can come together as we look at real budget
reform, I think it is important to look at this. We appreciate
very much your testimony.
Let me ask Mr. Bass, do you have any questions?
Mr. Bass. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman, except to thank you,
Congressman Rohrabacher, for coming out in favor of biannual
budgets and appropriations which for many reasons, a few of you
which you touched on, would be a great move forward for this
Congress.
Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Bentsen.
Mr. Bentsen. I have a couple of questions. This is an issue
that this committee has grappled over some. Mr. Nussle and Mr.
Cardin headed a budget reform panel. We considered a bill that
tries to address this to some extent. We had some debates on
it, and I did not agree with the way the bill came out,--I do
not think it was the same as what you are proposing, but to
have some sort of a fail safe provision for continuing
resolutions at a lower level than the previous year.
We debated whether 80 percent, 70 percent, 60 percent was
enough. My personal feeling is I think he set it low enough
where it is painful enough to the Congress and the executive
branch to get together, but not too painful that it hurts the
people out on the street.
I have a couple of questions though about your bill. It
would provide for an automatic 1-year continuing resolution at
the previous year's level, correct, beginning October 1 if
there is no action, and of course it would be supplemented then
by subsequently passed appropriation bill for that fiscal year.
Mr. Rohrabacher. It could be what now?
Mr. Bentsen. You subsequently could adopt an appropriations
bill for the fiscal year?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure.
Mr. Bentsen. Would it only provide for funding levels or
would it carry forward legislative riders that were included in
the previous year's appropriation?
Mr. Rohrabacher. You know, that is a good question. I am
not sure.
Mr. Bentsen. I raise that because one of the problems I
have----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Of course the last time--if the last
appropriations bill is in place, until you pass something that
supplants it I would imagine that it would.
Mr. Bentsen. It is a legal question worth exploring. This
does raise questions of balance of power between the executive
and the legislative.
It is interesting in my time in Congress that Congress has,
in some instances, been trying to give power back to the
executive on one hand and take it back with the other. I think
that the line item veto was a perfect example of that. I know a
lot of people thought that was on the basis of pork barrel
spending.
And I kept thinking of Richard Nixon and from my home
state, Lyndon Johnson. They would not have used that for pork
barrel spending, they would have used that for absolute power
given the opportunity. I think you might concur with that as a
Californian.
But it worries me a little bit--I think your intentions are
very, very good--but it worries me a little bit that we do not
set some absolutes where the two branches because of the unique
system of government that we have which I think is the best in
the world, that we do not set some absolutes where you just
have to sit down and make these decisions.
And Congress needs to protect its turf, if you will, with
respect to the power of the purse, the power to appropriate, as
well as the power to legislate; which we do use from time to
time the appropriations process as vehicle to legislate.
In fact, I think you sit on the International Relations
Committee. I sit on the Banking Committee. A lot of our
respective committees' legislation ends up working its way
through the appropriations process, it seems.
It concerns me that we might be giving that up a little
bit. The other point I want to make is with respect to the 2-
year budgeting--which I think is an interesting idea as well.
And we have not spent much time on the committee on that, but
it is something I think proponents need to be wary about--and
that is that again while there are benefits of having a 2-year
budget where you could spend the interim period actually
reviewing executive branch execution of the budget and
legislative policy contained in it--assuming we would actually
do that--you also--the budget needs to be somewhat fluid.
We go through a lot of supplemental process. We have things
that change within a 1-year period. We obviously would have
more things change in a 2-year period. If I look at my own
State of Texas where we have biannual budgeting because the
legislature meets biannually--we also have a mechanism where we
have what is called the legislative budget board that is made
up of the governor and the speaker and the lieutenant governor
and 1 or 2 other members of the legislature. They in effect
have the power to act as the legislature in State government in
the interim period. And while they genuinely----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is that in the case of emergencies?
Mr. Bentsen. Emergencies, reprogrammings, and whatnot. I
think we ought to think at the Federal level long and hard
before we set up a system that would in some respects give a
tremendous amount of power to a smaller group of people than
the House as a whole and the Senate as a whole.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think that is well stated. Obviously
there has to be some provision for emergencies. We have to make
sure that that emergency power does not evolve into a
legislative power that we do not want to grant to a small
clique.
However, I have been here 11 years now. I worked in the
executive branch for 7 years before that. I will say that I do
not believe that this Congress--or that Congress is as engaged
in oversight to the degree that is necessary for us to fulfill
our responsibilities to the American people.
Our job is not just spending money. Our job is not just
paperwork. Our job is to see how this government is running and
make sure it is running well and that things are not being done
that are opposed to the will of the majority of the people as
expressed through their elected representatives.
And there is very little oversight taking place by this
Congress. We spend most of our time talking about
authorizations and appropriations and do not have the time to
get out in the field and go and actually visit.
We were just talking about the military a few moments ago.
I do not know how many Members of this body actually get a
chance more than once or twice a year to see certain military
programs. We should see what this government is doing with the
money and we should hear firsthand if somebody says this is a
total waste of money, Congressman, why are we doing this?
Believe me, they are not going to come to the Congress to
do that because they have to go through all sorts of layers of
their own overseers to get to us. I think we need a lot more
oversight, and a biannual budget would do that. I think with
this idea of preventing the government shutdown at least it
would mean that we could talk seriously. I do not think that it
would fundamentally change the nature of the way that we do
things.
Mr. Bentsen. I concur with you that we need to do more
oversight. The authorization and appropriation process gives
you some ability to do that. It ends up being the
responsibilities of the Members, the committee chairs, et
cetera. But again on the automatic CR, it also creates the
potential opportunity for Congress to decide if we really do
not want to make the tough decisions, we do not want to fight
it out with the President, whoever that may be, we have a very
easy fall back which is to just let the automatic CR go on and
we will come back and fight another day. I am not always sure
that the people are well served by that as well.
There is that one other thing; I recall, you were in the
Reagan administration at one point. I was staff up here during
that time. President Reagan also had situations where he could
not agree with the Congress and said I am not signing any
appropriations bills and we are going to shutdown the
government. I will give you this. I think given that experience
and then with the 1995-1996 experience that the executive
branch always wins the government shutdown battle. I do not
know whether you agree with that or not.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I worked with Reagan. I was his speech
writer during that time. We were both staff for the players in
that game. I seem to remember when that happened with Reagan,
Reagan got blamed for the shutdown. Later on when it got shut
down under Bill Clinton, the Republican Congress got blamed. I
think the Republicans always get the short end of the stick.
Mr. Bentsen. I do not want to be accused as a Reagan
apologist, but I have to say Reagan did pretty well throughout
that period. He went on to win pretty handily in 1984 as I
recall. I think he lost one or two States, but otherwise he did
pretty well. That just shows you the power of the executive
branch to begin with.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The points you are making, let's put it
this way, I think we can always change back if things do not
work out and there is unforeseen consequences and we have
shifted power that it works practically in a way we did not
want it to work, we can go back. We can sit here in another
meeting and have a discussion and vote on it and say if this
does not work out we are changing back to the old system. But
it seems to me that there are so many flaws today with the idea
that we are holding government employees and people who are
just dependent on government checks, we are holding them
hostage. And that makes no sense. If we have to enact what we
know is bad legislation just to keep the government running,
that does not make any sense.
Mr. Bentsen. I do not want to delay the committee's time,
but your point is well taken. But the other side of that would
be that the fear of putting it to the Federal employees that I
think was done in 1995 and 1996 should be an incentive to the
Congress and to the executive branch to avoid such catastrophic
situations, to sit down and do the work that is necessary, get
the budgets done, fight it out, and make the decisions that you
make in a democratic system of government with checks and
balances between the branches as opposed to putting it off
until another day and in some cases carrying forward bad
legislative and fiscal policy that the previous administration
had. You can play it flat, you can play it round, but those are
the concerns that I have with it. I appreciate your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chambliss [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dana Rohrabacher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
committee on H.R. 142, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to give up the budgetary equivalent of the
nuclear weapon. It is time to repeal for all time the threat of the
government shutdown. It is time to say that we don't have to have the
threat of doing something that hurts ourselves and the American people,
that everyone agrees is stupid, just to give ourselves enough incentive
to do our job and enact appropriations bills. It is time to pass the
Government Shutdown Prevention Act.
Mr. Chairman, whenever we propose the end of government shutdowns,
we always hear the same thing: ``How can we pass appropriations bills,
without the threat of a government shutdown.'' One answer is that
almost every year we somehow manage to enact one or more supplemental
appropriations bills, even though we know for a fact that the
government will not shut down if we don't pass them. But the larger
question is this: Are our appropriations bill so bad, that the only
thing worse than passing them is the totally irrational alternative of
shutting down the government? I, for one, have more confidence in our
appropriations work than that.
Even a step toward sanity would be worthwhile. The main reason that
I support a 2-year budget cycle is that it would mean that at least
every other year, there would be no threat of a shutdown. But if we can
eliminate that threat half the time, why not go all the way and
eliminate the threat completely? I urge this committee to support H.R.
142.
Mr. Chambliss [presiding]. Bob Filner.
Thank you for being with us today, Bob. The floor is yours.
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
permission to enter my formal statement in the record, along
with a document called the Executive Summary of the Independent
Budget, which I will explain in a moment. I hope I can
introduce that in the record for you.
Mr. Chambliss. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Bob Filner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Filner, a Representative in Congress
From the State of California
let's craft a fair deal for our veterans
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I appreciate your kind invitation to
testify today on the Fiscal Year Budget 2001. I will be speaking about
the portion of the budget that funds programs and benefits for our
nation's veterans.
I am pleased that the Administration's budget for the year 2001
recognizes that the men and women who have served in uniform deserve an
adequate budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and I
believe that the efforts of many Members of the House VA Committee and
the efforts of our veterans' service organizations, specifically in
formulating The Independent Budget, have been instrumental in producing
a much better budget proposal than last year. I want to acknowledge
these efforts!
The $1.4 billion increase in the health care budget will assure our
aging and disabled veterans who need medical care--especially long term
care, emergency care and specialized services--that their needs are a
high priority. However, I join my colleagues and the authors of this
year's Independent Budget in objecting to the proposal that $350
million of new resources for medical care authorized by the recently-
passed Veterans Millennium Act be deposited to the Treasury. Funds
collected from veterans for the provision of veterans' health care
should be used to enhance the health care for veterans--not as a
substitute for appropriated dollars.
I also want to emphasize my continuing concern that the VA is not
adequately meeting the benefit and health care needs of veterans who
served in the Gulf war and who now suffer from various diagnosed and
undiagnosed disabilities. It has been almost 10 years since the men and
women of our Armed Services were sent to the Gulf! The veterans of the
Gulf war are sick with illnesses whose causes and cures remain a
mystery. We must not relax our efforts to fund necessary and
appropriate research. I join the authors of the Independent Budget in
supporting an increase in funding for VA medical research, and
specifically request that the medical research budget be increased by
$65 million as recommended in the Independent Budget and that at least
$30 million of that increase be directed to research involving the
health of Gulf war veterans.
As our veteran population ages, the need for long term care
increases. One means of providing access to such care is through the
funding of State Veterans Homes. A new home will be opening in April in
my Congressional District, and already there is a waiting list! I want
other areas to have the same opportunity as the veterans in the San
Diego region will have with the opening of this new home. Therefore, I
am opposed to the proposed decrease in funding for State Homes and urge
the Budget Committee to provide adequate funding for this
critical program.
I am also pleased that this Administration has recognized what
Members of Congress have known for years. Additional personnel are
needed if the VA is to promptly and accurately adjudicate claims for
compensation and pension benefits. This budget will help to provide a
well-trained corps of adjudicators to replace those who are nearing
retirement age. I want to emphasize that the continued loss of
experienced adjudicators over the past 7 years together with an
increased workload in the number of issues which must be decided in
each claim have led to serious problems of quality and timeliness. The
increased staffing in this budget is essential to stem the tide of
deterioration in claims processing.
As a former college professor, I recognize the value of a quality
education for our nation's veterans. I am disappointed that no increase
for the G.I. Bill is provided in the Administration's budget. The G.I.
Bill currently provides far less than is needed to obtain an education
at a public institution, and I support raising the basic education
benefit. Just yesterday, I joined with The Partnership for Veterans'
Education (a coalition representing a number of associations advocating
on behalf of veterans) in calling, as a first step, for an increase in
the basic monthly stipend from $535 to $975 a month.
The Administration's budget proposal recommends paying full
disability benefits to Filipino World War II veterans who reside in the
United States. Currently, these brave veterans who were drafted into
service by President Roosevelt receive only 1/2 of the amount received
by their
counterparts--U.S. veterans with whom they fought side by side to
defeat our mutual enemy. I support this increase as an important step
toward equity for Filipino World War II veterans.
However, more is needed. Because Congress, in 1946, rescinded the
health care benefits for most of these veterans, Congressman Gilman and
I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1594, to provide access to VA
medical facilities--both in the United States and in the Philippines--
for Filipino World War II veterans. Health care is a crucial need for
these men who are now in their 70's and 80's! $30 million is all that
is required to provide health care access to Filipino veterans, with
the same priority status as veterans currently using the VA. I request
that this amount be added to the Fiscal Year 2001 budget.
As we honor our veterans during their lives, so must we honor their
remembrance in death. The Administration's increase in funding for the
National Cemetery System will improve the appearance of our cemeteries
by a long-overdue and much needed renovation of grounds, gravesites,
and grave-markers. I urge the Budget Committee to fund the National
Cemetery Administration and the State Cemetery Grants at the levels
recommended by the Committee.
Again, may I say that the proposal before you represents a fine
better starting point. I hope that my suggestions will be useful as the
Members of this Committee work toward a budget that gives our nation's
veterans a fair deal.
[The information (Executive Summary of the Independent
Budget) follows:]
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB FILNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Filner. Mr. Chairman, I am here to talk about veterans'
problems. I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Benefits of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
I hope this committee will do what it can to make up for
years of basically flatline budgets, real cost reductions, in
our veterans programs that came out of the necessity of a
balanced budget. Our veterans have paid a heavy price. They
have paid their share of the price for a balanced budget.
I think now that we have surpluses, it is time to renew our
commitment to the contract that we have made with our veterans
and begin to restore the health care and the other benefits
that were promised and have been neglected.
The Independent Budget, Mr. Chairman, is a document put
together by virtually every veterans service organization that
exists in America, primarily four major organizations, the
AmVets, Disabled American Veterans, the VFW, and the Paralyzed
Veterans of America, and supported by 200 or 300 other
organizations. It is their consensus. It is a very analytical,
responsible document.
It says that we need this year $2.23 billion more than last
year to just keep up with the veterans programs that we have
promised, and to make some gain in some areas, which I will
mention in a minute. It is not just saying, give us more money.
They outline in a very precise form what programs should be
funded and what areas are necessary.
I will give a few examples in the time I have here, Mr.
Chairman. We have just celebrated the 9th year of the Gulf war.
We have tens of thousands, maybe more, in the hundreds of
thousands, of veterans who have Persian Gulf war illness. We do
not have a cure or a treatment.
That is unacceptable for American veterans, that we cannot
tell these veterans what is wrong with them or how to treat it.
We should be putting the money in our budget for research into
Persian Gulf war illness. We have not done it in the
President's recommendations or the recommendations that have
previously come out of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
We have a new strain of Hepatitis C that has now become
prevalent in our veterans. It is fatal. It is relatively new in
our terms of understanding. We do not have sufficient funds,
again, to research the treatment for Hepatitis C. It is hurting
or potentially killing tens of thousands of our veterans.
Our G.I. Bill for education benefits is not only a benefit
for veterans, it could be a huge recruiting tool at a time when
we are not meeting our recruitment goals. Yet, we are paying,
for those who take advantage of the G.I. Bill for Education,
$500 roughly a month as a stipend. It is far below what people
get in AmeriCorps or various other programs that we have. It
does not come near to half or a quarter of what is needed to go
to college.
There is legislation in the Congress to provide both for
full tuition and for a doubling of the stipend. We believe in
the Veterans Affairs Committee that we should take the first
step and move the monthly stipend from $535 to $975 a month.
That is just a first step. But we think we can do that this
year within the budget. I hope you will look kindly on that.
Again, that was not included in the President's budget when it
came to us.
I would just ask the committee to look through this, in
health care, in benefits, in the care of our national
cemeteries, in the government G.I. Bill. I will just end with
this, Mr. Chairman. Veterans go into the VA hospitals and wait
not only hours for the appointment that they have that day, but
may have to wait 6 or 8 or 12 months for a specialty
appointment.
That is just not giving our veterans the quality care they
need. When they submit a claim for disability or other claim,
they may wait 2 years or more for the adjudication of that
claim. That is unacceptable. This document gives us a way to
begin to lower those waiting times to very reasonable times,
and give our veterans the quality of both health care they need
and the attention to their benefit claims that they deserve.
One last item, Mr. Chairman. This committee has the power
to remedy an injustice that has been with this country for more
than 50 years. President Roosevelt in World War II drafted
Filipinos into the Armed Services of America. They were then a
territory of the United States. The Congress of 1946 took away
the benefits that were promised as veterans to those who fought
in that War.
It is 54 years later, and we have not remedied that
injustice. The veterans of the Philippines who fought in that
war are heroes. They deserve the dignity and respect that we
give to those who have given us our freedom. Almost all are in
their late 70's, early 80's. They do not have a lot of time
left in this world. We should honor them with the respect they
deserve.
We have a very doable, fiscally responsible bill in the
hopper. Congressman Gilman, the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations, and I have a bill, H.R. 1594, which
gives health care to the Filipine veterans of World War II. In
their 70's and 80's, they need it; they deserve it.
I hope this committee will take a position that is
supported by a majority of the Congress, but because of some
key opposition the Chair of the VA committee, we have not been
able to take this up. So I hope that this committee and this
Congress can act on what the majority feels and give that
benefit and that recognition that has so long been denied. I
thank the Chair.
Mr. Chambliss. Thank you very much for being here and being
a strong voice for a group that you are absolutely right about.
The fact is that we have allowed the benefits for our veterans
to be eroded over probably 50 years, 54 years, since the end of
World War II; and I know all of us here and at home, when we go
home, and we have a sympathetic ear, but it is a difficult
budget issue year in and year out. We appreciate your strong
voice and the strong voice of Chairman Bob Stump on behalf of
veterans.
Let me just make sure I understand what your request is
over the 00 budget.
Mr. Filner. I am sorry, I should have said that, Mr.
Chairman. It is in my formal statement.
The Independent Budget requests just about $2.2 billion
above the baseline. The President's request is $1.5 billion. We
think that $700 million ought to be made up.
Mr. Chambliss. Is the President's increase directed
specifically at health care?
Mr. Filner. Most of it is in health care. I do not want to
underplay, by the way, the administration's budget, because
last year they did submit a straight line budget--and the
Congress upped that by roughly $1.5 billion. Most of the
increase in the FY 2001 budget that the administration has
submitted is in health care. It is absolutely needed, and I am
glad they did it. But we have a ways to go to even keep up with
the needs.
Mr. Chambliss. OK. Thank you. Mr. Bentsen?
Mr. Bentsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Filner, again, I concur with the Chairman, you are to
be commended for your efforts on behalf of America's veterans.
I also concur with you with respect to Filipino veterans as
well in your work on their behalf.
I also would want to speak out, I have a lot of
constituents who were in the Merchant Marines during the Second
World War, and have not felt that they have received their fair
consideration, because even though they were not necessarily on
ships, or on military ships, they were often on ships that were
in combat. Many gave their lives.
In fact, a couple of years ago in Houston, we unveiled a
memorial to members of the Merchant Marine who gave their lives
during the Second World War, and would appreciate your
committee's consideration with respect to that.
I did want to ask you, with respect to your proposal for a
plus-up of the VA budget, I met recently, earlier this week,
with representatives from the DAV that were in town. They were
saying that they felt that the President's request for the 2001
health care portion of the VA budget needed to be plussed up
about $600 million or so.
Mr. Filner. About $500 to $600 million.
Mr. Bentsen. In order to keep pace with what they think the
demand is?
Mr. Filner. Both to keep pace and to meet the new needs
that arise. The Hepatitis C outbreak is a new area which was
not forecast before. The Persian Gulf war illness is there with
no real ability to address it. The population continues to age,
and we know the costs continue to rise in long-term care.
So it is to keep pace, but it is to also move into the
areas that we have just neglected for so long because of these
straight line budgets. You could do very well by just taking a
look at this summary of the Independent Budget. They have done
an incredibly good job on this, and it gives us the specifics
and the confidence that this is a very analytical document. I
think the Congress ought to adopt basically this budget as our
budget.
Mr. Bentsen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chambliss. Thanks.
Now we will go on to our friend from Ohio, the Honorable
Dennis Kucinich. We are glad to have you with us, Dennis. The
floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to be in front of the committee and
to see Mr. Chambliss there, it is a great pleasure, and Mr.
Bentsen.
Mr. Chambliss. The size of the budget crowd has no
reflection upon you, Dennis. It has more to do with us being
out yesterday.
Mr. Kucinich. Actually I come from a place where less is
more. I want to say also that Mr. Bentsen and I both have
something in common here. Our top staffers, who come from the
same family, have just had a new baby, so congratulations to
them. I just wanted to note that is why John Edgell is not with
me at the moment.
Mr. Bentsen. And we are hoping we can survive the maternity
leave.
Mr. Kucinich. That is true. It is a challenge for both of
our offices.
I am here this morning as someone who has had the
opportunity to serve in government at every level. I have had a
great deal of experience at the local level as a city
councilman, clerk of courts, and mayor of the city of
Cleveland, and then as a State Senator.
In those capacities, I have had the opportunity to learn
about the infrastructure needs of various communities. In
particular, as mayor of Cleveland, Cleveland being one of our
older industrial cities, I have seen the impact of an aging
infrastructure.
I know those are problems common to American urban areas,
and even now to some of our older suburban areas. So, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Bentsen, I appreciate this opportunity to present
what I think is a long-needed initiative to rebuild America's
infrastructure.
Every one of us is aware of the crumbling infrastructure,
from deteriorating bridges to dilapidated and inadequate
schools to substandard water treatment systems. Although our
country is the wealthiest on the Earth, American children face
the likelihood of learning math in a closet, bathroom, or gym
for lack of adequate classrooms.
Americans often wonder about the quality of their drinking
water when they turn on the tap. American businesses have to
pay higher transportation costs that eat into their investment
capital and drive up prices. The size of the need is
staggering.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that over
$400 billion is required to repair roads, bridges, and transit.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the States estimate
that $137 billion is needed over 20 years to repair and provide
adequate wastewater treatment systems, and another $120 billion
for drinking water systems.
Historical studies of public investment in the public
infrastructure show that public investment has fallen to
inadequately low levels as a percentage of the gross domestic
product. They are still falling. Public investment seems to
depress private investment, too. Worse still, business's fixed
investment would be higher if public investment were also
higher.
Congress, as we know, has a number of programs to meet
infrastructure needs. Some, like TEA-21, are large in size, but
most infrastructure investment, about 85 percent, comes from
State and local governments and reductions in State and local
investment have been devastating.
The budget resolution, I respectfully suggest, should
include a Federal initiative to provide State and local
governments with the funds needed to rebuild schools, bridges,
and roads, water treatment and sewer systems, and for new
school construction, mass transit systems, and expanding the
information superhighway.
The plan to make this happen, based on a model developed by
the Jerome Levy Institute, would provide State and local
governments with zero interest loans for infrastructure
programs over the next 10 years. The principal of the loans
would be repaid by the State and local governments in yearly
installments, the duration of which would depend on the type of
project. In no case, however, would it exceed 30 years. The
cost of the program is the yearly cost of subsidizing the zero
interest loans.
In the first year, that cost would be $2.5 billion, and it
would grow to a maximum of $15 billion per year after about 6
years, at which time the repayments would keep replenishing the
fund.
State and local governments would decide how and whether to
use the funds made available by this initiative. Congress would
define eligible projects by type. Congress should require that
one-fifth of such funds be used for school repair and school
construction.
Each State or local government would have access to about
$185 per capita per year for 10 years for infrastructure
improvements. Over the life of this initiative, State and local
governments would have adequate funds available to optimally
restore the infrastructure.
For instance, a State like Georgia, for example, would have
$13.9 billion made available under this proposal. Texas would
have about $35.8 billion available.
This proposal would leverage funds that would otherwise not
be allocated for public infrastructure repair. This initiative
would lower the cost to State and local governments of
infrastructure repair projects, since the Federal Government
would be lending funds at zero interest.
Depending on prevailing interest rates, the cost to local
and State governments would decrease by half. The projects
would be chosen and administered by State and local
governments.
One of the benefits that occurs to me, as I have thought
about this proposal, is that this could result in keeping down
water and sewer rates, which often have to build as the
requirement for subsidizing the repayment of bonds for
improvements going to those rates.
The cost to the Federal Government is only a fraction of
the funds made available by the initiative, so I ask for your
consideration of this proposal, and I believe that it is one
way to begin to address the tremendous needs for infrastructure
improvements in our cities and our States.
I appreciate it, and I certainly welcome any questions.
Mr. Chambliss. Thank you, Dennis.
[The prepared statement of Dennis Kucinich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Ohio
rebuild america's infrastructure initiative
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Spratt, members of the committee.
Thank you for this opportunity to present a long needed initiative to
rebuild America's infrastructure.
Every one of us is aware of the crumbling infrastructure, from
deteriorating bridges and roads, to dilapidated and inadequate schools,
to substandard water treatment systems. Though the U.S. is the
wealthiest nation on Earth, American children face a likelihood of
learning math in a closet or bathroom or gym for lack of adequate
classrooms. Americans must often wonder about the quality of their
drinking water when they turn on the tap. American businesses must pay
higher transportation costs that eat into their investment capital and
drive up prices.
The size of the needs is staggering. The American Society of Civil
Engineers estimates that over $400 billion are required to repair
roads, bridges and transit systems. The Environmental Protection Agency
and the states estimate that $137 billion is needed over 20 years to
repair and provide adequate wastewater treatment systems, and another
$120 billion for drinking water systems. Historical studies of public
investment in the public infrastructure show that investment has fallen
to inadequately low levels, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product.
Worse still, falling public investment seems to depress private
investment too. Business fixed investment would be higher if public
investment were also higher.
Congress has a number of programs to help meet infrastructure
needs. Some, like TEA-21, are large in size. But most infrastructure
investment (about 85 percent) comes from state and local governments,
and reductions in state and local investment have been devastating.
The budget resolution should include a Federal initiative to
provide state and local governments with the funds needed to rebuild
schools, bridges and roads, water treatment and sewer systems, and for
new school construction, mass transit systems and expanding the
information superhighway to underserved populations.
The plan, based on a model developed by the Jerome Levy Institute,
would provide state and local governments with zero interest loans for
infrastructure programs for the next 10 years.
The principal of the loans would be repaid by the state and local
governments in yearly installments, the duration of which would depend
on the type of project. In no case, however, would it exceed 30 years.
The cost of the program is the yearly cost of subsidizing the zero
interest loans. In the first year, that cost would be $2.5 billion, and
it would grow to a maximum of $15 billion per year after about 6 years.
State and local governments would decide how and whether to use the
funds made available by this initiative. Congress would define eligible
projects by type. Congress should require that one-fifth of the funds
would be used for school repair and school construction.
Each state or local government would have access to about $185 per
capita per year for 10 years for infrastructure improvement. Over the
life of this initiative, state and local governments would have
adequate funds available to optimally restore the infrastructure. For
instance, a state like California would have access to $60 billion for
infrastructure investment, New York State would have $34.5 billion for
infrastructure, Ohio would have $20 billion, South Carolina would have
about $7 billion, and Wisconsin would have $9.4 billion.
This proposal will leverage funds that would otherwise not be
allocated for public infrastructure repair. This initiative would lower
the cost to state and local governments of infrastructure repair
projects, since the Federal Government would be lending funds at zero
interest. Depending on prevailing interest rates, the cost to state and
local governments would decrease by half. The projects would be chosen
and administered by state and local governments. The cost to the
Federal Government is only a fraction of the funds made available by
the initiative.
Mr. Chambliss. Let me make sure that I understand the
numbers that you are talking about.
Are you talking about making $400 billion available to
States and local communities?
Mr. Kucinich. Actually, what I am saying is that--I cited
the American Society of Civil Engineers. They are saying that
over $400 billion would be required to repair roads, bridges,
and transit systems.
This particular proposal would call for an amount to be
made available that would be about $50 billion per year, and it
would be $500 billion over the course of a 10-year program.
That would be to loan that money interest-free. The cost to the
government would be effectively the cost of subsidizing the
loan.
Mr. Chambliss. So what you are talking about is just
putting an item in the budget over 10 years of $50 billion for
loans to State and local governments, and we are not talking
about a bond issue of any sort? This would be just kind of like
a loan trust fund of some sort that would be a revolving
account?
Mr. Kucinich. The way the mechanism would work would be
this. You have what we call the FBIM, which is what we call the
Federal Bank for Infrastructure Maintenance. They would
administer the program. I just want to go over this mechanism,
because I think it will help answer the question. And it could
be joined to either the Treasury Department's Federal Financing
Bank, which extends loans to Federal agencies that at one time
borrowed in their own name, or the Federal Home Loan Bank,
which is the central banker for the Nation's thrift systems.
The FBIM's purchases of the mortgages would be integrated
into the Federal Reserve's open market operations, and the
Federal Reserve, as you know, regulates the money stock by
purchasing securities in the open market and setting the
reserve requirement rates. Payment for the securities adds to
the bank's reserve rates, or to the bank's reserves, and the
banks multiply that as loans that add to the money supply.
Under this plan, the Federal Reserve would use some of its
funds through this FBIM to purchase mortgages on infrastructure
projects, and then hold them, instead of simply buying other
securities that it would have to buy anyway to expand the money
supply.
What would happen is the infrastructure plan would be
integrated into the normal operations of the Fed, so Congress
would have to authorize, in effect, the Fed would have to
authorize the creation of the Federal Bank for Infrastructure
Maintenance to administer the program. So that one would be to
create the authorization of that, and the other one would be to
create the pool of funds that would be available interest-free
for repayment on the schedule that would be authorized under
the Act.
The budget resolution would simply have to authorize the
yearly cost of subsidizing the interest, the first year of that
cost would be $2.5 billion, and it would go to a maximum of $15
billion per year. So you start off with the actual cost to the
budget, which would be the cost of subsidizing the zero
interest loans.
Mr. Chambliss. The only thing I do not like about your
presentation is that Texas gets twice as much money available
to it as we in Georgia do. But I guess they have twice as many
people, and that is why your formula came out like it did.
Mr. Kucinich. Let me restate the formula, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chambliss. Is it similar to the formula used for the
Federal revenue-sharing program?
Mr. Kucinich. It is a per capita formula. Most of the
programs I think use per capita formulas. This formula is
strictly per capita. It is based on population. That is why
California under this would get about $60 billion.
Mr. Chambliss. Mr. Bentsen?
Mr. Bentsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we would find
that California got more money than both of us.
Let me say, I think the way this would work is similar to
other government lending programs, where there would be both a
guarantee, so probably the funds--it would not be a direct loan
from the government per se, but there would be a guarantee, and
then there would be a subsidization of the interest, as well.
The question is whether or not that would allow States to
borrow at a tax-exempt rate or not. We have done things like
this in the Clean Water Act in allowing States to set up
revolving funds where the government subsidized the borrowing
rates, and I think the gentleman raises a very interesting way
of leveraging credit in order to meet an incredible demand, a
backlog demand in the Nation's infrastructure that we have
known about really since the early 1980's, and we have not
caught up with; we have fallen behind.
Mr. Kucinich. That is essentially what it does, it
leverages credit.
Mr. Bentsen. There are probably some issues, and the Levy
Institute is quite good. There may be some issues with respect
to the Federal Credit Reform Act of--I think that is right--of
1993 that now also allows or requires, rather, the government
to--and the Congress to set aside a reserve against any
guarantee in our lending. That becomes a budgetary item, and
something you might want to look at. But it is an interesting
proposal.
The only comment I would make, Mr. Chairman, for the
Record, and I do not want my colleague from Ohio to take this
the wrong way, he just happens to be the third person
testifying, but we have had our colleague from Missouri come
and say that we need $12 billion more in the defense budget. We
had the gentleman from California, Mr. Filner, say we need to
plus up the VA budget by about $1.5 billion.
Mr. Kucinich brings a very interesting idea addressing a
very real and serious economic problem in this Nation that
would require additional funding, as well.
I would just reiterate, in the time of plenty that we enjoy
right now, we are going to see a lot of demands; and we have
not even heard from Agriculture yet, which I know the gentleman
from Georgia is particularly interested in, as well. So I think
our work is cut out for us in drafting a budget just for the
next fiscal year, let alone what we think the Nation's fiscal
policy ought to be over the next 5 years or more.
But I commend the gentleman for his presentation. I think
he raises a very unique and interesting idea to address and, as
I said, a very serious and real problem.
Mr. Kucinich. If I may respond, Mr. Chairman, the issue of
the impact on the economy is something that certainly you have
to consider every time you hear a proposal.
If you could think of it in terms of over a 10-year period
to put $500 billion, half a trillion dollars, as a stimulus in
infrastructure repair, I think that it would be a tremendous
economic stimulus, particularly for those areas in the major
cities where commerce is so important, and which really serve
as the basis for carrying our commerce.
I think there would be a substantial multiplier effect from
the, as you describe it, leveraging of credit. So it is not
only enhancing the investment, but it would really, I think, be
great for the commerce of the country.
But I respect your comments in the sense of the challenge
which your committee is presented with in terms of assessing
the worthiness of proposals and determining where the money is
going to come from.
Mr. Bentsen. If the gentleman will yield, and with the
Chairman's indulgence, one other thing I failed to mention, you
do raise a very interesting consideration, one that has been
discussed in the Congress over the years. That is, whether or
not, given at least the Federal role in State and local
infrastructure, which is large, that we want to think of it
more in terms of a capital project, capital projects, rather
than ongoing projects, and fund it in a capital sense. Because
not only are you talking about stimulus, but you are talking
about capital investment in stock that has a very long life to
it, and there is something to be said for funding that over a
longer period of time or financing it over a period of time,
rather than funding it up front, which is sort of how the
Federal budget process has worked.
So you raise an interesting point, and whether or not we
move toward a capital budget in those types of projects.
Mr. Kucinich. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I
thank the Chair for the opportunity to present this.
Mr. Chambliss. Thank you for coming, and Mr. Bentsen is
exactly right, we have everybody coming in with great programs
wanting a little more money.
I will be honest with you, that is the thing that I
appreciate about this concept, that you are thinking outside
the box. You are thinking of ways that we can reach down and
help those folks in our States and in our local communities
above and beyond just throwing money out there.
It does cost money when you come up with new ideas and new
concepts, but if we do not do that, then we are not serving our
folks in the best way possible.
So thank you for being here, and we are going to be working
on this budget hopefully over the next couple of weeks. We are
going to be putting something together so we can have it to the
floor, so thank you for being here.
Mr. Kucinich. I thank the Chair for his consideration. It
is always a pleasure to see you. Thank you.
Mr. Chambliss. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]