U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–360 PDF 2011

MEMBERS’ DAY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 30, 2011 

Serial No. 112–8 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/budget/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

KEN CALVERT, California 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, California 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

AUSTIN SMYTHE, Staff Director 

THOMAS S. KAHN, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, March 30, 2011 ............................................... 1 

Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ................................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Hon. Kevin Brady, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas . 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Hon. G. K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina .......................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Hon. Hansen Clarke, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan ........................................................................................................ 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Hon. Bill Posey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ... 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22 

Hon. Scott E. Rigell, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Virginia .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Pennsylvania ................................................................................................. 28 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29 

Hon. David N. Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Rhode Island ............................................................................................. 32 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Hon. Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Tennessee .................................................................................. 35 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36 

Hon. Judy Chu, Chair, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus 

(CAPAC) ......................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38 

Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 47 

Hon. James E. Clyburn, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina .......................................................................................... 49 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50 

Hon. Henry C. ‘‘Hank’’ Johnson, Jr., a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Georgia ...................................................................................... 51 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53 

Hon. Charles F. Bass, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Hampshire ............................................................................................ 54 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 55 

Hon. Cynthia M. Lummis, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wyoming .................................................................................................... 57 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 59 

Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Vermont ......................................................................................................... 60 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 62 

Hon. William R. Keating, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 63 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 64 

Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas .... 67 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 68 

Hon. Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of South 

Carolina ......................................................................................................... 70 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 71 
Page

IV 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, March 30, 2011—Continued 

Hon. David Loebsack, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Iowa ................................................................................................................ 72 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 74 

Hon. Colleen W. Hanabusa, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Hawaii ....................................................................................................... 75 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 76 

Hon. Mazie K. Hirono, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Hawaii ....................................................................................................... 79 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 81 

Hon. Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 83 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 85 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas .. 91 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 92 

Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 94 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 95 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois ........................................................................................................ 97 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 98 

Charts ......................................................................................................... 100 

Hon. Richard B. Nugent, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ....................................................................................................... 100 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 102 

Hon. Xavier Becerra, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 103 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 107 

Hon. Cedric L. Richmond, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Louisiana ................................................................................................... 108 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 110 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kentucky .............................................................................................................. 114 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 115 

Hon. Theodore E. Deutch, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ....................................................................................................... 117 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 118 

Hon. Donna M. Christensen, a Delegate in Congress from the U.S. Virgin 

Islands ............................................................................................................ 120 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 122 

Hon. Sandy Adams,, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida, prepared statement of .................................................................... 123 

Hon. Judy Biggert, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 124 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, M.D., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas, prepared statement of ........................................................ 125 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri; Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 125 

Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Delegate in Congress from the Territory 

of American Samoa, prepared statement of ................................................ 142 

Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 144 

Hon. Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 145 

Hon. Ben Ray Luja ́n, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico, prepared statement of ............................................................ 147 

Hon. Steven M. Palazzo, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Mississippi, prepared statement of ......................................................... 149 

Hon. Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey, prepared statement of ......................................................... 150 

Hon. Stevan Pearce, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico, prepared statement of ............................................................ 152 

Hon. Mike Quigley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 153 

Hon. Betty Sutton,, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 154 
Page

V 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, March 30, 2011—Continued 

Hon. Niki Tsongas, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of ............................................................... 156 

Hon. Timothy J. Walz, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Minnesota, prepared statement of ........................................................... 156 

Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, prepared statement of ................................................................ 158 

(1) 

MEMBERS’ DAY 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Diane Black presiding. 

Present: Representatives Garrett, McClintock, Stutzman, Black, 

Ribble, Mulvaney, Huelskamp, Amash, Rokita, Guinta, Woodall, 

Van Hollen, Schwartz, Yarmuth, Castor, Tonko, and Bass. 

Mrs. BLACK. This hearing will come to order. Good morning and 

welcome to the Budget Committee’s annual Members’ Day hearing. 

This hearing, which is directed by Section 301(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act, is intended to provide a forum in which 

Members can relay their priorities for their districts, for their 

States, and indeed for our country. We are pleased to have a diverse group of Members from both sides of the aisle. And we look 

forward to receiving their testimony. 

Before we begin, I would like to turn it over to my colleague, the 

ranking member, Mr. Van Hollen, for comments he has. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Black, 

and I just want to join you and others on both sides of the aisle 

in welcoming our Members and their testimony today. 

We look forward to hearing your thoughts on issues as they relate both to your Congressional districts as well as the whole Nation. 

So I thank you for coming together at this hearing and, without 

further ado, turn it back over to you. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen. 

Just as a reminder, Members will have 5 minutes to give their 

oral testimony. And their written statements will be submitted for 

the record. 

Additionally, members of the committee will be permitted to 

question the witnesses following their statements. But out of consideration for our colleagues’ time and to expedite today’s proceedings, I ask that you please keep your comments brief. 

I now will call on our first witness. 

Mr. Austin Scott from Georgia, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. AUSTIN SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Chairman Black— 

that has a nice ring to it I might add—Ranking Member Van Hol-
2 

len, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to share my thoughts on the fiscal year 2012 budget. 

As president of the 87-strong Republican freshman class, President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget reminded of the wisdom of 

the late cowboy and comedian Will Rogers. He once quipped, ‘‘Government programs have a beginning, a middle, and no end.’’ I usually would find that funny, except for the fact that it is frighteningly true. Our debt is a threat to our national security. 

Senator Obama recognized this. Senator Obama recognized this. 

On October 1 of 2008, and I will quote then-Senator Obama, we 

cannot mortgage our children’s future on a mountain debt. It is 

time to put an end to the runaway spending and the record deficits. 

It is not how you would run your family budget, and it must not 

be how Washington handles your tax dollars. 

Yet on February 14 of 2011, the President submitted his budget 

request to Congress, which proposed $1.6 trillion in deficit spending. As the father of an 11-year-old son, I couldn’t agree more with 

what Senator Obama said when he talked about the threat of our 

national debt to our security. 

We need to be a Congress that supports personal freedoms, individual liberties, and economic opportunities for all Americans. My 

freshman classmates and I are outraged that wasteful, duplicative, 

and ineffective government spending is so out of control. 

My constituents in the Eighth District of Georgia, like many of 

yours, would be outraged to know that their scarce tax dollars are 

used to fund examples like the National Science Foundation provided more than $200,000 to study why political candidates make 

vague statements. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends 

$175 million every year to maintain hundreds of buildings it does 

not use, including a pink octagonal monkey house in Dayton, Ohio. 

Medicare paid out over $35 million to a vast network of 118 phantom medical clinics allegedly established by members of a criminal 

gang to submit phony reimbursement claims. The Internal Revenue 

Service paid out $112 million in undeserved tax refunds to prisoners who filed fraudulent returns, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration. The National 

Institute of Health spent nearly $442 million to study the number 

of male prostitutes in Vietnam and their social settings. A $700,000 

Federal grant paid for researchers to examine greenhouse gas 

emissions from organic dairies, which are caused by cow burps 

among other things. 

These are just some of the many examples that can be found in 

Senator Tom Coburn’s 2010 Waste Book, which was released December 20, 2010. As you can guess, there are countless more. They 

illustrate very well the mind set that guides spending in Washington with the bureaucracy that has been created here. To quote 

Ronald Reagan, I would venture as far as to say that our government spends money like drunken sailors, but that would insult the 

sailors because at least they spend their own money. 

It was exactly this mind set that the other 86 Republican freshmen and I were sent here to reverse. My freshman colleagues and 

I were sent here to turn Washington’s culture of spending on its 

head. We have started down the right road by proposing to cut 

$100 billion in the continuing resolution. Now we have to continue 
3 

with a responsible budget that puts us on the road to fiscal responsibility. 

I appreciate this committee’s recognition of this problem and 

willingness to have a serious consideration about it. Please do your 

due diligence to get our runaway spending out of control. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before this distinguished committee today. I look a forward to working with you to address the 

issues. 

[The prepared statement of Austin Scott follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. AUSTIN SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the Fiscal Year 2012 

budget. 

As president of the 87-strong Republican Freshman Class, President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget reminded of the wisdom from the late cowboy and comedian 

Will Rogers who once quipped that, ‘‘Government programs have a beginning, middle, and no end.’’ 

I would usually find that funny except for the fact that it is frighteningly true. 

Our debt is a threat to our national security. 

Yet, on February 14, 2011 the President submitted his budget request to Congress which proposed $1.6 Trillion in deficit spending. 

This is despite the fact that then Senator Obama said on October 1, 2008: 

‘‘We cannot mortgage our children’s future on a mountain of debt. It’s time to put 

an end to the runaway spending and the record deficits—it’s not how you would run 

your family budget, and it must not be how Washington handles your tax dollars.’’ 

As the father of a 11 year old son, I couldn’t agree more. We need to be a Congress that supports personal freedom, individual liberties, and economic opportunities. 

My freshman classmates and I are outraged that wasteful, duplicative, and ineffective government spending is so out of control. 

My constituents in the 8th District of Georgia, like many of yours, would be outraged to know that their scarce taxpayer dollars are used to fund examples like: 

• The National Science Foundation provided more than to $200,000 to study why 

political candidates make vague statements. 

• The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spends $175 million every year to 

maintain hundreds of buildings it does not use, including a pink, octagonal monkey 

house in Dayton, Ohio. 

• Medicare paid out over $35 million to a vast network of 118 ‘‘phantom’’ medical 

clinics, allegedly established by members of a criminal gang to submit phony reimbursement claims. 

• The Internal Revenue Service paid out $112 million in undeserved tax refunds 

to prisoners who filed fraudulent returns, according to the Treasury Department’s 

Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). 

• The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent nearly $442,340 million to study 

the number of male prostitutes in Vietnam and their social setting. 

• A $700,000 federal grant paid for researchers to examine ‘‘greenhouse gas emission from organic dairies, which are cause by cow burps, among other things.’’ 

These are just some of the many examples that can be found in Sen. Tom 

Coburn’s 2010 Wastebook which was released on December 20, 2010. As you can 

guess, there are countless more. 

They illustrate very well the mindset that guides spending in Washington. To 

quote Ronald Reagan, I would venture as far to say that our government spends 

money like drunken sailors, but that would insult the sailors because at least they 

spend their own money. 

It was exactly this mindset that the other 86 Republican freshmen and I were 

sent here to reverse. My freshman colleagues and I were sent to here to turn Washington’s culture of spending on its head. 

We’ve started down the right road by cutting $100 billion in the CR, now we have 

to continue with a responsible budget that puts on the road to fiscal responsibility. 

I appreciate this committee’s recognition of this problem and willingness to have 

a serious consideration about it. Please do your due diligence to get our runaway 

spending out of control. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Committee today. 
4 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Do any of the Members have questions for the witness? 

Mr. Woodall, you are recognized. 

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, I would just be remiss if I didn’t 

welcome my friend from Georgia and my president of my class. 

Tell me this, Mr. Scott, when you were back home over those last 

10 days, did you feel some coalescing around the kind of what I 

would call more aggressive budget cutting and balancing that you 

are trying to bring out in the freshman class? 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Absolutely. And Mr. Woodall, 

what I will tell you is that the amount of fear, absolute fear that 

I think the United States citizen has right now, whether it is the 

business owner who is worried about renewing their note to keep 

their operations going or the person who works at that business 

who may be changing the oil at the car dealership, every American 

out there has had to adjust their budget down to deal with the realities of this economy. And they expect us to do the same thing. 

And they are very scared that they don’t see the courage or the political will to turn this country and get it back on the right track. 

And you know, we are out there trying to reassure them that 

that political will is there and that we are going to get this turned 

around and back on the right track. 

Mr. WOODALL. Where is the courage? That is a good message I 

may quote you on. 

Madam Chair, thank you. 

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Rokita, you are recognized. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

I appreciate your leadership as well. I have been reviewing your 

testimony here. And I completely agree with your testimony that 

there is this waste in the Federal Government. And I appreciate 

the examples that you have given. I appreciate the examples the 

Senator has given in his publication. 

What this committee has been studying, however, is the fact 

that—and it is a fact, and it is a bipartisan fact—that the drivers 

of our debt really are the three major social entitlement programs. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROKITA. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Your testimony, 

unless I am missing something, doesn’t seem to address that in 

much detail. 

So to follow up on Mr. Woodall’s question, what kind of feedback 

are you getting in your district from your constituents or from what 

you hear from other freshmen about the appetite for addressing the 

drivers of our debt, those three programs? Do your constituents 

have the courage and the political will to take less largesse now so 

that our kids don’t have a bankrupt country? 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Yes, sir. I think absolutely that 

Americans understand that we must address this problem—these 

problems I should say—now. 

I think that they understand the fiscal realities, especially when 

you put graphs up that show the growth of the national debt. I 

think that what confuses them, if you will, is the doublespeak of 

some elected officials, for example, when we have someone who 

says that we cannot mortgage our children’s future and then they 
5 

present a budget that has a $1.6 trillion deficit in it. That is where 

the disconnect is between Washington and back home. 

I think what they want is absolute transparency with where we 

are. They want a plan for where we are going. They understand 

that we are all going to have to give some now so that our children 

and our grandchildren can again have the benefit of being an 

American. 

Mr. ROKITA. And one quick follow up, if I could. You mentioned 

the deficit. In this budget that we are working on, do you have an 

idea what level of deficit in the proposed budget your constituents 

are willing to live with? 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. No, sir, I don’t. I think, again, 

that what they expect us to do is to take steps in the right direction. And I think that if we are totally transparent with them and 

we start making those steps in the right direction, that we will 

start to get the economy back on track. And as you know, if we can 

start getting that economic growth, if we can get 4 percent economic growth, which is something that quite honestly I don’t 

think—and I hold myself accountable for this, too—I don’t think 

any of us talk about how do we get to 4 percent economic growth 

again. I personally think you get there by more access to capital 

markets and reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses. 

But if we can get that 4 percent economic growth, then the dynamics of the problems that we have shift. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

We appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. BLACK. I am sorry, excuse me. 

Mr. Yarmuth, you are recognized. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

When I was home over the last weekend, most of my constituents 

were asking me why, in the Republicans’ budget, or continuing resolution, H.R. 1, that we did not share the sacrifice equally among 

society; that the people who seemed to be hit hardest by the proposed cuts in that budget were the most vulnerable population. 

So, Mr. Scott, you mentioned a few things that you considered 

wasteful spending, so I am just going to ask you a couple. Do you 

consider nutrition assistance for low-income women and their children wasteful spending? 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. It depends. I will tell you this. 

I think that the administration of those programs should be handled at the State level. And right now, the biggest problem that I 

have with what we have, whether you are talking about the WIC 

program or whether it is the SNAP program, is Washington trying 

to administer those programs and absolutely prohibiting the States 

from getting involved in getting rid of the fraud and the waste in 

some of those programs. 

Mr. YARMUTH. I think we can all agree on that. But just in general principles, do you consider spending on those types of programs wasteful, or spending on Pell Grants, or spending on heating 

assistance for low income citizens? 

And do you consider wasteful spending the $4 billion in tax expenditures that we give to oil companies every year? 
6 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. I am certainly willing to put all 

of those issues on the table and take a look at all of them. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Great. Thanks for your testimony. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACK. Any further questions? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT OF GEORGIA. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACK. I would now like to recognize Mr. Brady from Texas. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEVIN BRADY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BRADY OF TEXAS. Thank you, Chairman Black, Ranking 

Member Van Hollen, each of the members of the Budget Committee, thanks for allowing me to testify today. 

The Joint Economic Committee is charged with reviewing the 

economic report of the President and providing an analysis and recommendations to you as the Budget Committee. 

I am disappointed that neither President Obama’s budget nor the 

economic report really exhibited any urgency toward addressing 

our financial challenges in America. In fact, it seemed to me the 

report laid out government spending as the path to economic 

growth in this country. They were wrong the past 2 years and have 

failed, and it is time for a new approach. 

Several months ago, I asked the Republican staff of the Joint 

Economic Committee to study published economic reports over the 

last 40 years looking at America’s international competitors who 

got themselves in trouble with too much debt, what they did to get 

out of it, and what it did to their economy. On March 15, the results were published in ‘‘Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy.’’ 

[The information follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Mr. BRADY OF TEXAS. And I would ask, Madam Chairman, this 

document be entered into the record. 

Before I summarize its findings, let me show you two charts. On 

the first chart—let’s go to another one—that one. 

The last 40 years in America, we plotted Federal growth, which 

is the—the next chart, does that stick with this one? We charted 

job growth over the last 40 years compared to private fixed nonresidential investment; all that really means, businesses large and 

small who buy new equipment, new software, new buildings. The 

correlation between growth in the private sector, private invest-
11 

ment is nearly identical. In fact, what this chart shows is that 

there is no substitute for private investment to spur the economy. 

Not rebates, not stimulus, not even shovel-ready projects. 

And I will make the point further in the next chart. Over the last 

40 years, we tracked the size of spending—let’s go back one more— 

we tracked the size of spending in the Federal Government along 

with job growth along Main Street. The blue line represents Washington spending; the red line is jobs along Main Street. As you can 

tell, over the past 40 years, there is no correlation between the two. 

In fact, there is a negative one. As the government grows, jobs 

along Main Street shrink. Just the opposite as well. 

This shows, in fact, that if you continue to spend more as the 

Federal Government, our market will continue to shrink. And 

again, there is no substitute for private investment. The ‘‘Spend 

Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,’’ it is a report that provides 

clear and convincing evidence that countries that reduced their 

government budget deficits, and they do it through spending cuts, 

can boost their economy and job creation in the short term. Respected economists found 21 instances between 1970 and 2007 

where 10 of America’s international competitors successfully reduced their government debt-to-GDP ratio by 4.5 percent points or 

more, and they did it, not by raising taxes, but entirely on spending cuts. 

For example, here we go, Canada, neighboring Canada had a 

very small, less than 1 percent, economic growth as their government spending grew. They shrunk their spending by nearly 13 percentage points of their GDP between 1994 and 2006. As you can 

tell, they boosted their economic growth from less than 1 percent 

to 3.5 percent over the next 12 years. 

Sweden, another example of a developed economy like ours, it 

was actually shrinking in the 1990s, their economy. And after reducing its government spending by over 11 percentage points of 

GDP, Sweden’s negative growth revived to an average of 3.4 percent annually. 

New Zealand, another example, lower spending, higher growth. 

Their spending increased, growth slowed. They got their financial 

house in order, and growth was restored. 

So you may say, well, these three countries aren’t the United 

States. But these countries aren’t alone. Economists found 26 episodes in 9 developed economies where reducing government budget 

deficits and debt through spending cuts provided a large boost to 

economic growth in the first 3 years after their fiscal consolidation 

began. 

Perhaps the most important finding is this in this report: While 

most economists agree that reducing Federal spending increases 

economic growth in the long term, what this report shows is reducing Federal spending boosts economic growth and job creation in 

the short term as well. Here is why: What the report showed was 

economic growth occurred for two reasons. Businesses no longer expecting the government to levy higher taxes on them to pay for excessive spending, they stepped up private investment, buying new 

buildings, new equipment, new software. And business investment, 

as we have shown, equals jobs. Secondly, households, no longer fac-
12 

ing higher taxes, have higher expectations. And the combination 

led to purchase more homes and cars. 

If I am out of time, Madam Chairman, we will summarize the 

rest and are available for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Kevin Brady follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN BRADY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Chairman Ryan and Ranking Minority Member Van Hollen, I thank you for inviting me to testify before the Budget Committee today. 

The Joint Economic Committee is charged with reviewing The Economic Report 

of the President and providing its views, analyses, and recommendations regarding 

the goals set forth in The Report to the Budget Committees. I must express my disappointment that neither President Obama’s Budget nor his Economic Report exhibited any urgency in addressing the serious fiscal challenges facing our nation. Instead, The Report makes clear that President Obama believes that the federal government, not the free enterprise system, will lead the way in creating jobs. Moreover, President Obama warns that reducing federal spending at this time will pose 

a threat to the current economic recovery. 

Several months ago, I asked the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to survey the published economic literature on fiscal consolidations—programs designed to reduce government budget deficits and government debt as a percentage of GDP—and to study the results of such programs in other developed countries—our international competitors—over the last four decades. On March 15, 2011, 

the results were published in ‘‘Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy.’’ I ask 

that this document be entered into the record. Before I summarize its findings, let 

me show you two charts. 

As the first chart proves, private business investment, not the government, is the 

engine of job creation in America. Since 1971, jobs in the private sector increased 

when companies bought new buildings, equipment, and software. 

In contrast, the second chart shows little correlation between federal spending 

and private sector job growth over the past forty years. Just the opposite—as federal 

spending grew jobs along Main Street actually shrank. 

There is no substitute for private business investment in job creation—not federal 

spending, not tax rebates, and not even ‘‘shovel-ready’’ projects. 

‘‘Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy’’ provides clear and convincing evidence that countries that reduce their government budget deficits and debt through 

spending cuts boost economic growth and job creation. 

Respected economists found 21 instances between 1970 and 2007 where ten of 

America’s international competitors successfully reduced their government debt-toGDP ratio by 4.5 percentage points or more based predominantly or entirely on 

spending cuts. 

For example, neighboring Canada shrank total government spending by 12.8 percentage points of GDP between 1994 and 2006 and boosted its annual economic 

growth from under one percent to a robust 3.4% average over the next twelve years. 

Sweden’s economy was shrinking in the early 1990’s. After reducing its government 

spending by 11.4 percentage points of GDP from 1994 to 2000, Sweden’s negative 

growth economy revived—to an average 3.4% annually. New Zealand did the same. 

These countries are not alone. Economists found 26 episodes in nine developed 

economies where reducing government budget deficits and debt through spending 

cuts provided a large boost to economic growth in the first three years after their 

fiscal consolidation began. 

Perhaps the most important finding is this: While most economists agree that reducing federal spending increases economic growth in the long term, reducing federal spending boosts economic growth and job creation in the short term as well. 

According to the studies of fiscal consolidation surveyed, economic growth occurs 

for two reasons: 

(1) Businesses no longer expect the government to levy large tax increases in the 

future to pay for excessive spending—so businesses step up their investment in 

buildings, equipment, and software. And business investment, as we’ve shown, 

equals jobs. When businesses invest more, the unemployment rate goes down. 

(2) No longer facing higher taxes, households have higher expectations for permanent disposable income and become more confident. This combination leads them to 

purchase more homes and cars. 

Another important finding is that the absence of tax increases proved more important for realizing these growth effects than for achieving budget deficit reduction. 
13 

To maximize short-term growth and job creation, the report found that spending 

reductions must be ‘‘large, credible and difficult to reverse once made.’’ The savings 

that produced the greatest economic growth results include: rightsizing the government workforce and its compensation; eliminating duplicative agencies and programs; eliminating subsidies to businesses; and reforming and reducing transfer 

payments to individuals. 

In the area of entitlements, the study found evidence of strong economic growth 

effects from reforming government pension and health care to make them ‘‘sustainable and solvent’’ even when the reforms are phased in slowly and exempt current 

beneficiaries from change. 

As this study shows, ample real-life data prove there are significant economic 

growth and job creation benefits that accrue from reducing spending and reforming 

entitlement programs to restore their sustainability for future generations. 

In closing, I’d like to add an observation about the United States. Many Representatives and Senators point to the late 1990s as a period of rapid private sector 

job growth. What is often left out of the discussion is that the size of the federal 

government relative to the economy shrank during the period. From fiscal year 1992 

to fiscal year 2001, federal outlays declined by just under 4% of GDP from 22.1% 

to 18.2%. 

So far, President Obama has emphasized the risk of reducing America’s deficits 

and debt now. But he ignores the risk of delay. 

For America’s economic future, it’s time for a proven path forward. To grow our 

economy, it’s time for Washington to spend less and owe less as a nation. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you. 

Are there any questions? 

Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Look, I want to thank my friend, Congressman Brady. 

Mr. BRADY OF TEXAS. Yes, how are you. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Good to see you. 

Thank you for your testimony. And I have had an opportunity to 

look at the Republican staff report, the Republican report from the 

Joint Economic Committee. And you have presented the findings 

well here. And I don’t want to get into debate now. 

The only comment I would make is I think you know very well 

that many economists, and including those who advised the bipartisan fiscal commission that made its recommendations to this Congress that have gotten a lot of discussion, as well as the RivlinDomenici Commission, both said two things: Number one, yes, we 

have to reduce our deficits and debt, no doubt about it in terms of 

our long term economic growth. But in the short term, both those 

bipartisan commissions also said if you cut too fast too deeply, you 

will slow down a very fragile recovery and threaten to put people 

out of work. 

And you know, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben 

Bernanke, came up with a low estimate the other day in testimony 

before this House, which was 200,000 jobs would be lost, which he 

noted is not a trivial number, especially since we just celebrated 

last month a good jobs report that was a little less than 200,000. 

So I understand, and I know you do, too, that there are lots of ways 

to look at these things. But I think it is important to put those 

facts on the table because those are the opinions of a bipartisan 

group, not just sort of one side of the House. Thank you. 

Mr. BRADY OF TEXAS. If I may, a couple points. Thank you for 

raising that point. But many of those economists have been wrong. 

We actually, after going on almost a trillion dollar spending spree, 

we have 2.2 million fewer jobs than when the stimulus began. 

Mark Zandi, one of the leading economists who say we will lose 
14 

jobs if we make some spending cuts, he promised 4 million new 

jobs by the end of 2010. We actually had 3 million fewer. He was 

7 million jobs off. And today we were promised if we went on a 

spending spree of the stimulus that our unemployment rate would 

be 6.9 percent. It is time to stop listening to the economists who 

got it wrong and start looking at a proven approach to it. 

Now, I will always put in perspective the spending reductions of 

this Republican House, $61 billion, represent four one-thousandths 

of the U.S. economy. To put it in another perspective, if the economy were the length of a football field, the Republican spending reductions are about the length of your shoes. The impact on our 

economy from those economists, I believe, is wildly exaggerated. 

Yet the risk of not acting on our financial crisis and bringing the 

$2 trillion of business investment that is standing on the sidelines 

today to me the risk to our economy is to not move with some solid 

financial rules. 

Mrs. BLACK. Are there other questions for Mr. Brady? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If I may just follow up before my time expires. 

Again, this is not the place for an extended debate, and I am not 

going to engage you in that debate. I will say that as you know, 

what we are talking about in the budget cuts is about 12 percent 

of the budget. And we are also talking about cuts within a very 

short period of time. So that amplifies the impact, which is why 

those economists have made the statements they have. But I have 

no further—— 

Mr. BRADY OF TEXAS. May I just point out, in the economic report it showed the countries, our competitors with developed economies who had the greatest success, their spending cuts were large, 

credible, and difficult to reverse. So they sent the signal to the 

market that they could have confidence in reinvesting in business 

investment again. So I think the Republican model we are taking 

forward is proven. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACK. Other questions for the witness? 

Mr. BRADY OF TEXAS. By the way, thank you all for your service 

on the committee. You have a big challenge, and I appreciate it 

very much. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Brady. I would like to now recognize Mr. Butterfield from North Carolina. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank you, Chairman Black and Ranking Member Van Hollen. 

And to my colleagues who serve on this committee, thank you 

very much for allowing me to come by and spend this time with 

you this morning. 

I realize that I am not a part of this committee, and so I am not 

permitted to engage in debate. But I just want to briefly respond 

to my colleague from Texas who just spoke. You talk to the elected 

officials in my district, both Democrat and Republican, and they 

will tell you that we have not been on a spending spree with the 

stimulus infusion of capital into rural America. It has really been 

a godsend for the communities that I represent. 
15 

I represent, Madam Chairman, a low-income, rural district in 

northeastern North Carolina. And so as we develop the 2012 budget, I want to basically talk about four areas of importance to the 

people that I represent. My district is the fourth poorest district in 

the Nation. If you would take all 435 districts that we represent, 

I would be number four from the bottom. So I want to talk with 

you about LIHEAP, community development, hunger, and what I 

call persistent poverty. 

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is a lifeline, 

it is a lifeline for low-income families and a lifeline for the elderly 

all across the Nation. Well over half of the allocated funds for this 

program go directly to home heating assistance. In fiscal year 2010, 

309,000 households in my State benefited from LIHEAP. With the 

crude oil price already reaching $104 a barrel and the very real 

threat of even higher prices, many families in my State and across 

the country could be pushed beyond the breaking point. Recognizing the slow recovery and the rising cost of fuel, I urge this committee to support level funding for LIHEAP. 

I also urge strong support for the Community Development Block 

Grant program. I represent 88 cities and towns in my district. And 

my mayors, both Democrat and Republican mayors, have made it 

clear to me that cuts to this program would have a significant impact on their communities and communities across the country, especially small rural communities. 

As any State, county, or municipal official will tell you, the 

CDBG program continues to be a highly flexible and successful 

means of helping communities address a wide range of issues. It 

is the largest source of Federal financial assistance for State and 

local neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation and economic development activities. This program provides funding that 

is often matched with local dollars to help create local private sector jobs and address the needs of the communities. 

CDBG funds have helped local governments in revitalizing neighborhoods to create safe, nurturing communities for families. And 

we should continue, Madam Chairman, to strongly support the program with nothing less than level funding. 

Let me also talk about hunger. We don’t talk about this too often. 

A recently released national study on hunger found that my district, the First District of North Carolina, suffered the second highest food hardship rate in the country. The Food Research and Action Center study found that nearly one in five American households struggled to afford enough food last year and that nearly one 

in three faced food hardship in my district. 

We all know that hunger exists in America. We all know that. 

It is a fact of life in every congressional district. Knowing that we 

all represent people struggling against hunger, I am deeply concerned about cuts to our Federal nutrition safety net. Specifically, 

I urge the committee to strongly support the Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as 

WIC, and the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program, and 

the Commodities Supplemental Food Program. 

Finally, let me mention rates of persistent poverty in counties 

and Census tracts in your State and mine. You are going to hear 

us talk about this more and more and more. We have got to talk 
16 

about persistent poverty in our country. We talk about the middle 

class, and rightfully so, but persistent poverty must become a part 

of the conversation. Across the country, there are hundreds of communities where 20 percent or more of the population has been living below the poverty line for the last 30 years. Repeat that: 20 

percent or more of the population in communities all across the Nation have lived below the poverty level for 30 years. 

These communities are located in Democratic districts and Republican districts alike. These communities lack access to quality 

schools, affordable quality health care, adequate job opportunities. 

And so in drafting the budget that seeks to improve the life of 

every American, I urge you to include provisions that direct at 

least 10 percent of agency funds go to these communities. Did I 

hear you tapping? 

Mrs. BLACK. You did. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. I just wanted to make sure I was 

hearing that. 

Mrs. BLACK. Sure. I probably did a very gentle tap. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I think I have one paragraph left. Can I finish 

that? 

Mrs. BLACK. You may finish. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes. As a Nation, we can only be as strong as 

our weakest link. We need to make sure that every community, 

every community is included as we work toward economic recovery. 

And I thank you so very much. 

[The prepared statement of G.K. Butterfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. G. K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

I represent a largely poor and rural district in northeastern North Carolina. As 

we develop a budget for the coming fiscal year, I want to talk about four areas of 

particular importance to the people I represent: LIHEAP, community development, 

hunger and persistent poverty. 

As we all know, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program is truly a lifeline for low-income families and the elderly across the nation. Well over half of the 

allocated funds for this program go directly to home heating assistance. 

In fiscal year 2010, an estimated 309,161 households in North Carolina benefited 

from LIHEAP. With the crude oil price already reaching $104 a barrel and the very 

real threat of even higher prices, many families in North Carolina and across the 

country could be pushed beyond the breaking point. 

Given how slowly the economy is recovering and the rising costs of fuel, I urge 

the committee to support level funding for LIHEAP. 

I also want to urge strong support for the Community Development Block Grant 

program. 

I represent 88 cities and towns, and they have made it clear that cuts to this program would have a have a significant impact on communities across the country— 

especially on small, rural communities. 

As any state, county or municipal official will tell you, the CDGB program continues to be a highly flexible and successful means of helping communities address 

a wide range of issues. It is the largest source of federal financial assistance for 

state and local neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation and economic development activities. 

This essential program provides funding that is often matched with local dollars 

to help create local, private-sector jobs and address the needs of the community. 

CDBG funds have helped local governments in revitalizing neighborhoods to create 

safe, nurturing communities for families, and we should continue to strongly support the program with nothing less than level funding. 

I also need to talk with you about hunger. A recently released national study on 

hunger found that my district suffered the second highest food hardship rate. 
17 

The Food Research and Action Center study found that nearly one in five American households struggled to afford enough food in 2010, and that nearly one in 

three faced food hardship in my district. 

We all know that hunger exists in America—it’s a fact of life in every congressional district. Knowing that we all represent people struggling against hunger, I 

am deeply concerned about cuts to our federal nutrition safety net. 

Specifically, I want to urge the committee to strongly support the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as the WIC 

program; the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program; and, the Commodity 

Supplemental Food Program. 

Finally I want to talk with you about persistent poverty. Across the country, there 

are 474 counties where 20 percent or more of the population has been living below 

the poverty line for the last 30 years. 

These communities lack access to quality schools, affordable quality health care 

and adequate job opportunities. In drafting a budget that seeks to improve the lives 

of every American, I urge you to include provisions that direct at least 10 percent 

of federal agency investments to communities where 20 percent or more of the population have lived below the poverty line for the last 30 years. 

As a nation, we can only be as strong as our weakest link. We need to make sure 

every community is included as we work toward economic recovery. 

Mrs. BLACK. You are very welcome. 

And I do want to say you began by saying you are not part of 

this committee. But that is the purpose of this, so that all Members 

will have an opportunity to address this committee. So thank you 

for your remarks. 

Are there questions for the witness? Questions? 

Thank you again. 

I am told that we are waiting for more Members to show up, so 

we are going to take a brief recess until 10:45 so everyone will have 

an opportunity to rest a little bit. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. BLACK. We are ready for your testimony. 

So, Mr. Clarke, you will have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HANSEN CLARKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. CLARKE OF MICHIGAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, 

for giving me this opportunity to share with you the priorities, not 

only for the district that I represent, but also for this country. 

I am the Representative of the 13th Congressional District in 

Michigan. It includes the City of Detroit, the eastern suburbs of all 

of the Grosse Pointes, Harper Woods, and the great downriver communities of Lincoln Park, Wyandotte, River Rouge, and Ecourse. 

All of this is connected by the Detroit River, which is the busiest 

international border crossing in North America. It is also one of the 

largest metropolitan urban centers in the country. It has a large 

hub international airport, as well as a large regional water system. 

All of this puts us at great risk to attack from terrorists or any 

other catastrophe. I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee, which I just left, so I understand the risk that is posed to 

this region. 

Regardless of the source of the emergency, it will be our local police, fire, and emergency medical responders that will need to address that situation. But because of State and local revenue losses, 

these first responders really don’t have the resources to be fully 

equipped or even secure themselves. That is why I urge this committee to support fully funding firefighter grants, the Community- 
18 

Oriented Policing grants, and other funding to better protect urban 

areas from these types of emergencies. 

Also, my region is known to be the motor capital of the world. 

Now, a lot of the jobs have been sent overseas, other parts of the 

country. But we still have the foundation of America’s manufacturing engine in our area. We have experienced tough economic 

times in Metro Detroit. But you know, decades ago, this entire 

country was suffering economically during the Great Depression. 

And at that time, folks in my district transformed themselves from 

the Motor City to the arsenal of democracy and helped save this 

country and helped save this world from the threat of fascism. 

Again, I believe that Metro Detroit can provide economic security 

for our families and also prosperity for the U.S. economy by now 

promoting and selling the best manufactured products in the 

United States that can be exported worldwide. In order for us to 

have that type of manufacturing capacity, I urge this committee to 

make sure that we continue our research and development funding, 

especially in manufacturing and advanced vehicle research. 

We have great universities, like Wayne State University, that 

could partner with the Federal Government to create businesses 

that hire a lot of people. The direct investment that this government took in General Motors appears to be paying off. GM has recently announced four consecutive quarters of profitability. 

I want to wrap it up, but just to say that in order to really maintain and attract the investment that we need to rebuild our manufacturing capacity, we have got to have a well trained, well educated workforce. Funding for Title 1, which is the foundation of our 

young people learning, is very important. Pell Grants, other grants 

for low-income students to help give them access to a higher education is critical, but also funding in the Workforce Investment Act 

to keep our great Michigan Works! job training offices open, to provide continued funding to Job Corps, Youth Build, and TRIO, other 

programs that have helped and motivate people, young people to be 

productive citizens. 

One point I would like to add, though, there are folks that, regardless of how prosperous times are, always struggle. They are 

single parents like the mother who raised me. Sometimes they are 

going through very difficult financial situations. The Low Income 

Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, is very important for many families who are struggling to make ends meet. 

I urge you to continue support. 

I would also finally like to speak on behalf of citizens who are 

not usually represented in the Congress. These are mostly men 

that I have met in Detroit who get their meals out of garbage 

dumpsters in the alleys of downtown Detroit, which is outrageous. 

And what is even worse, not only do they not have homes and they 

have lost hope, but in their past, they have served this country 

honorably as members of the military. So I urge you, maintain and 

strengthen support for funding for our homeless veterans. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Hansen Clarke follows:] 
19 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HANSEN CLARKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify as the Committee considers a Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2012. I thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss the priorities that matter to the 13th District of Michigan and Metro Detroit. 

These are difficult times for our nation, and I know that the Committee must 

weigh the pressing national priorities as you work to craft a budget that reflects 

our values, and promotes our security today and for the long term: our national security, our economic security, and the financial security of our families and our communities. 

We’re going to have to come to some decisions on how we deal with the debt right 

away, and that has been the primary focus of the debate both here in Congress and 

in the media. However, I urge the Committee to look more broadly about how to 

save money. Let’s not make deep cuts that are small in their impact on the deficit 

but hurt job training, stop kids from going to college and prevent people from getting the healthcare they need. We’ve got to look at the overall big picture, and make 

strategic investments that improve our nation for the long term. 

I am going to talk about Metro Detroit and the people I represent, but I want 

to tell you that investing in Detroit means investing in the country. Improving our 

community starts from the financial security of individuals and families, but means 

that we are able to improve our nation’s economic security, attract investment, put 

our budget back on track, and ultimately make our nation safer and more secure. 

Each of these priorities and values is also about attracting investment, making our 

communities better places to work and live, and rebuilding the human capital that 

we need to excel. 

That means that we need to continue critical investments that fight poverty, improve healthcare, restore our communities, and create opportunities—through education and job training—that help our people get jobs. We need to continue investing in infrastructure and supporting small businesses so that we can put more people back to work. And we need to invest in the future, in science and technology, 

research and development, that were the heart of the American success story and 

enabled America, and Detroit in particular, to be ‘‘the great arsenal of democracy.’’ 

I urge the committee to support funding that puts a priority on job creation and 

provides an environment that enables individuals to get good jobs. 

We absolutely cannot shortchange our investments in education if we want to get 

out of the deficit and grow our economy. I urge the Committee to fully fund programs that expand access to education. Initiatives like Pell Grants, Supplemental 

Educational Opportunity Grants, and the TRIO program expand access to higher 

education, while Title I and early education programs are essential to supporting 

the foundation of learning. Funding for the Workforce Investment Act, and critical 

initiatives such as Job Corps and Youth Build make a difference for those most in 

need and make sure those who have been dislocated or chronically unemployed can 

get jobs and make a life for themselves and their communities. The Michigan 

Works! System is using this funding to create opportunities for those most in need 

throughout Michigan. We need to particularly serve those in our society who often 

get overlooked but may have the most to contribute. 

It may not be the first thing that comes to mind when you think about job creation, but we are missing an opportunity to restore our economy if we are allowing 

the tragedy of homelessness in general, and homeless veterans in particular, to continue without a response. I urge the Committee to fully fund homeless veterans programs, including those at the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefit 

Administration, and particularly employment programs through the Department of 

Labor so that these citizens who have contributed to our nation can continue to 

serve our country in the economy. Preserving human capital also means preserving 

less obvious programs like weatherization and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which makes sure that people can afford to heat their 

homes. And unless a person is warm, has access to good nutrition, and is secure, 

they are going to have trouble working or finding a job. I urge the Committee to 

fully fund LIHEAP to address the needs of families at risk. 

We also need to support entrepreneurs and small business people who want to 

make a better life for themselves and their communities and are the true job-creators in our economy. That means investing in research and development and supporting manufacturing for the future. A strong domestic manufacturing base is essential to maintaining and creating high-quality jobs that will expand the Nation’s 

middle class and improve our economy. I urge the Committee to fully fund programs 

such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Advanced Technology Vehi-
20 

cles Manufacturing Incentive Program, and the President’s proposed Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) Program. These programs help manufacturers, including auto companies in Michigan, invest in engineering, production, and 

factory renovation to lead the world in advanced technologies. The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive, in particular, have enabled Detroit’s car 

companies to take the lead in plug-in hybrids and restore our automotive industry. 

Manufacturing means American jobs now and in the future. 

As a Member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I strongly urge 

you to give high priority to scientific research and development and math and 

science education. Investing in science will pay enormous dividends by leading to 

new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries, and entire new industries. Innovation 

has been the strength of America, and will continue to be so if we continue to invest 

strategically. 

Finally, as a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I urge this committee 

to support full funding for Assistance to Firefighter Grants and Community-Oriented Policing Services. Our first responders are on the front lines of homeland security, working hard every day to keep our families and communities safe. In the 

current economy, they need federal support more than ever to make sure they can 

continue their work protecting our communities and preventing crime. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difficulty that faces your Committee in creating 

next year’s budget. Our nation faces unprecedented fiscal challenges, and we must 

put partisan differences aside to achieve common-sense reforms that can bring us 

closer to balance. While we cannot afford to continue in the same way we have in 

the past, we cannot afford to eliminate strategic investments that further America’s 

growth. I look forward to working together to reduce our deficit while promoting 

those priorities that make America strong. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. 

Are there questions for Mr. Clarke? 

Thank you for your testimony. It will be on the record. 

Mr. CLARKE OF MICHIGAN. I appreciate this opportunity. Supporting Metro Detroit is the best way to support our country. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Posey from Florida. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL POSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members for the 

opportunity to appear before you this morning and urge you to preserve NASA’s core mission, which is human space flight. 

More specifically, I would ask that as you proceed in developing 

a budget resolution, that you include sufficient funding and language directing NASA to make human space flight its highest priority. Our Nation is critically near the tipping point of ceding our 

leadership in space exploration for our future generations, as many 

of you already know. 

Direction from NASA administration has been seriously lacking 

with respect to their goals. By failing to set priorities within 

NASA’s budget, the administration has left NASA with no priorities. As a result, human space flight and exploration are suffering, 

and the U.S. will be ceding its leadership in space to China and 

Russia. 

Should Congress fail to step in where the administration has left 

a leadership void, we would be making an unacceptable compromise in our national security and lose economic and intangible 

benefits from our space program. The President abandoned the 

Constellation program in his budget, calling for it to be canceled 

with no solid alternative or plan for the future. By doing so, he set 

our human space flight program dangerously adrift with vague 

milestones for the world’s premiere space exploration organization. 
21 

Last year, Congress and the administration agreed on an authorization bill that focused on developing goals after the space shuttle’s retirement. This included plans for a new heavy lift capacity, 

while giving limited support to commercial operations. Unfortunately, the President’s proposed budget is a substantial departure 

from the authorization bill that he signed into law in October, cutting $2 billion from the heavy lift program, while increasing subsidies for the low Earth orbit commercial companies. This cut is in 

spite of the fact that by the administration’s own estimate, the 

2016 timetable for a return flight would have been unattainable at 

last year’s projected funding levels. 

The President’s budget has misplaced priorities, gutting vital 

heavy lift capacity while dealing significantly lighter cuts to unrelated projects like studying climate change. In fiscal year 2010, for 

example, 16—16—different Federal agencies and departments were 

funded at over $8 billion to address climate change. There were 

no—zero, zilch, nada—no other agencies funded to pursue human 

space flight. 

Human space flight is a matter of national security. Space is the 

world’s military high ground, our Golan Heights, if you will. By 

ceding our leadership to other Nations, such as China, Russia, and 

India, we would be literally giving them the ultimate military high 

ground. China and Russia have announced plans to colonize the 

Moon. They are not going there to collect and study rocks like we 

did. 

We must also not lose sight of the major asset that the human 

space flight workforce is to our Nation. The workforce is not a spigot that you can turn on and off whenever you want to. It has taken 

decades to build it, and it will evaporate overnight with no programs in place. 

Without a clear vision and a robust investment in our human 

space flight program, the community will quickly atrophy, as the 

engineers and their expertise are lost to other pursuits and possibly even other countries. 

The administration’s plan is to retire the shuttle program this 

summer, after over 30 years of service ferrying astronauts, modules, components to the International Space Station, launching and 

repairing numerous satellites, including the Hubble, launching 

three interplanetary probes, advancing scientific experimentation, 

including microgravity research, all important goals for this Nation. Despite this incredible list of accomplishments, when the 

space shuttle Atlantis touches down for the final time this summer, 

it will be more bitter than it will be sweet. That is because there 

is currently no clear vision of the future of America’s space flight 

program. And it is a step backwards for America’s leadership in 

space. 

The time to refocus NASA on its primary human space flight 

mission is now. The Budget Committee has authority to reject the 

administration’s continued efforts to reshape NASA as yet another 

agency without a clear focus, without a clear mission. Just imagine 

one day without your cell phones, one day without your laptops, 

one day without a weather report, one day without a GPS, one day 

not being able to use a credit card nor withdraw cash from a bank, 

all satellite-linked communications. Most of the public realizes the 
22 

compelling importance of this. And that is why I ask you to give 

it your best consideration. And thank you for your leadership and 

this opportunity to address you concerning human space flight. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Bill Posey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL POSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Chairman Ryan, Members of the Budget Committee, I appreciate the opportunity 

to come before you today to respectfully urge you to preserve NASA’s core mission: 

human space flight. 

More specifically, I would ask that as you proceed in developing a budget resolution that you include sufficient funding and language directing that NASA’s human 

space flight program is the priority within the overall amounts made available to 

NASA in the Budget Resolution. 

Our nation is critically near the tipping point of ceding our leadership in space 

exploration for generations to come. Direction from the Administration has been seriously lacking with respect to NASA. By failing to set priorities within NASA’s 

budget, the Administration has left NASA with no priorities. 

As a result, human space flight and Exploration are suffering and the U.S. will 

cede its leadership in space to our adversaries: China and Russia. This is not in our 

national security interest nor is it in our economic security interests. 

Should Congress fail to step in where the Administration has left a leadership 

void we will be making unacceptable compromises in our national security and lose 

economic and intangible benefits from our space program. 

The driver that our investment in human space flight is to our technological advancement and thus our economic competitiveness is immeasurable. 

The President abandoned the Constellation program in his FY 2011 budget submission, calling for it to be cancelled with no solid alternative or plan for the future. 

By so doing, he set our human space flight program dangerously adrift with vague 

milestones for the world’s premiere space exploration organization. 

Last year, after a robust debate, Congress and the Administration agreed on an 

Authorization Bill that focused on developing goals after the Space Shuttle’s retirement. This included plans for a new heavy lift capability while giving limited support to commercial space operations. Congress must act now to ensure these objectives are realized. 

Unfortunately, the President’s FY 2012 Budget is a substantial departure from 

the Authorization Bill that he signed into law in October—cutting $2 billion from 

the heavy lift program while increasing taxpayer subsidies for commercial space 

companies. 

This cut is in spite of the fact that, by the Administration’s own estimate, the 

2016 timeline for a return to flight would likely have been unattainable at last 

year’s projected funding levels. 

The President’s FY 2012 Budget submission has misplaced priorities—gutting 

vital heavy lift capability while dealing significantly lighter cuts to superfluous 

projects like studying climate change. 

In FY 2010, 16 federal agencies and departments were funded at over $8 billion 

to address climate change. There are NO other agencies funded to pursue human 

space flight. 

Human space flight is a matter of national security importance. Space is the 

world’s military high ground, our Golan Heights if you will. 

By ceding our leadership to other nations such as China, Russia, and India we 

would be walking away from the ultimate military high ground. 

China and Russia continue to increase the sophistication of their human space 

flight programs and are reaping the national security and economic benefits of those 

investments. 

Unlike the United States, China and Russia do not have civilian agencies comparable to NASA, so every bit of advancement in their space programs is a military 

advancement. 

We also must not lose sight of the major national asset that the human space 

flight workforce is to our nation. Our human space flight program attracts and inspires some of the world’s greatest minds. 

The workforce is not a spigot that can be turned off and then back on at a later 

date. It takes years, sometimes decades to build. 
23 

Without a clear vision and a robust investment in our human space flight program this community will quickly atrophy as these engineers and their expertise are 

lost to other pursuits and possibly other countries. 

The Administration plans to retire the Shuttle program this summer after over 

30 years of service: ferrying astronauts, modules, and components to the International Space Station; launching and repairing numerous satellites including the 

Hubble; launching three interplanetary probes; and advancing advanced scientific 

experimentation including microgravity research. 

Despite this incredible list of accomplishments, when Space Shuttle Atlantis 

touches down for the final time this summer, it will be more bitter than sweet because there is currently no clear vision of the future of America’s human space flight 

program. And, it is a step backward for American leadership in space. 

The time to refocus NASA on its primary human space flight mission is now. The 

Budget Committee has the authority to reject the Administration’s continued efforts 

to reshape NASA as yet another agency without focus and absent a clear mission. 

Thank you for your leadership, and the opportunity to address the committee regarding human space flight—a matter of great economic and national security importance. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

Are there questions for the witness? 

No questions. 

Thank you very much. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Rigell from Virginia. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT RIGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. RIGELL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and members of 

the committee. I really appreciate this opportunity to share with 

you my perspective and grave concern on the state and trajectory 

of our Nation’s budget and overall fiscal condition. 

I have the privilege of serving on the House Armed Services 

Committee and the Committee on Homeland Security, which gives 

me a full appreciation of the range of external threats to our Republic. Yet as I see it, the gravest threat to our country is being 

addressed right here as you prepare our budget for fiscal year 

2012. You know, as an entrepreneur with 30 years experience in 

reading financial statements, I came to the sobering conclusion 

years ago that our Nation’s deficits were placing us at serious and 

increasing risk. Indeed, that is why I sought this office. 

You know, Americans instinctively know that no family, no business, no country, not even America, can stay on this path of borrowing more than 40 cents out of every dollar that we are spending. That is truly going to lead, in my view, to catastrophic consequences. 

You know, in a recent committee hearing, I was stunned to hear 

a Member say that we are not headed toward bankruptcy. Well, I 

truly believe that we are well beyond heading toward bankruptcy, 

that we are indeed bankrupt. When unfunded mandates are placed 

on our Nation’s balance sheet, as they should be, our obligations 

eclipse the sum of all foreseeable revenue streams. 

Like the dangerous mind set of invulnerability that took hold of 

the captain of the Titanic, I just don’t think we can quite grasp the 

painful reality that America is indeed subject to the laws of finance. Lenders will eventually stop lending. Higher risk will be reflected in much higher interest rates. If we do not change course 

sharply, there will be a day of reckoning. And that day, in my view, 

is much closer than most think. 
24 

I often hear this in conversations about our budget, ‘‘Scott, you 

are right, it is not fair to our grandchildren to leave them this 

debt.’’ And it is not only our grandchildren that are at risk. I sound 

the alarm today that the day of reckoning must be brought up, not 

one, but two generations. It is each one of us here today. And our 

debt makes no distinction of party affiliation, ethnicity, gender, or 

age. 

You know, and I have always believed that if you present a problem you should also present a way forward. Now, after all, confronting big problems is what we do as Americans. And it is in that 

spirit that I respectfully share with you this morning a way forward that I would ask you to consider as you prepare our budget. 

I ask that you consider studying the budget of our country in a 

manner similar to what every American family does when looking 

over the family checkbook. First, prioritize and pay the most important and critical bills, like a home mortgage payment and food. And 

then you back into everything else. It may sound simplistic, but it 

works. That is the path to ensuring a bright financial future. 

Our first national budget priority is to raise an Army, broadly 

defined, to ensure that we meet our constitutional duty to keep the 

American people safe. Now, good and reasonable people can disagree on the amount, but we can get that right. 

Our second, our second national budget priority, as I see it, is to 

meet the deep obligation that we have to our seniors who are receiving Social Security and to those who are near to be eligible for 

Social Security. You know, common sense tells me that we have got 

to change the dates at which people are eligible for Social Security. 

We have a different obligation to my 88-year-old father than we do 

to my 22-year-old son. 

And after defense and Social Security are paid for, we take the 

steps in this Congress this year so that over a reasonable period 

of time, 5 to 7 years, all other expenses match our remaining tax 

revenues, which ideally are growing because our economy would be 

growing. 

And I want to share this with you today, that as an entrepreneur 

I know instinctively that cutting expenses is in and of itself an act 

of job creation because it restores confidence in our future and confidence in our economy. I believe that we need to have an overall 

program that shifts responsibility and funding to the States for 

Medicaid, for example, through block grants, unfettered with reams 

of regulation. We can give and should give the Governors the running room that they have asked for. 

This is a profoundly challenging time in America. And if we don’t 

get this right, God help us. But I am convinced that we will. I am 

ready to work with each and every Member, regardless of party affiliation, who is ready to come together and make those difficult 

but necessary decisions that will put us on a better fiscal path. I 

thank you for the time and the opportunity to address the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Scott Rigell follows:] 
25 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT E. RIGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it’s a privilege to be here today 

to share my thoughts on what, I believe, is by far the most urgent issue facing our 

nation—the 2012 federal budget and the overall financial health of our nation. 

I often say that we are a nation at serious and increasing risk. I truly believe 

this now more than ever before. We simply cannot continue to borrow 42 cents of 

every dollar we spend and expect to dig ourselves out of this debt crisis. No family, 

no business and certainly no country can stay on that course without dire consequences. 

America is vulnerable and we can no longer be a debtor nation beholden to foreign 

creditors in Europe, the Middle East and China. 

There is a day of reckoning ahead and it is much sooner than many realize. The 

consequences of not acting now will spell disaster for future generations. Our national debt is not only jeopardizing our children and grandchildren—it’s an immediate threat to every single one of us here today. 

We must balance our budget, sharply reduce the deficit and stop out of control 

spending in this Congress, with this President. We must find a way to say that an 

American dollar spent is an American dollar earned—not borrowed. 

As an entrepreneur with more than 25 years of business experience, I know firsthand what it takes to grow and maintain a successful business. We need to start 

running this government more like a business and it begins with addressing headon the challenge of entitlements. 

Entitlements are a significant portion of our federal spending with three programs 

alone—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—accounting for almost $1.5 trillion 

a year. 

In my view, when looking at spending cuts for the 2012 budget, we need to fulfill 

our national obligation to our military in defense spending and to our senior citizens 

in mandatory spending on Social Security. From there, we back into everything else; 

this includes Medicare and Medicaid. As I see it, we have a far different obligation 

to my 88-year-old father than we do to my 22-year-old son. 

Federal entitlement programs are massive, bureaucratic giants that are wildly 

above projected costs. For example, when Medicare was created, Congress projected 

its cost for FY 1990 to be $12 billion. They were off by more than 800% 

And this spending shows no sign of slowing down: according to the Congressional 

Budget Office, Medicare spending will double by 2050 and the federal share of Medicaid will double by 2016. Furthermore, when my children are placed on Social Security and Medicare in a matter of decades, entitlements will consume all federal revenues with nothing left over for defense, education, highways, law enforcement, or 

other necessary expenditures. I cannot even fathom what this fiscal situation will 

look like for future generations. 

Based on the information before us, we must address entitlements this Congress, 

this budget, this year! We must not waver; we must take immediate action that includes focusing on both discretionary and mandatory spending. Our nation’s spiraling debt has each one of us keenly aware that we face demands for government 

services and programs that far exceed our revenues. It will take courage and the 

desire to do what is right for America—regardless of the political pain that may follow. 

And so, I ask my colleagues here today to address entitlement spending as you 

look for meaningful and impactful budget reforms in the 2012 budget. 

It is through difficult times that America finds its greatest moments, and I have 

no doubt that we will once again rise to meet these challenges. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you. 

Are there questions for the witness? 

Ms. Schwartz, you are recognized. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I appreciate your comments and your commitment to reining in the deficit. Obviously, it is a sentiment that we 

all share. How we do it is really the debate. 

So you do know that the cuts are being made in only 12 percent 

of the budget as we are proceeding, the way you define it as well 

in terms of really eliminating real opportunity for a real conversation about defense, although you suggest that there is some opportunity there to cut that back. 
26 

You believe just if we cut, we will just grow. I assume as an entrepreneur, I don’t know what kind of a business you were an entrepreneur of, but I assume you occasionally trained an employee, 

that you might even have borrowed some money or made an investment in a piece of equipment? 

Mr. RIGELL. Many times. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. So given that you think that, that you suggest 

that the government ought to run the way you ran your business, 

and I don’t, again, know about the specifics of your business, do 

you think the government has any role in either educating or training the future workforce or in making certain kinds of investments 

that might grow the economy, or do you think those have to be off 

the table? 

Mr. RIGELL. No, I think that there are many legitimate uses of 

tax revenues, investments, and infrastructure. I think transportation in particular is something that only government can really 

do. 

And so I have supported investments in infrastructure, for example, and it is really a challenge, of course, in 5 minutes to cover 

all of this and to say how you would fix the budget. But entitlements, in my view, need to be on the table. 

I believe, for example—— 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. On the infrastructure, what would you cut to pay 

for that money, to get that money, or how would you raise the revenue for infrastructure? 

Mr. RIGELL. Well, we have a revenue stream now going to infrastructure. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Which is kind of empty. 

Mr. RIGELL. Well, there is still some money there. And I appreciate the opportunity, I really do, to engage in a conversation about 

this critical topic. I believe that, for example, means testing of 

Medicare, we should talk about that. I am trying to find, as I am 

sure you are, these ways in which we can come together, and this 

party, I have been an elected official for all of about 11 weeks now, 

and there is something broken here. Something is wrong, putting 

us all at risk. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Many of us believe that if we could get past some 

of the immediate sense of the only answer to our deficit reduction 

is to either undermine our commitments to our seniors or to our 

children and to only focus on a very, very narrow window of where 

we cut, and then we actually could make some investments, that 

is a different conversation than we are actually having as you 

know. 

So I appreciate the fact that you have some interest in potentially finding common ground that at the moment we are having, 

we are experiencing difficulty in actually being able to do that at 

all. 

Mr. RIGELL. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Yarmuth you are recognized. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Madam Chair, I just want to ask one 

question by way of clarification. 

You talked about a family meeting its obligations and spending 

only what it takes in. But isn’t it a fact that the vast majority of 

families do considerable borrowing? They borrow to buy their 
27 

homes. They borrow to buy their cars, and they borrow to pay for 

their education. 

So the question is not whether you borrow. It is a question of priorities and whether there is a long-term return on that investment. 

Mr. RIGELL. Without question. I personally have borrowed many 

times both for business reasons and, of course, for a home. I think 

the difference is here that the path that we are on—I really don’t 

think it is in dispute. I trust it is not with members of the Budget 

Committee, that the path that we are on, that is far different than 

a family buying a home or something like that. 

Even the President’s own projections have us spending, having a 

deficit of over $1 trillion for the foreseeable future. And it is just, 

it is my strongly held view as a business and still a businessowner 

and entrepreneur and having a master’s degree in business that 

this is placing every American at risk. 

Mr. YARMUTH. I don’t disagree with you at all. I just wanted to 

make sure that we agree on the point that there are circumstances 

in which borrowing is a very useful tool. 

Mr. RIGELL. It can be. Sure. 

Mr. YARMUTH. For government or for a family. 

Thanks very much for your testimony. 

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Guinta has a question, and I am also going to 

turn the chair over to him. 

Mr. GUINTA [presiding]. Thank you, Mrs. Black. 

I just had one question for Mr. Rigell. Thank you for coming and 

spending some time. Do you think it is good public policy to run 

deficits to the extent of $1.6 trillion a year, and if so, if you do feel 

that way, how long could we sustain that kind of deficit before we 

put our financial, our country at greater financial risk? 

Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to respond to that. I wake up concerned about this. When I go to bed 

at night, I am concerned about it. It takes just about every waking 

moment that I walk around with this sense that our country is at 

serious risk. I don’t think we can long stay on this path. And I 

want to just lay out with a scenario. I am inherently a very optimistic person. As an entrepreneur, as a business owner, I am; I go 

to work every day believing we can do better than the day before. 

But I think it might go something like this. I know that lenders, 

they will work with you, work with you, work with you. But at one 

point, they will turn, and it when it turns, it turns very, very 

quickly. It could be a trader, for example, in China who says you 

know let’s just reduce a little bit of exposure here, let’s sell $5 billion of Treasuries, what could frankly be a modest amount, that 

could be picked up by a trader say in Denmark. He says, what happened there, $5 billion? Let’s just take ours down by a half a billion. 

And this idea that the world is entirely rational, that doesn’t 

comport with world history and markets. We have seen it, the 

Internet bubble, for example, and this latest rash of where we had 

housing prices increase so rapidly that it wasn’t really justified by 

an underlying economic model. 

So my point in this is that once people start selling, we could be 

going along in a normal day thinking that everything is all right, 

and it can turn very, very quickly. And I truly believe and I take, 
28 

in fact, it pains me to say this, Mr. Chairman, that my America, 

your America, our America, Independent, Democrat, Republicans, 

we are all at risk, and I think we are much closer to that date than 

many realize. 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you, sir. 

Are there any other questions for this Member? 

Thank you for testifying. 

Mr. RIGELL. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I appreciate it. 

Mr. GUINTA. Our pleasure. 

Next is the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Altmire. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON ALTMIRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2011 

budget resolution. I believe there is an urgent need to address our 

Nation’s budget deficit and secure our long-term fiscal stability. 

This effort is going to require more than just spending cuts and 

budget freezes. It is going to force us to re-evaluate how every Federal dollar is spent. 

I join you and the committee in support of those goals but urge 

caution against making misguided cuts that may jeopardize our national security and global competitiveness. 

And while I recognize the fiscal constraints we face, we must also 

recognize we cannot balance our budget on the backs, in particular, 

of American’s veterans. And as the committee prepares this year’s 

budget resolution, I want to emphasize our duty to fulfill the promises we have made to our Nation’s veterans and urge the committee to fully fund their medical care and disability benefits for 

our Nation’s veterans. 

Since 2007, Congress has provided historic increases in funding 

for veterans’ programs and succeeded in enacting advanced appropriations to ensure the Department of Veterans Affairs’ ability to 

care for veterans is never compromised by politically-charged budget debates. The President requested $61.8 billion for the VA in 

2012, a 10.6 percent increase in funding from 2010. And while this 

is not a small increase, I believe we should respect the recommendations of the independent budget written by the veterans’ 

community themselves, which estimates that more than $65 billion 

is necessary to properly care for our Nation’s aging veteran population and meet the needs of those returning from overseas operations. 

It is vital that we make the necessary investments in suicide prevention, claims backlog reduction, care for female veterans and the 

elimination of the terrible injustice of veterans’ homelessness. 

I urge the committee to prioritize the needs of veterans as you 

draft the fiscal 2012 budget. 

And in light of America’s immigration and national security challenges, I also ask the committee to support the President’s request 

of $43.2 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. This 

level of funding will demonstrate a commitment to ensuring our 

immigration laws are enforced and our borders are secure. It is 

particularly important that we provide adequate funding for the E- 
29 

verify and Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements programs. 

These programs make sure certain jobs are being filled by American citizens. 

The first step to addressing the problem of illegal immigration is 

to secure our border. I ask the committee to adopt the President’s 

request for funding to support 21,370 Border Patrol agents and to 

hire additional 300 Customs and Border Protection officers. As the 

thwarted attacks of cargo planes last year showed, terrorists are 

still determined to inflict harm on our country. Additional officers 

will improve passenger and cargo screening, both here and abroad. 

I am concerned that the President’s budget does not include 

funding for border fence construction. The 2,000-mile board between the U.S. and Mexico is still not properly protected. I disagree 

with this decision to suspend construction of the physical fence and 

believe we need to support funding to complete the fence so we can 

further strengthen our national security and stem the tide of illegal 

immigration. 

Finally, it is imperative that the committee continues the tradition of excellence and innovation in research in the National Institutes of Health by agreeing to the President’s request of the $32 

billion budget for NIH. This level is critical for the NIH to remain 

an international leader in science and biomedical research. In the 

past year alone, the NIH has taken great strides toward development of a universal flu vaccine, and its work in gene research is 

opening up new pathways to individualized treatment for a variety 

of diseases. Through the NIH, America can continue to be the leading source for development of cures and treatments that help millions of individuals live their life to the fullest. 

The NIH is also a key to our continued economic recovery. It generates high quality and high-paying jobs in cutting-edge fields and 

protects America’s competitive advantage in these fields. I believe 

we must continue to make investments in the NIH so the next 

great medical breakthrough is discovered in America and not imported here from abroad. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, again, I thank you 

for the opportunity to testify. I yield back the balance of my time 

and would take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Jason Altmire follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JASON ALTMIRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the fiscal year 2012 budget resolution. 

There is an urgent need to address our nation’s budget deficit and secure our long 

term fiscal stability. This effort is going to require more than just spending cuts and 

budget freezes. It is going to force all of us to reevaluate how every federal dollar 

is spent. I join you in support of those goals, but urge caution against making misguided cuts that may jeopardize our national security or global competitiveness. 

And, while I recognize the fiscal constraints we face, we must also recognize that 

we cannot balance our budget on the backs of America’s heroes. 

As you prepare this year’s budget resolution, I want to emphasize our duty to fulfill the promises made to our nation’s veterans and urge the Committee to fully fund 

their medical care and disability benefits. Since 2007, Congress has provided historic increases in funding for veterans’ programs and succeeded in enacting advanced appropriations to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) ability to care for veterans is never compromised by politically-charged budget debates. 

I believe we can continue this tradition and honor the commitment we made to the 

brave men and women who fought to defend our country. 
30 

The president requested $61.8 billion for the VA in 2012, a 10.6 percent increase 

in funding from 2010. While this is not an insignificant increase, I believe we should 

respect the recommendations of the Independent Budget, written by the veteran’s 

community, which estimates that more than $65 billion is necessary to properly care 

for our nation’s aging veteran population and meet the needs of those returning 

home from overseas operations. It is vital that we make necessary investments in 

suicide prevention, claims backlog reduction, care for female veterans, and the elimination of the terrible injustice of veteran homelessness. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of 

the selfless and heroic veterans residing in western Pennsylvania and across the 

country, I urge the Committee to prioritize the needs of veterans and incorporate 

the recommendations of the Independent Budget as you draft the fiscal year 2012 

budget. 

In light of America’s immigration and national security challenges, I also ask the 

Committee to support the president’s request of $43.2 billion for the Department of 

Homeland Security for Fiscal Year 2012. This level of funding will demonstrate a 

commitment to ensuring our immigration laws are enforced and our borders are secure. 

It is particularly important that we provide adequate funding for the E-Verify and 

Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) programs. These programs 

make certain jobs are being filled by U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. During a 

time when too many Americans are unemployed and searching for work, we must 

ensure that jobs are going to those who are legally eligible to work in this country. 

The first step to addressing the problem of illegal immigration is to secure our 

border, of which a crucial component is maintaining the proper number of Border 

Patrol agents. I ask the Committee to adopt the president’s requests for funding to 

support 21,370 Border Patrol agents and to hire an additional 300 Customs and 

Border Protection Officers. As the thwarted attacks of cargo planes last year 

showed, terrorists are still determined to inflict harm on our country, and these additional officers will improve passenger and cargo screening, both here and abroad. 

I am concerned, however, that the president’s proposed budget does not include 

funding for border fence construction. The 2,000 mile border between the U.S. and 

Mexico is still not properly protected. While the Administration’s cancellation of the 

overly expensive and incomplete SBInet virtual fence program is a good example of 

targeting inefficient government spending, I disagree with the decision to suspend 

construction of the physical border fence while a more effective technological solution is studied. I urge the Committee to support funding to complete the physical 

border fence so we can strengthen our national security and stem the tide of illegal 

immigration. 

Finally, it is imperative that the Committee continues the tradition of excellence 

in innovation and research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by agreeing 

to the president’s request for $32 billion. This level is critical for the NIH to continue its mission and remain an international leader in science and biomedical research. In the past year alone, the NIH has made great strides toward development 

of a universal flu vaccine, and its work in gene research is opening up new pathways to individualized treatment for a variety of diseases. A recent trial for 

immunotherapy for a rare pediatric cancer was so successful that the trial ended 

early. Patients undergoing standard treatment were given the option to use the new 

method because of the highly positive results. 

Through the NIH’s role as the preeminent medical research institution in the 

world, America can continue to be the leading source for the development of cures 

and treatments that help millions of individuals live their life to the fullest despite 

the disease or illness they may suffer from. Every day, NIH researchers bring us 

one step closer to improved methods of early detection and further progress against 

major diseases and conditions. The NIH is also key to our continued economic recovery. It generates high-quality and high-paying jobs in cutting-edge fields, and protects America’s competitive advantage in these fields. We must continue to make investments in the NIH so the next great medical breakthrough is discovered in 

America and not imported from abroad. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to address the Committee and outline my priorities for the fiscal year 2012 

budget. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GUINTA. Questions from the committee? 

Mr. Garrett. 

Mr. GARRETT. Just a brief one. So I agree with you on two points 

and that is, first, the purpose of coming and setting priorities as 

to where we need to spend; that is what we all need to do, families, 
31 

businesses and, most importantly, in government. And secondly on 

the priorities that you picked, I think those are good priority items. 

I guess my only question is, as you come and sit down and made 

that list of priorities and I guess figured out what each one of those 

priority items cost, did you then at the same time say, recognizing 

as we are with the fiscal situation we are in with $1.6 trillion deficits and that is not sustainable and all the rest, I don’t want to use 

the word offsets, but did you do the nonpriority items on the bottom of your list that you can report back to us and say, these are 

the items that I would specifically say that to get us on the trajectory we all want to be, how do you do it? 

Mr. ALTMIRE. I appreciate the question. It is what every Member 

here should be doing. We need to eliminate waste and duplication, 

the things that the committee are discussing. We need to talk 

about across-the-board belt tightening, shared sacrifice in the country, and I look forward to the committee’s budget on that and working with, as the bill moves to the floor, to support the initiatives 

that are going to offset the cost of some of these things. 

But I want to be clear. No one should stand ahead of our Nation’s veterans when it comes time to making funding decisions. 

Mr. GARRETT. And I always say the same thing here and back 

in the district. So we are on the same page as that. 

But those vets, when you talk to them at the VFW Hall or the 

American Legion Hall, they also say, well, we are concerned 

about—and they are, about their kids and their grandkids and the 

debt. 

The waste, fraud and abuse aspect which you allude to is good, 

but when we have panels here and the experts are from all stripes, 

left and right, and they talk about that, and you ask them, well, 

what does that really mean as far as dollars and cents or maybe 

percentages, they will give you numbers, I don’t know, one, two, 

three, sometimes a little higher as far as overall that you could find 

in any program. So, assuming even if it is 5, 5 percent, then we 

can implement a program to save that 5 percent somehow, because 

that is not always done, right? That is not enough. So besides the 

waste, fraud and abuse and across the board, can you help us out 

with—— 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Right. As the gentleman I am sure understands, 

during the debate on the CR and the amendment process, I supported I think more than a dozen of the majority’s recommended 

cuts, in addition to what was recommended in the CR. So I look 

forward to making the difficult decisions and stand ready to work 

with the gentleman and anyone on the committee on specific line 

items and go line by line through the budget. And it has to be 

shared sacrifice. It has to be across the board, again, with the exception of the veterans and some of the programs I laid out. 

Mr. GARRETT. Great. Appreciate that. Thanks much. 

Mr. GUINTA. Any other questions from the committee? 

Seeing none, I thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you. 

Mr. GUINTA. Next is the member from Rhode Island, the gentleman from Rhode Island Mr. Cicilline. 
32 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID N. CICILLINE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Budget Committee. The economic recovery of my district, the State 

of Rhode Island and our whole country demands that we work collaboratively and focus our energy and resources on those initiatives 

that will help spur job growth now while providing our workers, 

our entrepreneurs and our businesses, particularly smaller enterprises and manufacturers, with the tools they need to compete in 

the global economy. 

During this time when Congress must make the tough choices required to lower the deficit and cut spending, we must sustain those 

investments that help us create jobs, innovate for the future and 

remain competitive in the global marketplace. 

While there are so many vital programs to defend throughout 

this budget, I am here today to call your attention to several programs that are critically important to creating jobs and growing 

the economy in the near term for my State and for our country. 

Within the Department of Commerce, the President’s fiscal year 

2012 budget proposes $143 million for the Hollings Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership; $526 million for the International Trade 

Administration; and $325 million for the Economic Development 

Administration, in part to support programs authorized by the 

America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. 

Employment in manufacturing shrank from 20 million jobs in 

1979 to fewer than 12 million jobs today. In Rhode Island, we have 

experienced the loss of more than 30,000 manufacturing jobs in the 

last decade alone. Despite these sobering statistics, the American 

manufacturing sector is really in the midst of a resurgence. Yet if 

this vital economic engine is to be sustained, Congress must continue its investments in programs that help manufacturers compete in the global economy, retool to be more efficient and effective 

businesses, and retrain their workforce so that skill sets utilized in 

declining segments can be transferred to those that are expanding. 

Through the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 

small- and medium-sized manufacturing firms are given the tools 

and expertise to improve productivity and competitiveness. 

For every dollar of Federal investment, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership delivers $32 in economic growth. It is a vital 

program that helps strengthen our economy and enhances our competitiveness and generates robust job growth. 

Beyond helping American manufacturers retool and increase efficiency, if our Nation is going to compete in the global economy, we 

must guarantee that manufacturers are not disadvantaged by an 

uneven playing field in foreign trade, and we must ensure they 

have expert assistance services they need to access foreign markets. 

If businesses, particularly manufacturers, are going to be able to 

compete in the global economy, they must have increased access to 

the global market. The International Trade Administration within 

the Department of Commerce provides America’s businesses with 

access to trade specialists in industry and market access experts 

through their expert assistance centers. 
33 

The ITA plays a critical role in monitoring the compliance of foreign countries to trade agreements with the United States, while 

also working to identify potential obstacles American businesses 

make confront in accessing foreign markets. Research in the Department of Commerce indicates that for every additional $100,000 

in annual export sales, one new job is created. For Rhode Island 

alone, that meant 54 million jobs created or retained in our economy in 2009. 

In addition, I applaud the administration’s efforts to thrust innovation to the forefront of our Nation’s economic agenda. Initiatives, 

such as the Regional Innovation Program, will help assemble the 

many stakeholders in economic development, all levels of government, private firms, regional interests, colleges and universities 

and beyond, to drive regional innovation, collaboration and job 

growth. 

Just as we must encourage innovative thinking among stakeholders in our economy, we must also promote innovation in government programs that support small businesses and entrepreneurs. The Small Business Administration’s $3 billion in authorized leverage annually through the SBIC program. However, 

each year, the SBA has between $1 billion to $2 billion in additional leverage authority that remains untapped. Through these 

two new initiatives, the Early Stage Innovation Funds and the Impact Investment Fund, the SBA will leverage existing untapped authority, propelling much-needed capital in the hands of startups 

and entrepreneurs. Both of these programs at no additional costs 

to taxpayers provide entrepreneurs with the tools and resources to 

support innovation and grow concepts into commercialized products 

thereby creating jobs and driving economic growth. 

Through the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership and 

the ITA as well as programs conducted through the EDA, Economic 

Development Administration, and the SBA, Federal funds are effectively leveraging resources from State and local governments as 

well as the private sector. 

I thank the committee for the time today and for the opportunity 

to provide testimony on this issue and for your thoughtful deliberation. And I ask that you fund these job-creating programs. I respectfully urge this committee to fully fund these critically important economic initiatives at the levels requested in the President’s 

fiscal year 2012 budget. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of David N. Cicilline follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID N. CICILLINE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Thank you Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and members of the 

Budget Committee. The economic recovery of my District, the State of Rhode Island, 

and the nation as a whole demands that we work collaboratively and focus our energy and resources on those initiatives that will help spur job growth now, while 

providing our workers, our entrepreneurs, and our businesses—particularly smaller 

enterprises and manufacturers—with the tools they need to compete in the global 

economy. 

During this time when Congress must make the tough choices required to lower 

the deficit and cut spending, we must sustain those investments that help us create 

jobs, innovate for the future, and remain competitive in the global marketplace. 
34 

While there are so many vital programs to defend throughout this budget, I am 

here today to call attention to several programs that are critically important to creating jobs and growing the economy in the near term for my state and our nation. 

Within the Department of Commerce, the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget 

proposes $143 million for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, $526 

million for the International Trade Administration, and $325 million for the Economic Development Administration, in part, to support programs authorized by the 

America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. 

Employment in manufacturing shrank from 20 million jobs in 1979 to fewer than 

12 million jobs today. In Rhode Island, we experienced the loss of more than 30,000 

manufacturing jobs in the last decade alone. Despite these sobering statistics, the 

American manufacturing sector is in the midst of resurgence. Yet, if this vital economic engine is to be sustained, Congress must continue its investments in programs that help manufacturers compete in a global economy, retool to be more efficient and effective businesses, and retrain their workforce so that skill-sets utilized 

in declining segments can be transferred to those that are expanding. Through the 

Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, small and medium sized manufacturing firms are given the tools and expertise to improve productivity and competitiveness. For every $1 of federal investment, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership delivers $32 in economic growth—it is a vital program that helps strengthen 

our economy, enhances our competitiveness and generates robust job growth. 

Beyond helping American manufacturers retool and increase efficiency, if our nation is going to compete in the global economy we must guarantee that manufacturers are not disadvantaged by an uneven playing field in foreign trade, and we must 

ensure they have the export assistance services they need in order to access foreign 

markets. If businesses, particularly manufacturers, are going to be able to compete 

in the global economy they must have increased access to the global market. The 

International Trade Administration (ITA) within the Department of Commerce provides America’s businesses with access to trade specialists and industry and market 

access experts through their Export Assistance Centers. Moreover, the ITA plays a 

critical role in monitoring the compliance of foreign countries to trade agreements 

with the United States, while also working to identify potential obstacles American 

businesses may confront in accessing foreign markets. Research from the Department of Commerce indicates that for every additional $100,000 in annual export 

sales, one new job is created. For Rhode Island alone, that meant 5,400 jobs created 

or retained in our economy in 2009. 

Additionally, I applaud the Administration’s efforts to thrust innovation to the 

forefront of our nation’s economic agenda. Initiatives such as the Regional Innovation Program will help assemble the many stakeholders in economic development— 

all levels of government, private firms, regional interests, colleges and universities, 

and beyond—to drive regional innovation, collaboration, and job growth. Furthermore, just as we must encourage innovative thinking among stakeholders in our 

economy, we must also promote innovation in the government programs that support small businesses and entrepreneurs. The Small Business Administration has 

$3 billion in authorized leverage annually through the Small Business Investment 

Company program. However, each year the SBA has between $1 billion to $2 billion 

in additional leverage authority that remains untapped. Through two new initiatives, the Early Stage Innovation Fund and Impact Investment Fund, the SBA will 

leverage existing, untapped authority—propelling much needed capital into the 

hands of start-ups and entrepreneurs. Both of these programs—at no additional cost 

to taxpayers—provide entrepreneurs with the tools and resources to support innovation and grow concepts into commercialized products, thereby creating jobs and driving economic growth. 

Through the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the ITA, as well 

as programs conducted through the Economic Development Administration and the 

Small Business Administration, federal funds are effectively leveraging resources 

from state and local governments as well as the private sector. 

I thank the Committee for their time today and their thoughtful deliberation to 

fund these job-creating programs. I respectfully urge this Committee to fully fund 

these critically important economic initiatives at the levels requested in the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget. 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you. 

Questions from any member of the committee? 

Seeing none, I just want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for testifying. We share a common bond in that we both represent New England and look forward to working with you through 
35 

this challenging process but one that I feel optimistic in our opportunities for success. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I look forward to working with you as well. 

Mr. GUINTA. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Fleischmann. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Budget Committee. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the 

2012 budget. I appreciate the hard work ahead of you and wish you 

the best during this challenging process. 

I will keep my comments short, because I am not here to ask for 

additional funding in certain areas or spending that might help 

with a pet project or a campaign promise. Rather, as a recently 

elected Member of Congress, I want to stress the problems of our 

massive debt and uncontrollable spending and encourage you all to 

set us on a path of fiscal sustainability and stress my desire to help 

with this process. 

As you know well, the current fiscal outlook is bleak, and it has 

gotten dramatically worse over the last few years. A few key facts: 

Our current national debt is $14 trillion, which amounts to $45,000 

for every U.S. citizen. The total national debt held by the public is 

$9.5 trillion and has increased 43 percent in just the last 2 years. 

Our public debt is on a path of being 100 percent of our gross 

domestic product in just a few years, and 47 percent of that debt 

is owned by foreign sources. Currently, the Federal Government is 

borrowing more than 42 cents for every dollar it spends. 

Mr. Chairman, the cause of this problem is not a lack of revenue; 

it is increased spending. 

Since 1970, the Federal Government has grown eight times faster than the median household income. Since World War II, tax revenues have averaged about 18 percent of the economy, and these 

revenues are predicted to remain about at that level for the foreseeable future. During this time, spending has averaged around 20 

percent of the economy. However, recently spending has gone well 

above this 20 percent average and is now predicted to explode to 

nearly 80 percent of the economy in future years, a massive and 

unsustainable increase. The effect of this massive debt is more 

than simply depressing numbers; there are real-world consequences. 

In the short term, the debt drives out private investment, worries financial markets and slows economic growth. In the long 

term, it pushes us to financial instability and threatens our global 

leadership financially, politically and militarily. It even threatens 

our national sovereignty as foreign governments buy our debt and 

puts at risk important programs, such Medicare and Social Security. 

Every day we wait to address this problem, it gets harder to 

solve. Of course, other parts of big government, like excessive regulations, also contribute to a stagnant economy and a high unemployment rate. But the debt is certainly a key contributor. 
36 

The American people and certainly the people of the Third District of Tennessee understand this problem. They may not know 

every fact and figure, but they know the Federal Government has 

gotten too large and the current fiscal path is simply 

unsustainable. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a very real sense that we might be the 

first generation of Americans to pass along an America in worse 

shape than the one we inherited. And the massive debt is the main 

reason. 

However, there is some good news. There is, as always in America, reason for hope. Simply put, the public is ready for action. I 

hear it in every town hall meeting and in almost every constituent 

discussion: Please make the tough decisions now so we can pass 

along a better America to future generations. 

With the American people ready for meaningful action, it seems 

like we, as Members of Congress, should seize this opportunity and 

begin the long, hard process of putting our fiscal house in order. 

I sincerely think that H.R. 1 was a good start in addressing this 

problem. Congress showed that we are ready to have a robust and 

honest debate about spending priorities, and in the end, we are 

willing to make tough choices. But this critical legislation was just 

one small step in the right direction. We obviously have a long way 

to go. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I wanted to use my time today to stress 

the need to address the debt in a real and meaningful way. I do 

not pretend to have all the answers. But I want to be part of the 

solution. I look forward to working with you and Members from 

both sides of the aisle in the coming months to make the hard 

choices and put us on a financially sustainable path. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chuck Fleischmann follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen and members of the Budget Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the 2012 budget. I appreciate the hard work ahead of you and wish you the best during this challenging 

process. 

I will keep my comments short because I am not here to ask for additional funding in certain areas or spending that might help with a pet project or a campaign 

promise. Rather, as a recently elected Member of Congress, I want to stress the 

problems of our massive debt and uncontrollable spending, encourage you to set us 

on a path to fiscal sustainability, and stress my desire to help with this process. 

As you know well, the current fiscal outlook is bleak, and it has gotten dramatically worse over the last few years. A few key facts: 

• Our current national debt is $14 trillion which amounts to $45,000 per every 

U.S. citizen. 

• The total national debt held by the public is $9.5 trillion, and it has increased 

43% in just the last 2 years. 

• Our public debt is on a path to being 100% of our GDP in just a few years, 

and 47% of that debt is owned by foreign sources. 

• Currently, the federal government is borrowing more than 42 cents for every 

dollar it spends. 

And the cause of this problem is increased spending, not a lack of revenue: 

• Since 1970, federal government spending has grown 8 times faster than median 

household income. 

• Since World War II tax revenues have averaged about 18 % of the economy, and 

these revenues are predicted to remain at about that level for the foreseeable future. 

During this time spending has averaged around 20% of the economy. However, recently spending has gone well above this 20% average, and it is now predicted to 
37 

explode to nearly 80% of the economy in future years—a massive and unsustainable 

increase. 

The effect of this massive debt is more than simply depressing numbers. There 

are real world consequences. In the short term, the debt drives out private investment, worries financial markets and slows economic growth. In the long term, it 

pushes us to financial instability and threatens our global leadership financially, politically and militarily. It even threatens our national sovereignty as foreign governments buy our debt and puts at risk important programs like Medicare and Social 

Security. Every day we wait to address the problem, it only gets harder to solve. 

Of course, other parts of big government, like excessive regulations, also contribute to a stagnant economy and our high unemployment rate, but the debt is certainly a key contributor. 

The American people, certainly the people of the 3rd district of Tennessee, understand the problem. They may not know every fact and every figure, but they know 

the federal government has gotten too large and the current fiscal path is simply 

unsustainable. Mr. Chairman, there is a very real sense that we might be the first 

generation of Americans to pass along an America in worse shape than the one we 

inherited, and the massive debt is the main reason. 

However, there is good news. There is, as always in America, reason for hope. 

Simply put, the public is ready for action. I hear it in every town hall meeting and 

in almost every constituent discussion—‘‘please make the tough decisions now so 

that we can pass along a better America to future generations.’’ With the American 

people ready for meaningful action, it seems like we, as Members of Congress, 

should seize this opportunity and begin the long, hard process of putting our fiscal 

house in order. 

I sincerely think that H.R. 1 was a good start in addressing this problem. Congress showed that we are ready to have a robust and honest debate about spending 

priorities; and, in the end, we are willing to make the tough choices. But this critical 

legislation was just one small step in the right direction. We obviously have a long 

way to go. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I wanted to use my time today to stress the need to address 

the debt in a real and meaningful way. I do not pretend to have all the answers, 

but I want to be part of the solution. I look forward to working with you and members from both sides of the aisle in the coming months to make the hard choices 

and put us on a financially sustainable course. Thank you. 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you for your testimony. 

And without objection, we will move on to our next member, the 

gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARRETT. Ms. Chu was first. 

Mr. GUINTA. Without objection, thank you very much. 

The gentlelady from California. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony as chair of 

the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. I have submitted a longer and more detailed testimony for the record. 

Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders are a 

diverse community with diverse needs. Unfortunately, the population is often aggregated together during data collection, which 

leads to false impressions about our community. 

I would like to share with you the top five issues that are facing 

the Asian Pacific American community and how Congress can play 

a role in helping our community. 

Unemployment is a significant issue for our community. Certain 

sub groups are dealing with far higher levels of unemployment 

than the 9.5 national rate. For example, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders face a 13.2 percent unemployment rate. Samoans are 

dealing with a 17 percent unemployment. That is why we must 
38 

fully fund the President’s budget request for the Employment and 

Training Administration. 

Educational attainment is also a problem for several populations 

within the Asian Pacific American community. In 2006, a staggering 40 percent of Hmong, 38 percent of Laotians and 35 percent 

of Cambodian populations did not complete high school. This creates a strong need within the Asian Pacific American population 

for education programs to target our community early in school and 

to ensure Asian Pacific American students graduate and go on to 

some form of post secondary education. 

To that end, it is critically important for your budget to include 

the President’s full request for both the Early Learning Challenge 

Fund and TRIO programs, which help 4,700 Asian Pacific American population participants pursue and complete postsecondary 

education. 

On housing, Asian Pacific Americans who defaulted on their 

mortgage loans are more likely to enter foreclosure than ever seek 

a loan modification. In fact, the Asian Pacific American population 

has suffered the largest percentage decline in home ownership of 

any racial group. In order to assist these homeowners, we must 

fully fund the President’s budget request for the Housing Counseling Assistance Program. 

On immigration, the Federal year 2012 budget recommended an 

increase of $1.75 million over last year for immigrant integration 

and citizenship. I strongly support these requests because these 

funds are critical to the success of the United States and greatly 

benefit the Asian Pacific Islander community, two-thirds of whom 

are immigrants and refugees. Immigrants who integrate into U.S. 

society go on to become informed voters but, most importantly, entrepreneurs and future job creators. 

However, funding for programs that support a humane immigration system is dwarfed by the size of budget for border and interior 

immigration enforcement. We must ensure that our immigration 

budget is balanced and that it supports both programs that benefit 

immigrants and also enforces our immigration laws. 

And lastly is the issue of civil rights. Protecting our civil rights 

is essential. The Asian Pacific American community continues to 

face a myriad of problems in this arena. Hate crimes are on the 

rise. Voting rights are under attack, and employment discrimination is rampant. By having the proper resources, the Civil Rights 

Division would be able to ensure that hate crime offenses are aggressively investigated and prosecuted and that voters are not discriminated at the polls and that employment discrimination is 

eradicated from the workplace. I ask you to fully support the President’s budget request for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. 

In conclusion, I strongly urge you to support these programs. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Judy Chu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU, CHAIR, CONGRESSIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC

AMERICAN CAUCUS (CAPAC) 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony as Chair of the Congressional 

Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC). I am honored to have the opportunity to 
39 

share with you the issues that are facing our community and how Congress can play 

a role in helping our community. 

Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AANHPIs) are a diverse community with diverse needs. Unfortunately, this population is often aggregated together during data collection which leads to false impressions about our 

community. Asian Americans, in general, are thought to be the ‘‘model minority’’ 

when in fact our community has tremendous unmet needs that threaten the prosperity of the AANHPI community and the prosperity of our country. 

My testimony will focus on sharing data that might surprise you about our community. It will demonstrate what programs in the budget are the most crucial to 

AANHPI needs, and hopefully, can be incorporated in the roadmap this committee 

sets for our future. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Unemployment 

Unemployment is a critical issue for a significant portion of our community. Aggregate data for 2009 shows that the unemployment rate for the Asian American 

civilian labor force (7.9%) is lower than that of the overall population (9.9%). However, disaggregated data shows that the unemployment rate is higher for certain 

subgroups such as Southeast Asians, including Cambodians (11.4%), Hmong 

(12.4%), and Laotians (13.1%). The data also indicates that the unemployment rate 

for the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) civilian labor force (13.2%) is 

much higher than that of the overall population and is particularly acute among 

Samoans (17%). Finally, the data confirms that no AANHPI group has been left untouched by the recent economic downturn, with every subgroup experiencing increased unemployment between 2008 and 2009. Recent newsi has shown that while 

aggregate unemployment data shows low unemployment rates for Asian Americans, 

the period of unemployment lasts longer in our community. 

The pervasive and deep unemployment within our community means we need job 

creation solutions for not just the unemployed, but for the long-term unemployed. 

High-quality job training and education services to meet the needs of workers and 

employers are essential to putting Americans and our community back to work. The 

Department of Labor spearheads Workforce Investment Act programs that provided 

job training and reemployment services to over 8 million Americans last year, including disadvantaged youth and workers who have lost their jobs as a result of 

plant closings or mass layoffs. Over 4 million workers gained the employment-related assistance and training they needed last year through these programs to reenter the workforce. While funding has remained steady for Workforce Investment Act 

programs over the past few years, participation rates have jumped 234% in the past 

two years alone with workers struggling to regain their footing during the recession. 

The President’s overall budget request of $9,948,356 for the Employment and Training Administration maintains this commitment to workforce programs critical to our 

community so that as the economy recovers and job growth returns, workers will 

have the education and skillsets they need to reenter the labor market. 
40 

Business Development 

Supporting minority businesses is key to economic recovery and long-term growth. 

Minority firms currently provide nearly 5 million people with steady jobs, but have 

the potential to create 16.1 million jobs, leading to stronger communities and bolstering America’s economy. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2050, the minority community will represent 54% of the total U.S. population indicating that 

over the next 40 years the growth of America’s workforce will primarily come from 

minorities. Minority-owned firms have the potential to contribute significantly to 

our long-term economic progress and stability. 

Asian-owned firms account for over 1.5 million of all minority firms and employ 

nearly 52 percent of all employees in these firms.ii The economic impact of Asian 

firms to the economy is significant, but the potential for greater economic growth 

and contribution to our economy is vast. In order to tap into the potential growth, 

we must invest in business development programs targeted at minority firms such 

as the Minority Business Development Agency. 

In FY 2010 MBDA’s return on investment was 123x and they created 6,218 jobs. 

Their performance speaks for itself and we must keep programs such as these funded as our economy recovers. That is why the President’s request for $32.322 million 

for the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) is important to promoting 

AAPI business growth and the growth of all minority businesses. 

Another focus for business development is developing exports for minority firms. 

Increasing exports of our products and services to global markets can help revive 

the fortunes of U.S. companies, spur future economic growth and support jobs here 

at home. Minority firms in the United States are primed for exporting and are twice 

as likely to generate sales from exporting as non-minority-owned firms. Some of the 

reasons are due in large part to language capabilities, cultural compatibility and 

business agility. AANHPI firms are especially capable of export to one of the largest 

markets in the world: Asia. However, the Trade and Competitiveness Coalition has 

reported that small businesses, compared with large firms, are especially dependent 

on U.S. government initiatives to open foreign markets. Unlike big companies, most 

small businesses do not possess offshore business affiliates or contacts that can be 

used to circumvent trade barriers and gain market access. It is vital to that the 

House Budget support the President’s request for expanding exports for small businesses, especially at the Small Business Administration and the Department of 

Commerce. 

EDUCATION

Early Education Programs 

For children in poverty, achievement gaps begin well before kindergarten. Study 

after study has shown that investing in quality early learning programs can yield 

a huge return-on-investment by reducing the costs of special education, high school 

dropouts, teen pregnancy, crime, incarceration, and dependence on social services 

later in life and increasing the likelihood of college attendance and completion. As 

nearly thirteen percent of Asian Americans live below poverty,iii and certain subgroups such as the Hmong and the Vietnamese have poverty rates of 29.9% and 

15.5% respectively,iv this issue is critical. 

Thus, we urge you to include in your budget the President’s request for $350 million for the Early Learning Challenge Fund to expand access to high-quality early 

childhood education. 

TRIO 

Educational attainment is also a problem for certain populations in our community. In 2006 a staggering 40 percent of Hmong, 38% of Laotian and 35% of Cambodian populations did not complete high school.v TRIO programs provide hundreds 

of thousands of students with the necessary support to enroll in and graduate from 

college and, ultimately, help narrow the gap between low-income, first-generation 

students and their peers. The President’s request of $920.1 million for TRIO programs is essential to helping the estimated 4,700 AANHPI participants pursue and 

complete postsecondary education. 

AANAPISI 

Although Asian Americans are sometimes portrayed as universally excelling in 

school, disaggregated data shows a significant portion of the community falls well 

below national averages. These students are from low income backgrounds, are the 

first in their families to attend college, and struggle to secure the financial resources 

to support themselves while in school.vi Based on analysis of the National Postsec-
41 

ondary Student Aid Survey (2008), AANHPIs also have greater financial need than 

other racial groups taking into account expected family contribution and total aid 

The authorized Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI) program was created to better support low-income AANHPI 

students with a variety of targeted services, helping them overcome barriers to a 

college degree and putting them on the path to success. It is important to our community that the committee provides $4.575 million to the AANAPISI program to 

serve AANHPI students. 

CIVIL RIGHTS

Civil Rights Enforcement 

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is more important 

than ever due to: 

Hate Crimes. The AANHPI community continues to face a myriad of problems in 

this arena: hate crimes are on the rise, voting rights are under attack, and employment discrimination is rampant. According to the FBI, the total number of hate incidents reported by law enforcement agencies was 7,783 in 2008—up from 7,624 in 

2007.vii More than half of the attacks were racially-motivated, with anti-Asian bias 

accounting for 3.4 percent of the incidents and anti-Muslim bias 7.5 percent.viii

These numbers are likely to go up because of the growing anti-Muslim sentiment 

in our country. By having the proper resources, the Civil Rights division of the U.S. 

Department of Justice would be able to ensure that hate crime offenses are aggressively investigated and prosecuted. 

Voting Rights. AANHPIs continue to face discrimination at the polls and numerous barriers that successfully disenfranchise certain communities.ix With more resources, the Civil Rights division can expand efforts to guarantee citizens’ voting 

rights by addressing voting rights violations. 

Employment Discrimination. A record number of Muslim workers in the United 

States have experienced alleged employment discrimination, including claims that 

co-workers called them ‘‘terrorist’’ or ‘‘Osama’’ and employers barring them from 

wearing head scarves or taking prayer breaks.x Muslims make up less than 2 percent of the United States population, but they made up about one-fourth of the 

3,386 religious discrimination claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission in 2009. This is a problem for the Asian American community as many 

of these practicing Muslims are Asian Americans. If we ensure that the Civil Rights 

division has enough funds, they will have what they need to increase efforts to 

eradicate this type of discrimination. For these reasons, we support the President’s request of $161.8 million for the Civil Rights division, which is a $16.3 million boost from FY 2010. 

Community Relations 

Not only must we protect our civil rights, but we must foster an environment 

where all citizens feel respected and accepted by their community. The Community 

Relations Service (CRS) in the Department of Justice can help promote these types 

of attitudes. CRS serves as the Department’s ‘‘peacemaker’’ for community conflicts 

and tensions arising from real or perceived discriminatory practices based on race, 

color, or national origin and helps communities prevent and respond to alleged violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color national 

origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or disability.xi To carry 

out its goal, CRS implemented several strategies and programs including an AntiRacial Profiling Program and Sikh (AMS) Cultural Awareness program.xii We support the President’s request of $11.5 million for this program, which is a $1.5 million increase from FY 2010. 

HOUSING

Housing Counseling Assistance Programs and Foreclosure Relief Programs 

Housing counseling programs that are able to work with the community in a linguistically and culturally appropriate manner have been integral to ensuring the 

community development needs of AANHPI communities. In fact, AANHPIs make up 

a substantial portion of the population in 6 of the 10 US cities with the highest foreclosure rates. 

AANHPIs have suffered the largest percentage decline in homeownership of any 

racial group.xiii A new study by the Asian Real Estate Association and the UCLA 

Asian American Studies Centers saw AANHPIs experience a significant loss of equity following the national foreclosure crisis.xiv Asian Americans average loss during 

2007-2009 was ¥$42,900 and for Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (NHPI) 

was ¥$47,000. The national equity loss during that same period was ¥$9,100. 
42 

Financial and foreclosure assistance is also much needed in AANHPI communities. It has been observed by advocates working in the community that of the 

AANHPIs who defaulted on their mortgages loans, they are more likely to enter into 

foreclosure, rather than seeking alternative means of staying in their homes like 

loan modifications or other alternatives. 

In order to assist these homeowners, we must also consider how to best reach and 

serve these communities. The AANHPI community is comprised of two-thirds immigrants and refugees, represents 50 ethnic groups, and 100 language groups. Additionally, there are nearly a million Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders. With 

these diverse needs, it is critical that there is support for housing counseling organizations supported by the Housing Counseling Assistance Programs that provide linguistically and culturally appropriate services to these constituencies. The President’s FY12 budget requests $88 million for the Housing Counseling Assistance program and should be funded at this level. 

Affordable Housing Programs: Senior Housing Programs (Section 202) and Section 

8 Vouchers 

AANHPIs are often concentrated in dense, overcrowded neighborhoods and frequently live in areas where housing and rental markets are expensive. In order to 

create housing opportunities for those most in need in the community, we need to 

preserve funding for affordable rental developments, senior housing, and rebuilding 

aging public housing. 

Some parts of the AANHPI community are living at 38% poverty rates and have 

average households larger than the average for the total population. With an inability to own a home due to financial hardship and/or limited access to credit, many 

are renters who live in overcrowded conditions in order to afford rent. At the national level and for seven metropolitan areas, Asian homeowners live in overcrowded 

conditions at a greater proportion than the total population. The largest difference 

in overcrowded homes occurs in the Minneapolis metropolitan area, where Asian 

households are 25% more crowded than the total households in the area.xv The severity of these conditions is also felt within ethnic subgroups as well particularly 

in areas where rental prices are usually high. For example, one-fourth of South 

Asian American rental households are overcrowded by federal and municipal standards of no more than one person per room compared to 8.2% of New York City’s 

general population.xvi

The AANHPI population age 65 and older increased 52% between 2000 and 2007, 

while the overall increase nationwide was 6% over the same time period. This dramatic increase represents a major demographic shift in the community. Nationwide, 

1 in 8 AANHPI seniors are living below the federal poverty threshold compared with 

1 in 10 of all seniors. The number of seniors living in poverty increased by 52% from 

95,244 in the Census 2000 to 144, 537 in the 2005-2007 American Community Survey.xvii

We should support the increased support for the President’s FY2012 budget for 

$9,429 million for Section 8 Vouchers. Section 202, however, the President requested 

$757 billion represents a decrease from FY2010 enacted figures of $825 million. To 

provide for the rising elderly population, we should fully restore this figure to the 

FY 2010 levels. 

Native Hawaiian Block Grants 

The Native Hawaiian Block Grants have been critical for new construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, infrastructure, and various support services for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders. 

There are nearly 1 million Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. One out of five 

in this population lives in poverty. They are a population highest risk of foreclosure 

and renters continue to experience adverse treatment at levels of Hispanic and African American renters. 

The President’s FY 12 budget funds the Native Hawaiian Block Grant at $10 million, which is a $3 million drop from FY 2010 enacted levels. 
43 

HEALTHCARE

Access to Healthcare 

Access to healthcare remains a key issue for many in our AANHPI community. 

Aggregate data for 2009 show that the rate of uninsured people among the Asian 

American population (14.1%) is lower than that of the overall population (15.1%). 

However, disaggregated data show that the rate of uninsured people is much higher 

for certain groups. In particular, South Asians, such as Bangladeshis (22.5%) and 

Pakistanis (22.9%), and Southeast Asians, such as Cambodians (21.3%), Hmongs 

(15.9%), Laotians (18.5%), Thais (19.9%), and Vietnamese (18.7), are impacted by a 

lack of health insurance coverage.xviii

The Affordable Care Act will provide these individuals and their families with improved access to affordable health care and essential health care services. Under the 

new law, Medicaid coverage will be expanded to cover children and adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Almost 1.3 million AANHPIs 

will be newly eligible for Medicaid. This Medicaid expansion will provide coverage 

to many AANHPI individuals and families who would otherwise go without quality, 

affordable health coverage.xix,xx

In addition, the new law will expand coverage through the creation of state health 

exchanges for individuals who do not qualify for Medicaid or who cannot get affordable coverage from their employer. These exchanges will allow individuals to shop 

for insurance and easily compare prices and benefits. To ensure that health insurance is affordable, the law will provide refundable tax credits to offset a portion of 

the cost of health insurance premiums. It is estimated that close to 1.5 million 

AANHPI will be eligible for premium tax credits to purchase coverage. 

These coverage expansions should have a significant impact on AANHPIs with 

low or moderate incomes. It is critical that the FY 2012 Budget fully funds the Affordable Care Act to ensure that we are on track to providing health coverage to 

the neediest members of the AANHPI community. 

Healthcare Disparities 

For far too long, the health challenges of AANHPIs have gone unnoticed and the 

deadly effects of this lack of knowledge and awareness have been deeply felt by the 

community. Among one Pacific Islander-American group, 20 percent of births are 

pre-term. Deaths from breast cancer are four times higher among some Asian-born 

women compared to their U.S.-born counterparts. Rates of vaccine-preventable liver 
44 

and cervical cancer among the Hmong community in California are 3 to 4 times 

higher than those of other Asian American groups. 

One important way to address these disparities is to fund community health centers. These centers play a critical role in expanding access by serving as a trusted 

safety net for AANHPI communities because they provide culturally and linguistically competent services that address some of the key barriers that confront our 

community. The expansion of community health centers is one of the cornerstones 

to helping the AANHPI community. It is important to maintain the funding for community health centers and provide $2.19 billion in FY 2012 Budget. 

Hepatitis B 

Among the most serious conditions affecting the AANHPI community is hepatitis 

B, an infection of the liver and the leading cause of liver cancer. About 1.3-1.5 million people in the U.S. are chronically infected with hepatitis B, with approximately 

5,000-6,000 people dying each year from hepatitis B related liver disease or liver 

cancer. Over half of the chronic hepatitis B cases and resulting deaths are represented by AANHPIs. What is tragic about these deaths is that they are completely 

preventable with a vaccine that has been available for 20 years. 

The President recommended a $101 million boost to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We support this increased level in funding in order for the Centers for Disease Control to increase awareness, testing, and vaccination for Hepatitis 

B. 

IMMIGRATION

Immigrant Integration and Citizenship 

In the last decade, the government has become increasingly aware of the value 

of speeding the integration of immigrants into our society. During the Presidency 

of George W. Bush, the Office of Citizenship was established. In its early days, that 

office concentrated on, among other things, improving access to citizenship education and instructional materials. 

The Office of Citizenship plays a key role in immigrant integration by, among 

other things, leading initiatives to promote citizenship awareness; supporting national and community-based organizations that prepare immigrants for citizenship 

by providing grants, educational materials, and technical assistance; and building 

collaborative partnerships with state and local governmental and non-governmental 

organizations to expand integration and citizenship resources in communities. 

The President recommended $19,749,000 for Immigrant Integration and Citizenship for FY2012, an increase of $1.75 million over the FY2011 request. This funding 

will support immigrant integration efforts, including funding for new programs supporting English language acquisition and citizenship education. 

We strongly support this request because these funds will greatly benefit the 

AANHPI community and are critical to the success of the United States. Immigrants who integrate into U.S. society go on to become informed voters, active community members, innovators, entrepreneurs and future job-creators. Whether they 

come on family or employment visas, through the asylum or refugee program, or 

through other much smaller legal immigration programs, legal permanent residents 

come to this country with the dream of becoming U.S. citizens and giving back to 

their adopted home. 

The Office of Citizenship has already helped thousands more people prepare to 

become citizens through Congress’s support and it has helped to reinforce the network of excellent state service providers around the country. Strong support for integration programs boost human potential and make us a stronger nation. 

Immigration Enforcement Efforts 

However, funding for programs that support a humane immigration system is 

dwarfed by the size of the budget for border and interior immigration enforcement. 

Compared to a meager $1.75 million increase for integration services, the FY2012 

Budget spends an additional $64 million on the controversial Secure Communities 

Program, increases detention services by $158 million and institutes an all-time 

high of over 21,000 Border Patrol agents. The FY2012 Budget is too strongly focused 

on border enforcement. 

Instead, we must ensure our immigration budget is balanced, that it supports 

both programs that benefit immigrants, the foundation of the American nation since 

it was established, and also enforces our immigration laws. Immigration enforcement alone will not fix the broken U.S. immigration system. We urge you to 

robustly support immigration services and create a more equitable immigration 

budget that does not rely on enforcement-only immigration policy. 
45 

TERRITORIES

The Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) carries out the Secretary’s responsibilities for 

U.S.-affiliated insular areas. These include the territories of Guam, American 

Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (CNMI), as well as the three Freely Associated States (FAS): the 

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), 

and the Republic of Palau.xxi OIA is the primary federal program aimed at combating the economic and fiscal problems in the insular areas. 

Unfortunately, the President’s request included a $1.1 million reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels. It is understandable in these tough economic times everyone 

must make sacrifices, but reductions in the OIA funding will translate to cuts to 

vital projects which foster development of the insular areas in accountability, financial management, tax systems and procedures, insular management controls, economic development, training/education, energy, public safety, health, immigration, 

labor, and law enforcement. We are requesting the committee to restore the $1.1 

million cut in funding to the Office of Insular Affairs. 

ENDNOTES

iSemuels, Alana. ‘‘Unemployment lasts longer for Asian Americans,’’ LA Times. 7 September 

2010. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-asian-jobless-20100907,0,1053141.story ii ‘‘Fact Sheet: Minority-Owned Business Growth & Global Reach,’’ MBDA. Department of 

Commerce. March 2011. http://www.mbda.gov/sites/default/files/MinorityOwnedBusinessGrowthandGlobalReach—0.pdf iii ‘‘Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders—Facts, not Fiction,’’ The Steinhardt Institute for 

Higher Education Policy, NYU. 2008. iv ‘‘American Community Survey,’’ US Census Bureau. 2009. v ‘‘American Community Survey,’’ US Census Bureau. 2006. 

vi ‘‘Federal Higher Education Policy Priorities and the Asian American and Pacific Islander 

Community,’’ The Asian and Pacific Islander American Scholarship Fund. 2010. vii US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008 Hate Crime Statistics. viii Ibid. ixMeeting the Challenge: National Platform for Advancing Justice. Policy Priorities & Recommendations for Achieving Equity, Equality, and Justice in Asian American & Pacific Islander 

Communities.’’ http://www.advancingequality.org/attachments/files/391/Platform—for—Action.pdf xGreenhouse, Steven. ‘‘Muslims report rising discrimination at work,’’ The New York Times. 

23 September 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/business/24muslim.html?— 

r=3&pagewanted=1&ref=business xi U.S. Department of Justice, Budget and Performance Summary. Fiscal Year 2012. xii Ibid. xiii Veiga, Alex. ‘‘Homeownership fell in ’08; Asians hit worst’’ Associated Press. 21 September 

2009. xiv Asian Real Estate Association of America. ‘‘AAPIs Experience Significant Loss of Home Equity,’’ AsianWeek. 26 January 2011. http://www.asianweek.com/2011/01/26/aapis-experiencesignificant-loss-of-home-equity/ xv ‘‘A New Path to Homeownership for Asian American Home Buyers,’’ Asian Real Estate Association of America and UCLA Asian American Studies Press. xviFinding a Path to South Asian Community Development, Chhaya Community Development 

Corporation. xvii ACS http://www.aafny.org/cic/briefs/usseniors2009.pdf xviii American Community Survey, 2009. xix ‘‘How Health Reform Helps Asian Americans,’’ Families USA, September 2010. xx ‘‘How Health Reform Helps Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders,’’ Families USA, 

September 2010. xxi ‘‘Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2012,’’ Office of Insular Affairs. Department of the Interior. 2011. http://www.doi.gov/oia/budget/FY2012—Budget—Justification.pdf 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you, very much, Ms. Chu, for your testimony. 

I look forward to working with you through the upcoming budget 

process. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Garamendi, I will either allow you your 5 minutes, unless you would prefer to yield to Mr. Clyburn, and I will 

let you decide. 
46 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think I better get on with it, despite my high 

regard for Mr. Clyburn. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to testify before you 

today on the Federal budget. It is true it is the truest reflection of 

our Nation’s value carried out through public policy. 

The budget also reflects our priorities. I think we can all agree 

that the priority number one is growing the economy. How do we 

grow the economy? We simply must make it in America and use 

our Nation’s treasure wisely. In all that the Federal Government 

does, we must always achieve the utmost efficiency and effectiveness, especially in this economy. We must also prioritize the investments that create jobs now and lay down the foundation for a 

healthier economy in the future. Programs that are inefficient, for 

example, much of the military procurement, and programs that are 

ineffective at creating jobs must be modified. 

While there are many proposals for immediate cuts in the halls 

of Congress, it appears that very little thought has been given to 

the actual efficiency and effectiveness of those cuts. The continuing 

resolution passed by this House earlier this year would actually 

hinder economic growth and destroy some 700,000 jobs. This is contrary to America’s interest. Without policies that promote strong 

economic growth and job creation, our economy will be hampered. 

We must adequately invest in the following six categories: elementary, secondary and higher education; research; infrastructure; 

manufacturing; export enhancement; and, of course, national defense. I believe we must prioritize these six critical investments 

and urge the Budget Committee to set budget levels that meet our 

present and future needs, keeping in mind that efficiency and effectiveness and job creation are of paramount importance. 

We must also remember that America’s manufacturing sector is 

the backbone of middle America. If America’s manufacturing sector 

were a country, it would be the ninth largest in the world. People 

working in the manufacturing sector earn $25,000 more than per 

year than employees in the other sectors—the service sector. Yet 

one-third of all jobs lost during the great recession were in manufacturing, despite manufacturing only represents one-tenth of the 

jobs in America. Without the return of manufacturing, America’s 

future economic prosperity is jeopardized. We need to make it in 

America if America is going to make it. 

National defense is a compelling fact and must be addressed. I 

urge the deficit commission—excuse me, I agree with the deficit 

commission that we must take—let me start this paragraph over. 

The national deficit is a compelling fact and must be addressed. I 

agree with the deficit commission that we must take the long view, 

that is 5 to 10 years, in addressing the deficit and not engage in 

precipitous, immediate cuts that will harm the economy and only 

have a minor effect on the overall deficit. I believe the President’s 

2012 budget is appropriate, given the current economic situation. 

One critical way to reduce the deficit is to let the Bush tax cuts 

for millionaires and billionaires expire sooner rather than later, 

bringing those taxes to the level that existed during the Clinton administration. I would include the Defense Department’s base budg-
47 

et as part of the package of reductions in the coming years. I would 

further reduce the deficit—excuse me, the defense budget by accelerating the removal of combat troops in Afghanistan, completing 

that withdrawal by 2013. 

The deficit cannot be significantly reduced unless we also address the runaway medical costs in this Nation. Our economy will 

have difficulty competing on an international stage if medical costs 

continue to absorb an ever increasing share of the American economy, thereby squeezing out other necessary activities. Cost containment must apply to all public and private medical activities. 

I bring your attention to a comprehensive study on this issue 

that I conducted in 2005 while California’s insurance commissioner. The study, ‘‘Priced Out: Health Care in California’’ was 

based on a panel of national experts who compiled data and made 

45 concrete recommendations across all segments of the medical 

system. Those recommendations run the gamut from requiring full 

disclosure of health expenditures at hospitals to pay-for-performance incentives to wider generic drug availability. Recommendations address the benefits and cost sharing, health care quality, 

Medicare and Medicaid reform, prescription drugs and the 

broadbased public health programs. In my view, Congress must 

pursue all of the paths recommended in the report. And we happen 

to do most of it with the health reform. It should not be repealed. 

I note that this report, ‘‘Priced Out,’’ is California-specific, but 

the issues in it address both State and Federal level concerns. 

Social Security will undoubtedly be on the agenda. However, it 

is wrong to address this issue as a driver of the deficit. It is not. 

Long and appropriate separation of this essential program for retirement should be addressed, as it has in the past, with minor 

tweaks over time so as to maintain Social Security strength. In any 

case, this program is both effective and efficient for the foreseeable 

future. So long as we do not raid Social Security trust fund or 

make substantial changes to the program, we will not have a Social 

Security crisis. Any effort to privatize Social Security must be categorically rejected. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to address you 

on the subject of the budget. 

[The prepared statement of John Garamendi follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and members of the 

Budget Committee. It is an honor to testify before you on the federal budget, which 

is the truest reflection of our nation’s values carried out through public policy. The 

budget is also a reflection of our priorities. I think we can all agree that priority 

number 1 is growing the economy. How do we grow the economy? We Make It In 

America, and we use our nation’s treasure wisely. 

In all that the Federal Government does we must always achieve the utmost efficiency and effectiveness. Especially in this economy, we must also prioritize the investments that create jobs now and lay down the foundation for a healthier economy 

in the future. Programs that are inefficient (for example, much of our military procurement) and programs that are ineffective at creating jobs must be modified. 

While there are many proposals for immediate cuts in the Halls of Congress, it 

appears that there has been little thought given to actual efficiency and effectiveness. The Continuing Resolution passed by this House earlier in the year would 

hinder economic growth and destroy 700,000 jobs. This is contrary to America’s interest. Without policies that promote strong economic growth and job creation, our 
48 

economy will be hampered. We must adequately invest in the following six categories: 

• Elementary, secondary and higher education 

• Research 

• Infrastructure 

• Manufacturing 

• Export enhancement 

• National Defense 

I believe that we must prioritize these six critical investments and urge the Budget Committee to set budget levels that meet our present and future needs, keeping 

in mind that efficiency, effectiveness, and job creation are of paramount importance. 

We must also remember that America’s manufacturing sector is the backbone of 

our middle class. If America’s manufacturing sector were a country, it would be the 

9th largest economy in the world. People working in manufacturing earn an average 

of $25,000 more per year than service sector employees and usually have better benefits. Yet one-third of all jobs lost during the Great Recession were in manufacturing despite manufacturing only representing one-tenths of the jobs in America. 

Without the return of manufacturing, America’s future economic prosperity is jeopardized. We need to Make It In America to make it in America. 

The national deficit is a compelling fact and must be addressed. I agree with the 

Deficit Commission that we must take the long view (5 to 10 years) in addressing 

the deficit and not engage in precipitous immediate cuts that will harm the recovery 

and only have a minor effect on the overall deficit. 

I believe that the President’s 2012 proposed budget is appropriate given the current economic situation. One critical way to reduce the deficit is to let the Bush tax 

cuts for millionaires and billionaires expire, bringing them to the levels that existed 

during the Clinton administration. I would include the Defense Department’s base 

budget as part of a package of reductions in the coming decade. I would further reduce the defense budget by accelerating the removal of combat troops from Afghanistan, completing that withdrawal no later than 2013. 

The deficit cannot be significantly reduced unless we also address runaway medical costs. Our economy will have difficulty competing on the international stage if 

medical costs continue to absorb an ever increasing share of the American economy 

thereby squeezing out other necessary activities. Cost containment must apply to all 

public and private medical activities. 

I bring to your attention a comprehensive study of this issue that I conducted in 

2005 while California Insurance Commissioner, ‘‘Priced Out, Healthcare in California.’’ We convened a panel of national experts who compiled data and made 45 

concrete recommendations across all parts of the medical system. These recommendations run the gamut, from requiring full disclosure of health expenditures 

at hospitals to pay-for-performance incentives to wider generic drug availability. The 

recommendations address benefits and cost sharing, health care quality, Medicaid 

reform, prescription drugs, and broad based public health. In my view Congress 

must pursue all of the paths recommended in the report. I note that this report is 

California specific, but the issues it addresses apply to both state and federal levels. 

Social Security should not be on the agenda. It is wrong to address this issue as 

a driver of the deficit. The long and appropriate separation of this essential program 

for retirement should be addressed as it has in the past with minor tweaks over 

time so as to maintain its strength. In any case this program is both effective and 

efficient. For the forseeable future, so long as we do not raid the Social Security 

trust fund or make substantial changes to the program, we will not have a Social 

Security crisis. Any effort to privatize Social Security must categorically be rejected. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address you on this subject. 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi, for your comments. 

I wonder, on a personal request, if you wouldn’t mind sharing the 

results of the study with me and any other Member who may want 

it. I would be curious to take a look at it. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I will be happy to do so, and I will present it 

to you within an hour. 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Next is the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn. 
49 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

so much for holding this hearing here today. I have submitted a 

written statement to the committee and request permission to revise and extend it based upon what I may say here today. 

Mr. GUINTA. Without objection. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a few moments to talk about 

an issue pertaining to the budget that is very, very important to 

a significant number of citizens in our great country. It is a concept. I am not here today to talk about particulars, but a concept, 

a concept that is budget-neutral. 

I am not here to ask that you increase funding in any category. 

I am here to ask today that we tackle the issue of the widening 

gap between the haves and the have-nots in our society. I saw this 

as a very serious problem when we were putting together the Recovery Act, at which time I brought before the appropriate bodies 

a concept that we called a 10-20-30 concept. It says simply that 10 

percent of the resources in the category, in this instance it was the 

rural development section of the agricultural bill, that 10 percent 

of those resources ought to be targeted to those counties and communities where 20 percent or more of the populations have been 

locked beneath the poverty level for the last 30 years. 

Now I have vetted this with the White House. I have vetted this 

with OMB. I vetted it with some of the most well known constitutional scholars. And they all tell me that this is a constitutional 

and an equitable way to deal with the issue of persistent poverty 

that exists in various communities across the country. 

This is not about skin color. It is about what I would call 

‘‘stressed’’ communities. If you are in South Carolina, North Carolina or maybe even Georgia, they would be African-American communities. If we are in South Dakota or Alaska, they would be Native American communities. If you are in Kentucky and West Virginia, they would be white communities, Appalachian. If you are in 

Arizona and New Mexico, they would be Latino. 

So what we are discussing here has got nothing to do with targeting communities based upon skin color or ethnicity. It has to do 

with basing—with targeting communities based upon the persistent poverty that has existed in these communities for a long, 

long time. 

Now we all went back in our research for 30 years, and here is 

what we found. We found 474 counties for the last 30 years in the 

United States of America where 20 percent or more of the populations have been beneath the poverty level for the last 30 years. 

Of those 474 counties, 7 of them are in my congressional district, 

7 out of the 15 that I represent. But my good friend, Hal Rogers 

from Kentucky, represents 24 congressional districts; 23 of his 24 

counties fall in this category. Two-thirds of the counties of those 

474 counties are represented by Republicans. Only one-third are 

represented by Democrats, so this is not about politics. 

It is about people who are locked and why the gap is continuing 

to get wider. Because I don’t think this is by design. I think that 

when we put together budgets up here and we send moneys over 
50 

to the various Departments and people apply for the money, they 

come in using what sophistication they have. And let me tell you 

what happened in Marion County, South Carolina, communities 

that have been trying to get water—where the water is contaminated, they have to buy water, they have to go and haul water 

from across town or some place else in the county—they have been 

trying to get water for 50 years. Because this little formula was 

there in the recovery package, South Carolina was obliged to direct 

10 percent of its money into these communities. And Brittons Neck, 

South Carolina, in Marion County is now getting water for the first 

time. Communities in Orangeburg County, Bowman, Branchville 

are getting water for the first time. 

So I come today to say, Mr. Chairman, as we put lists together 

for this budget, I would ask the committee to look into this and to 

see whether or not it makes sense for us to begin targeting resources where the needs really are. These people do not have the 

sophistication to hire, nor do they have the resources, to hire big 

grant writers to write their grants and compete for the money. 

And I will close with this. I have been around a long time. I have 

sat on committees evaluating grant applications. I will tell you, Mr. 

Chairman, I am a graduate South Carolina State College, now University. I have sat on the panels with people who were Stanford 

University graduates and Yale University graduates, and they are 

seeing these proposals written by their colleagues. My community 

have no chance. People tend to respond in a positive way to people 

they know well. And so Branchville would never have water if they 

had to hire a grants writer. They don’t have the resources to do it. 

They don’t have the sophistication in their communities. I do believe that we are responsible for responding to need. And I would 

hope that when this budget is put together, we will take a hard 

look at these persistently poverty communities because they are 

there in the Census tracts, in the numeration districts, and they 

are crying out for a response from us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will appreciate any consideration you would give my request. 

[The prepared statement of James E. Clyburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

HIGHLY DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES

Thank you very much. I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today. 

I want to take just a few moments to talk about an issue pertaining to the budget 

that’s very, very important to a significant number of citizens in our great country. 

The Wharton School of Business recently held a conference named in honor of 

Whitney Young, a leader and friend in the struggle for social justice, equality and 

civil rights. 

Whitney Young is probably known best for growing and transforming the Urban 

League from a sleepy little organization into one of the country’s biggest and most 

aggressive crusaders for social justice. 

What he is less known for is his call for a ‘‘Domestic Marshall Plan’’—a program 

to eradicate poverty and deprivation in the United States, similar to the Marshall 

Plan that was launched to reconstruct Europe after World War II. 

I’d like to use that call for a Domestic Marshall Plan as a jumping off point for 

my remarks this morning. 

Some of Whitney Young’s ideas were incorporated into President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty over 40 years ago. Yet the scourge is still with us. 
51 

Before the War on Poverty and the Great Society, we had the New Deal. All of 

these investments in America helped to move us forward as a nation. But some communities have been left behind each time, and we have begun to call them highly 

distressed communities. 

Some of these communities are in the Sixth Congressional District of South Carolina, which I proudly represent. For many years, the I-95 corridor of South Carolina 

was passed over for economic development. Federal funds found their way to South 

Carolina but mysteriously did not find their way into the Sixth Congressional District. 

The I-95 corridor is plagued with health disparities. The Sixth District has the 

dubious distinction of leading the state in incidents of stroke, heart disease and diabetes. We lead the state in amputations for both adult and juvenile diabetes. This 

region is known as the buckle of the stroke belt and is home to the highest rate 

of prostate cancer deaths among black males in the South. 

Scientists tell me that many of these health problems are directly related to water 

quality. In some of the places in my district, the water is not fit for human consumption. One particular instance in which my office was involved: the Health Department would not allow a water hookup to a home because of the contamination. 

Yet the people still drink the water, because they have no choice. 

Two years ago, I authored a provision in Rural Development section of the Recovery Act or Stimulus bill that we called the 10-20-30 formula. It stipulated that at 

least 10 percent of the funds be targeted to persistent poverty counties—counties 

where at least a 20 percent poverty rate has persisted for the past 30 years. 

The formula is working—Marion County South Carolina received a $3 million 

loan and a $4.7 million grant to build 71 miles of water lines and three water 

projects in Orangeburg County benefited from this formula, including a $5.6 million 

grant to bring potable water to these communities. 

Citizens in these counties will soon be enjoying their first clean glass of water 

from the faucet, free of contaminants and pollutants, thanks to this formula. 

I am reaching out to Members who represent highly distressed communities and 

am bringing together a bipartisan task force to ensure that these areas are not overlooked as we emerge from the recession. 

Hopefully, his task force will work to ensure that future budgets provide desperately needed resources to all highly distressed communities going forward—including empowerment zones, renewal communities, and empowerment communities. 

I thank the Chairman once again for holding this important hearing today. 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you for your compelling testimony. 

I will certain convey your request to the members of the committee, and I thank you for your time. 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. GUINTA. Next is the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

GEORGIA 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much 

for holding this hearing and allowing me the opportunity to testify. 

Let me say that I am astounded and it is amazing to me that 

persistent poverty in this country would yield communities where 

there is no safe running drinking water. It is just totally amazing 

to me that in the year 2011, that that is the case in America. And 

those kinds of facts are not particularly well known and well publicized. But I certainly think that Americans who are well off or 

relatively prosperous should take a few days to maybe ride through 

some of these areas of persistent poverty so that they can understand what it is like to live in those areas and then perhaps their 

hearts may change from a knife attack on the budget to a buttery, 

a buttery approach to making sure that the budget reflects our values and takes care of people, particularly the least of these. 

America is now digging itself out of the worst recession since the 

Great Depression. As State and local governments cut back during 
52 

this difficult economic time, President Obama had to make some 

tough decisions with his budget proposal. The President’s budget 

proposal invests in America’s future, which will grow our economy, 

lead to job growth and lift low-income and middle class families. 

I strongly urge this committee to give high priority to Workforce 

Investment Act funding, viral hepatitis funding, legal services for 

low-income individuals, and housing and foreclosure prevention 

programs. 

The key to jump-starting our economy is to put Americans back 

to work. Workforce Investment Act funds provide employment and 

workforce development services to low-income adults. In DeKalb 

County, where I represent, these funds have been used to provide 

career training to more than 65,000 individuals over the past 2 

years. With the national unemployment rate at 8.9 percent and 

with Georgia’s unemployment rate being stuck at 10.2 percent, it 

is essential that this program remain a priority to the President’s 

budget proposal. 

It is also important to ensure that we have healthy Americans. 

Healthy Americans are working Americans who contribute to our 

society. This is why I strongly support adequate funding for viral 

hepatitis programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Viral hepatitis diseases affect nearly 6 million Americans, the 

majority of whom do not know that they are infected. The President’s budget proposal requests $25 million for viral hepatitis programs. While the President’s budget requests a $5.2 million increase, it is not enough. At least $50 million should be requested 

to ensure the CDC can adequately fund prevention and treatment 

of viral hepatitis. 

Further, because of the current economic conditions, more Americans are in need of legal assistance. This is why the Legal Services 

Corporation is so critical. Nearly 57 million Americans nationwide 

are eligible for LSC services. In my home State of Georgia, Legal 

Services Corporation provides essential legal services to seniors 

trying to save their homes from foreclosure and veterans seeking 

benefits. 

I am also here today to speak on the importance of homeownership and foreclosure prevention programs in the President’s budget 

proposal. Foreclosures remain at an all-time high, and Georgia 

ranks sixth in the Nation for foreclosures. I am deeply concerned 

about this issue. In Gwinnett County, which is also a part of my 

district, 1 in every 174 homes is facing foreclosure. 

As more homeowners become renters, it is important to ensure 

that they have access to affordable housing. This is why I support 

full funding of the Home Investment Partnership Program. This 

program is a primary source of funds used by nonprofits and other 

developers for homes and apartments to house low-income families. 

In an economy where nearly 14 million Americans are unemployed 

and foreclosures are on the rise, it is vital that affordable housing 

is available to those in need. 

It is important to remember that the budget is a document that 

reflects America’s core values. We must not balance the budget on 

the backs of the unemployed, middle class families, government 

workers or seniors. 
53 

Again, thank you for holding this hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Henry C. ‘‘Hank’’ Johnson, Jr., follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Thank you, Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen, for holding this 

hearing today and giving me the opportunity to testify on President Obama’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget. 

America is digging itself out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. 

As state and local governments cut back during this difficult economic time, President Obama had to make some tough decisions. The President’s budget invests in 

America’s future, which will grow our economy, lead to job growth, and lift low-income and middle-class families. 

As this Committee develops the FY12 budget, I strongly urge you to give high priority to Workforce Investment Act funding, viral hepatitis funding, legal services for 

low-income individuals, and housing and foreclosure prevention programs. 

The key to jumpstarting our economy is to put Americans back to work. Workforce 

Investment Act funds provide employment and workforce development services to 

low-income adults. In DeKalb County, GA these funds have been used to provide 

career training to more than 65,000 people over the past two years. With the national unemployment rate at 8.9% and Georgia’s unemployment rate at 10.2%, and 

even higher in my district, it is essential that this program remains a priority in 

the FY12 budget. 

It is important to recognize that healthy Americans are working Americans who 

contribute to our society. This is why I strongly support adequate funding for viral 

hepatitis programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Viral hepatitis affects nearly 6 million Americans, the majority of whom do not even know that 

they are infected. 

The President requests $25 million for viral hepatitis programs in his budget. 

While this is a $5.2 million increase, at least $50 million should be requested to ensure the CDC can adequately fund prevention and treatment of viral hepatitis. As 

an American battling this chronic illness, I know firsthand the importance and costeffectiveness of prevention and treatment. 

Because of the economy, more Americans are in need of legal assistance. Nearly 

57 million Americans are eligible for assistance from the Legal Services Corporation 

(LSC). In Georgia, LSC provides essential legal services to seniors trying to save 

their homes from foreclosure and veterans seeking benefits. I strongly support LSC 

funding. 

I also want to speak on the importance of home ownership and foreclosure prevention programs in the President’s budget. Foreclosure rates remain at an all time 

high and Georgia ranks sixth in the nation for foreclosures. In Gwinnett, which is 

part of my district, 1 in every 174 homes is facing foreclosure. 

As more home owners become renters, it is important to ensure that they have 

access to affordable housing. This is why I support full funding of the HOME Investment Partnership Program which is a primary source of funds for homes and apartments to house low-income families. With nearly 14 million Americans unemployed, 

and foreclosures on the rise, it is vital that affordable housing is available to those 

in need. 

I speak today in support of these programs because it is important to remember 

that the budget is a document reflecting America’s core values. We must never balance the budget on the backs of the unemployed, middle-class families, government 

workers, or seniors. Again, thank you for holding this hearing and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. GUINTA. I thank you Mr. Johnson for your testimony and 

also look forward to working with you through this process and 

how we confront our challenges and ensure that we have adequate 

funding for different programs that may affect Georgia and other 

States in our country. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
54 

Mr. GUINTA. Next is the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. 

Bass. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Mr. BASS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is indeed a unique pleasure to see you chairing this distinguished committee here today. You should be proud of that. I had 

the honor of serving on this committee for 8 years, and I joined the 

committee at the time that Congressman, now Governor of Ohio, 

John Kasich assumed the chairmanship of the committee, and the 

Nation at that time faced many of the same opportunities that we 

face here today. 

That was 1995. We were faced with what we considered to be 

chronically institutional deficits that appeared to be endless. And 

under the leadership of John Kasich and our leadership in the 

House and Senate at that time, we were able to send President 

Clinton budgets that brought us not only into balance but into surplus within 4 years. 

We have the same opportunity today, although the challenges 

are much greater. But I think this committee can make these difficult choices. But within that context, I have a couple of recommendations. Number one, I believe that every single dollar that 

is expended by this government should be subject to scrutiny and 

should be on the table. That includes all entitlements. It includes 

defense. And it includes nondefense discretionary spending. There 

is no item or line item in the Federal Government that should not 

be subject to budgetary oversight and scrutiny. 

Secondly, I recommend to you, having been through eight budget 

cycles on this committee, that the simpler the budget is, the more 

likely it is to be able, A, to pass and, B, to be implementable 

through reconciliation by the committees that have jurisdiction 

over the entitlement side of spending. 

I know that the committee will be discussing all sorts of different 

recommendations that will be provided by research and by staff 

and by the CBO and by other interest groups. But to the extent 

that you can give the authorizing committees—and the major ones, 

of course, are Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce—the 

ability to do as much as they can and be as innovative as they can 

with a minimum amount of direction, if you will, from the Budget 

Committee, I think it is more likely, A, that we will pass the budget and, B, that the committees will be able to do their work. 

To the extent that you do provide recommendations, watch out 

for downshifting. One program in particular comes to mind which 

I fought hard for when I was on this committee, and that is full 

funding of special education, otherwise known as IDEA funding. 

Because we set the rules here in Washington but provide an unfortunately small percentage of the funding, States and localities have 

to come up with the funding to meet the goals of the law. So if we 

decide to cut IDEA funding, we are going to be shifting on a dollarper-dollar basis that additional cost to cities and to States. 
55 

And you, Mr. Chairman, would know as well as anybody because 

of the years of distinguished service that you gave New Hampshire’s largest city as its mayor. 

Fourthly, I am glad that the committee is bringing up the budget 

sooner rather than later and sticking with the statutory schedule 

that was outlined in the Budget Empowerment Control Act of 1974. 

We are now embroiled in a controversy over last year’s budget, 

which was not a controversy that we wanted to have, but we inherited it from the previous administration. Don’t allow us to get tied 

up in that so that we wind up where the previous leadership was 

last year with no budget, no appropriations, no reconciliation. That 

would define failure. 

I am glad that we are bringing the budget out and we are bringing it out soon and that we can move forward with fiscal year 2012 

funding as quickly as possible. 

As I said in the beginning of my testimony, this is a unique opportunity, once again, to turn the direction of America away from 

runaway spending and toward getting our spending under control 

and moving toward a goal of living within our means. 

However, at some point, I think the Budget Committee and the 

Rules Committee should have some serious and detailed hearings 

on the issue of budget process reform and get testimony from people like myself and others who have ideas as to how this system 

can work better than it does today. I myself have discussed for 

some time the reestablishment of a committee that was established 

back in the early 1940s called the Reduction in Nonessential Federal Expenditures Committee established by Harry F. Byrd in the 

early 1940s. It is credited with the fact that most of the Depression-era make-work programs that were enacted by the Congress 

in the 1930s are no longer in existence today. The committee 

should look at mechanisms that create incentives for Members of 

Congress to want to vote to reduce spending rather than to increase spending. And one way to do that is to give either to this 

committee or a permanent select committee the ability to bring 

spending reduction proposals from any portion of the budget directly to the floor of the House in the form of a resolution for a 

vote. And then let the general public decide whether they think 

this is a good idea or not. 

So, having said these things, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this 

committee has enormous challenges over the next month or two, 

but also enormous opportunities. You will be cutting new ground 

as occurred back in 1995. Don’t let it pass. I know it won’t. I know 

that the Members of this Committee are dedicated to fiscal responsibility, to low taxes and to a government that will promote job creation and economic recovery. 

And with that, I thank you for your time and wish you well. 

[The prepared statement of Charles F. Bass follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, I appreciate the opportunity to 

come before the Committee today and testify on my priorities for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution. 

Today we find ourselves in a unique situation in which Congress is not only establishing spending for the next fiscal year under regular order, we are also still trying 
56 

to finish last year’s work. For the first time in modern budget history, Congress 

failed to pass a federal budget and enact any of the appropriations bills. While we 

finish the process for this fiscal year, we also have the challenge of establishing future spending levels after years of irresponsible and out-of-control spending. I think 

all of us here today can agree that one of the keys to job creation and economic 

growth is reducing government spending and getting a handle on mandatory spending. Future budget resolutions must reflect this reality. 

While H.R. 1 was a strong statement about our commitment to cutting federal 

spending, simply taking the ax to government programs without careful consideration of the consequences is risky. We need to take a hard look at the least effective 

government programs and target those for cuts or elimination. Taxpayer dollars 

should not be allocated to programs that are ineffective or duplicative. 

A recent GAO report highlighted 34 examples of duplicative programs within the 

federal government. We need to take a close look at these programs and eliminate 

the redundancy. According to the GAO report, the federal government’s efforts to 

address financial literacy are spread across more than 20 different agencies and 

roughly 56 programs. Five agencies within the Department of Transportation administer over 100 programs related to surface transportation, totaling $58 billion. 

These are just some of the unnecessary and fragmented programs that the federal 

government should consolidate or eliminate to operate more efficiently. 

The effects of the failure to pass a budget or any of the appropriations bills last 

year are already being felt in my home state of New Hampshire. In Berlin, New 

Hampshire, we have a federal corrections institute that is sitting idle and waiting 

to be opened. Because we are operating on one Continuing Resolution after another, 

there isn’t funding available to hire guards or transfer prisoners. This state-of-theart, $276 million federal prison is estimated to create more than 300 new jobs and 

have a $40 million annual impact on my Congressional district, but right now it sits 

empty. What’s worse, each year that this facility sits vacant, the Bureau of Prisons 

will spend $4 million just to maintain it. 

We must also recognize that reducing spending in some federal programs will 

cause even more spending at the local level. One such program is the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Under IDEA, the federal government promised local communities that it would fund up to 40 percent of the cost to educate 

students with disabilities. To date, we are funding this program at about 18 to 20 

percent. Local communities are required by law to provide a federally-mandated 

level of services to students with special needs. The federal government’s failure to 

live up to its promise and fully fund its share only diverts local education resources 

that either have to be made up through cuts to other programs or by raising local 

taxes. We all agree that students with special needs deserve these extra services, 

but insufficient federal IDEA funding continues a broken promise that has a direct 

impact on each and every school district across the country. 

There are many worthwhile programs that need funding, such as the Low Income 

Home Energy Assistance Program, community health centers, and the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, all of which have positive impacts on our economy and 

way of life in New Hampshire. As we work through the budget process, we will have 

a lot of tough choices to make to sufficiently fund these programs while at the same 

time learning to live within our means. The first place we can start is by eliminating wasteful programs, but this cannot be our only action. 

While there has been a lot of talk about cutting discretionary spending, if want 

to truly address the crushing debt that inhibits our economic recovery, we must examine mandatory spending, which consumes two-thirds of the federal budget. As 

Congress crafts next year’s budget, this issue must be a part of the debate. The first 

step this Committee and Congress as a whole can take is to grant the authority to 

reform mandatory spending to the Committees of jurisdiction, which can use their 

expertise and examine reform measures much more closely. We must also ensure 

that we include the American people in this important debate. 

If we don’t deal with this issue now, we will doom our children and grandchildren 

to a future of unsustainable debt that threatens our nation’s economic competitiveness. We need to start the discussion now, and I commend the Chairman for his 

leadership on bringing this issue to the forefront. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to speak today about New 

Hampshire’s priorities and how we can work together to get government spending 

under control and learn to live within our means. 

Mr. GUINTA. Well, I thank you, sir, for coming and testifying and 

sharing the challenges and opportunities that this Nation faced 

back in the mid-1990s. 
57 

And I thank you for your service and bringing fiscal responsibility and discipline again to our Nation. And I, too, feel that while 

the challenges remain probably some of the greatest that we have 

ever faced, I, too, am optimistic that we are up for the challenge. 

And difficult decisions have to be made, but I look forward to continuing our work on behalf of New Hampshire and the Nation. 

I have appreciated your counsel and the responsibility that you 

have assumed in this 112th Congress and look forward to many 

more moments of dialogue with you and hopefully that we can implement some of the things that you have talked about here today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BASS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GUINTA. The committee welcomes the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Lummis, thank you for coming before the committee 

today. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate this opportunity to testify. I loved serving on this Budget Committee in the 

last session. I miss this committee, and I have great respect for the 

task in front of you. 

I am here to share my thoughts and the ideas of my constituents 

in Wyoming about the fiscal challenges facing our country. 

I have been listening to Wyoming’s commonsense-minded people, 

everywhere from the feed store to the grocery store. They want 

Congress and the President to put America on a path to fiscal stability by halting this country’s spending spree and tackling our 

long-term debt problem. 

But the President’s 2012 budget proposal would have the taxpayers shell out $844 billion in annual interest on our debt by the 

next decade, over triple what we pay currently. That is an unacceptable projection, and we need to make reforms now to change 

course. 

This is no longer a fiscal issue; it is a moral issue. I am a Member of the House Appropriations Committee. And I have had the 

opportunity to help reduce our discretionary spending, but discretionary spending alone will not get our country on sound fiscal footing. Discretionary spending accounts for less than 40 percent of our 

government’s budget. 

In fact, if you take away defense spending and mandatory spending, that only leaves 12 percent that is nondefense discretionary 

and nonmandatory spending. So I am here today to stress the urgency of tackling entitlements in the 112th Congress. Medicare, 

Medicaid, and Social Security will eventually collapse under their 

own weight if they are left unchanged. We must address this 

unsustainable entitlement issue if we are to preserve entitlements 

for future generations. 

The chairman of this committee, Mr. Ryan, is no stranger to 

ideas for reforming entitlements. I support his Roadmap for America’s Future, and I look forward to seeing many of its provisions in 

the House budget for fiscal year 2012. For example, proposals to 

raise the Social Security retirement age for younger generations 
58 

have received backing from leaders in both parties. I have heard 

Steny Hoyer discuss it. I have heard John Boehner discuss it. And 

the roadmap has recognized the need for this change. And the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform included it 

in their final report. 

Now, that is why I have introduced a stand-alone bill to increase 

the retirement age for today’s 4-year-olds by 3 years, from the current law of 67 to age 70. It would not affect anyone in their 50s, 

60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 100s. It only affects people 49 and younger. 

It is H.R. 837. It is called Alex’s Law, named after a 4-year-old 

child of a member of my staff. This is a commonsense approach to 

help save Social Security for future generations. It is necessary because the life expectancy after 65 for today’s retirees compared to 

1940 is 5 years longer. 

We all know that the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted 

by 2037, which means every retiree will see a 22 percent cut in 

benefits. And the cuts will continue to get worse if Washington 

looks the other way. So my bill is just a first step. It only closes 

between one-third and one-half of the Social Security shortfall. But 

changing the retirement age is a gradual adjustment. We will not 

begin to see the full effects of this reform for decades. It comes in 

the outyears. But it is still the most commonsense and well understood reform, one that seems to have generated the most bipartisan 

support. And it is a starting point for a more comprehensive package to make the program solvent. 

I also want to talk a little bit about Medicaid. We need to work 

with States, and specifically the Nation’s governors, to cap or limit 

the Federal financial commitment to Medicaid and, in exchange, 

give States the flexibility to manage their Medicaid programs as 

they see fit. By capping and then block granting the Federal dollars 

to the States that are actually running Medicaid, we can return the 

decision of how best to run these programs to the States, their 

elected officials, and the citizens to which they are accountable. 

And we will learn best practices from the States. They will be the 

incubators, the laboratories for great ideas. 

A State-centered Medicaid program could provide better care for 

beneficiaries at lower costs. In Wyoming, we absolutely know that. 

Because we have the smallest population in the Nation, we were 

able to survey 100 percent of children on Medicaid. And we compared and analyzed claims data under both Medicaid and Blue 

Cross Blue Shield, and found that it was more than twice as expensive to cover children under Medicaid than Blue Cross Blue Shield 

and almost 1.5 times more expensive to cover adults. But our State 

Medicaid programs are currently at the mercy of a bureaucracy 

that disallows them from trying alternative coverage mechanisms, 

including a health savings account-type of arrangement for the uninsured. And that is under development by the State of Wyoming 

using entirely State dollars. 

Entitlement programs along with other mandatory spending consume roughly 60 percent of the Federal budget. We can’t afford to 

continue ignoring their importance in our fiscal future. Appropriations bills and discretionary spending have been the first focus. 

And we have done that in the last number of weeks. But in order 

to really get at the problem of our fiscal trajectory, we must pro-
59 

vide that same platform for entitlements. We must have the debate 

in committees, on the House floor, on the Senate floor if we are to 

find solutions for our future safety net. The fiscal year 2012 budget 

is the opportunity to bring these entitlement reforms to the budget. 

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I can assure you, America is ready for this discussion, and they are demanding that we put politics aside in the interests of our Nation. I look forward to working with all members 

of this committee, both sides of the aisle, to address this crisis situation. 

[The prepared statement of Cynthia M. Lummis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen, thank you for providing members with the opportunity to testify before the House Budget Committee today about 

the Fiscal Year 2012 budget. I miss serving on this committee, and I have great 

respect for the task in front of you. I am here to share my thoughts, and the ideas 

of my constituents, about the fiscal challenges facing our country. 

I’ve been listening to Wyoming’s common-sense minded people from the feed store 

to the grocery store. They want Congress and the President to put America on a 

path to fiscal stability by halting this country’s spending spree and tackling our 

long-term debt problem. But the President’s 2012 budget proposal would have the 

taxpayers shell out $844 billion in annual interest on our debt by the next decade— 

over triple what we pay currently. It is an unacceptable projection, and we need to 

make reforms now to change course. This is no longer a fiscal issue; it is a moral 

issue. 

On the House Appropriations Committee, I have the opportunity to help reduce 

our discretionary spending. But discretionary spending alone will not get our country on sound fiscal footing: discretionary spending accounts for less than 40 percent 

of our government’s budget. I am here today to stress the urgency of tackling entitlements in the 112th Congress. 

Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid will eventually collapse under their own 

weight if they are left unchanged. We must address these unsustainable entitlement 

programs if we are to preserve them for future generations. 

Chairman Ryan, you are no stranger to ideas for reforming entitlements in order 

to save entitlements. I support your Roadmap for America’s Future, and I look forward to seeing many of its provisions included in the House budget for Fiscal Year 

2012. For example, proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age for younger 

generations have received backing from leaders in both parties. The Roadmap has 

recognized the need for this change and the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform included it in their final report. 

That is why I have introduced a stand-alone bill to increase the retirement age 

for today’s four-year-olds by three years, from the current law of 67 to age 70. It 

would not affect anyone in their 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s or 100s. H.R. 867 is named 

Alex’s Law after a four-year-old child of a member of my staff. This common-sense 

approach to help save social security for future generations is necessary because the 

life expectancy after 65 for today’s retirees compared to 1940 is 5 years longer. We 

all know that the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted by 2037, which means 

every retiree will see a 22 percent cut in benefits. The cuts will get worse if Washington continues to look the other way. 

Alex’s law is a first step, which can close between one third and one half of Social 

Security’s shortfall. Changing the retirement age is a gradual adjustment, so we will 

not begin to see the full effect of this reform for decades. But it is still the most 

common-sense and well understood reform, the one that seems to have generated 

the most bipartisan support, and is a starting point for a more comprehensive package to make the program solvent. 

We must also address medical entitlement programs—Medicare’s financial situation is worse than Social Security’s and Medicaid’s unsustainable trajectory is putting the future of state budgets and our social safety net at risk. While both need 

to be reformed, Medicaid is an immediate threat to state budgets and deserves immediate attention, particularly in light of the massive expansion of the program 

under Obama Care. We need to work with the states, and specifically the nation’s 

governors, to cap or limit the federal financial commitment to Medicaid and in ex-
60 

change give states the flexibility to manage their Medicaid programs as they see fit. 

By capping, and then block granting the federal dollars to the states who are actually running Medicaid, we can return the decision of how to best run this program 

to the states, their elected officials, and the citizens to which they are accountable. 

A state-centered Medicaid program could provide better care for beneficiaries at 

lower costs. In the State of Wyoming, a comprehensive analysis of claims data under 

both Medicaid and the private Blue Cross Blue Shield plan found that it was more 

than twice as expensive to cover children under Medicaid, and about one and one 

half times more expensive to cover adults. But state Medicaid programs are currently at the mercy of a bureaucracy that disallows them from trying alternative 

coverage mechanisms, including a health savings account type arrangement for the 

uninsured that is under development by the State of Wyoming using entirely state 

dollars. 

Entitlement programs, along with other mandatory spending, consume roughly 

60% of the federal budget. We cannot afford to continue ignoring their importance 

in our fiscal future. Appropriations bills and discretionary spending have been the 

first focus—the requirement to pass spending measures to keep our government 

running has provided a platform for Congress to debate cuts. We must provide the 

same platform for entitlements. We must have the debate in committees and on the 

House and Senate floor if we are to find solutions for our future safety net. This 

Fiscal Year 2012 budget is the opportunity to bring entitlements to the forefront. 

Thank you Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen for allowing me to 

testify in front of the House Budget Committee today. I came here to not only offer 

my proposals for consideration during the upcoming Fiscal Year 2012 budget, but 

also to express my willingness to work with any Member who is serious about entitlement reform. We need to have a serious conversation about any reform option 

that is put on the table, have a debate on the merits, and stop the demagoging and 

scare tactics on both sides. America is ready for this discussion and they are demanding we put politics aside in the interest of our nation. 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you, Ms. Lummis, for testifying here today 

and representing Wyoming so ably. 

And I look forward to working with you and every member of 

this committee and this Congress. Thank you so much for your testimony today. 

We will now take a brief recess as we wait for additional Members to come testify. It should be no more than 15 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MULVANEY [presiding]. Gentlemen, thank you very much for 

coming in. 

I apologize for being a few minutes late. 

We are just wrapping up a Members-only Budget Committee. I 

have Mr. Welch going first. Are you gentlemen planning on doing 

this together, or is it individually? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Mr. WELCH. I think individually. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here. 

I want to say a couple of things. First of all, I applaud the Budget Committee and your chairman for focusing much needed attention on the fiscal crisis in our country. 

Number two, I applaud the new majority. They ran on a commitment and a platform of restoring fiscal stability, and they won. The 

American people support that. 

Three, this committee is putting forward a plan for the consideration of Congress. And that is where I have real questions about 

the wisdom of the plan that has been put forward. 

We do have to get our fiscal house in order. The only way we are 

going to accomplish that goal is by putting everything on the table. 

It means that defense has to be on the table. It means tax expendi-
61 

tures have to be on the table. It means line items in the appropriations bill have to be on the table. And it means that we cannot continue to pay for wars on the credit card. 

The way we are going right now is that we are trying to attack 

the problem to get 100 percent of the solution by focusing on 12 

percent of the budget, the nondefense discretionary spending. And 

it means that the decisions that are being asked of Congress are 

basically to do such things as to cut low-income heating assistance, 

cut back on scholarships for students that are trying to get ahead, 

to cut back on economic development aid that is essential to our 

communities, to cut back on Community Development Block 

Grants. All of these are legitimate questions. 

But if the goal, if the goal of this committee is the stated goal, 

and that is to restore fiscal solvency to this country, then the only 

way we can be successful is by putting every element of the budget 

on the table. And that, as I mentioned, is defense. It is entitlements. It is tax expenditures. 

The proposal that we are dealing with in Congress right now has 

two problems with it. Number one, it will fail. It will fail in achieving the goals that the Budget Committee majority states is its goal, 

and that is to restore fiscal stability to this country. 

It happens to be a goal I share. We have a chance of getting from 

here to there if we put everything on the table so that those tough 

choices that we have to make about eliminating government inefficiencies, by eliminating tax breaks that no longer have any economic value, any growth potential; if we put everything on the 

table, we have a chance of succeeding together. 

Everything is not on the table now. And that is going to guarantee failure. That is my major criticism of what we are doing in 

the budget. 

Second, we are starting down a road of playing Russian roulette 

with the American economy. And we are on the brink of doing real 

damage. There are many in this body who are suggesting that we 

should stiff the creditors of the American government by saying 

‘‘no’’ on extending the debt limit. I believe that is reckless, and it 

is irresponsible, and it is a politically loaded decision that will do 

great harm to this country. 

My view is that we have got to acknowledge the obvious, and 

that is America pays its bills. Extending the debt limit is not about 

incurring new obligations; it is about honoring past obligations, 

some under Democratic administrations, some under Republican 

administrations. And it is true that we have many debates about 

what the shape and form of the budget should be. But those debates should be resolved in the budget. We should not use the debt 

limit ceiling as a hostage. That is going to have real consequences, 

detrimental consequences to American families and American 

workers. 

So my view, we should be in agreement to support a continuation 

of the debt limit on a clean extension, not to use that as political 

leverage to get your position or ours. We can get to where we need 

to be, but not if we have an approach on the budget that limits 

what we can consider. 
62 

I mean, why is it that we continue tax breaks for oil companies 

that are doing well? A trillion dollars in profits in the past 10 

years. 

Why is it that Goldman Sachs paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes, even though it had a profit—this is in 2008—of $2.3 billion 

and received, courtesy of the American taxpayer and the Federal 

Reserve in the form of subsidized interest rates, $800 billion? 

Those types of distortions have to be part of our discussion. If we 

consider everything, we can succeed in achieving your stated goal 

of restoring fiscal stability to this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Peter Welch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Thank you Mr. Chairman, 

America has a debt problem. There is no denying that fact. The question for this 

Congress is, how do we address this issue thoughtfully and in a manner that moves 

our nation forward. Unfortunately, the debate thus far has advanced neither of 

these aspirations. 

There are two issues with the current approach to tackling this nation’s budget 

problem. The first is that this approach simply won’t work. Thus far, this Congress 

has been focused solely on 12% of the federal budget, the so-called non-security domestic discretionary spending. We could eliminate the entirety of non-security domestic discretionary spending and this nation would still have a yearly budget deficit of nearly $1 trillion. Trying to accomplish 100% of the necessary cuts by looking 

at 12% of the budget just doesn’t work. To truly and effectively address our nation’s 

budget problems, this Congress needs to put everything on the table. We need to 

put the nearly $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies that go to mature, profitable oil 

companies on the table. We need to put the bloated Pentagon budget on the table. 

And yes, we need to put entitlement programs on the table. 

There is a second problem with this Congress’ approach to solving the nation’s 

debt problem. While I salute my friends in Congress for trying to cut the federal 

budget, I have to ask, why must we do so in a way that destroys institutions? This 

Congress is making no distinctions in its zeal to slash and threatening institutions 

along the way. 

Vermont Public Radio is one of these institutions. Vermont Public Radio is the 

link between 251 towns, cities and villages in the state of Vermont. Farmers listen 

to it in their barns, parents listen to it on their way to bringing their kids to school, 

people at work listen to it for the weather reports and it welds together the political 

discussion in the state of Vermont, which is vibrant, which is varied, which has people with different points of view having a common reference point. Just this month, 

however, the House voted to prohibit federal funding of Vermont Public Radio. 

The Low Income Heating Assistance Program is one of these institutions. LIHEAP 

provides badly-needed help to low-income folks throughout the country struggling 

to heat their homes. Nearly 20,000 Vermonters rely on this help. Laura is one of 

them. She is a single, disabled mother with an adult disabled child. She relies on 

a Seasonal Fuel benefit for just over $1,000—plus a $611 bonus—to keep herself 

and her daughter warm in the winter. At a time when fuel prices are rising to nearly $4 a gallon, we’re going to cut the assistance to Laura but hand nearly $40 billion 

dollars in tax breaks to oil companies that made over $1 trillion in the past 10 

years? That just doesn’t pass for common sense. 

If this Congress continues down its current path of cutting the federal budget, it 

will fail. And worse, it will destroy important institutions that make this country 

what it is. We have a serious problem that needs to be addressed. But as we work 

to address it, we would be wise to remember that the federal budget is more than 

a series of appropriations. We need a real plan, Mr. Chairman and I hope to work 

with you for common ground. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mr. Welch. 

I appreciate that. 

For what it is worth, I will speak very briefly to your point on 

the budget. I think if you are serious about, and I believe that you 

are, seeing everything on the table, I think you will be relatively 
63 

pleased with what you see coming out of the budget this year. 

There are many of us who tend to agree with you that the only way 

to do what we want to do, which is to restore fiscal responsibility 

and some semblance of balance in this world, is to put everything 

on the table. 

Not only is it the only way that we can actually do it numerically, it is probably the only way to do it with a sense of shared 

sacrifice, because we are going to be calling on a lot of folks to give 

up a lot of things. The more things that are on the table I think 

the better. So I think you will see some things you may like in this 

year’s budget based upon the early discussions. 

Thank you, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Keating? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WILLIAM R. KEATING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for the opportunity to testify on the budget today. 

My constituents in the South Shore, Cape, and islands in Massachusetts have very strong opinions on how their taxpayer money 

should be spent. And what I want to do is just communicate some 

of those views to you. We sent out to several thousands of people 

solicitations, and we had tremendous response from those people. 

And let me just pick more specific parts of that to communicate 

what they feel, because the responses I got, frankly, were overwhelming. And the people wanted me to communicate their specific 

ones in today’s testimony. 

Most of my constituents wanted the budget to reflect their top 

priority. And amazingly and not surprisingly, however, that is job 

creation. As the country emerges from the worst economic disaster 

since the Depression, the people of Massachusetts want more action, more priority on jobs. They want tax credits to hire veterans 

returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, who have some of the highest unemployment rates in the country, incentives for businesses to 

keep jobs right here in America rather than offshore, a renewed 

focus on green jobs, because these are the jobs of the future. America must be prepared to lead the world in this important sector. 

Many of the constituents understand that the key to job growth 

is effective education. Cutting education priorities is the wrong 

move at the wrong time. The Federal Government has an obligation, a sacred responsibility to prepare our children for a competitive global economy and the challenges of the 21st century. Education is the great equalizer. So cutting the Workforce Investment 

Act, job training initiatives, or cutting Pell Grants for needy college 

students threatens job and economic growth and America’s overall 

competitiveness. 

Education has allowed Massachusetts to become the hub of technology and innovation. Americans and people all over the globe 

know that they will encounter world class ideas, get world class 

care at Massachusetts’ institutions. And we are proud of the contributions that we can share with the rest of the country. But these 

very initiatives are at risk without proper funding. 
64 

And let’s be clear. The Federal Government should be funding 

these initiatives. They save American lives, and most importantly, 

they create American jobs when we need it the most. 

We also need to consider those who have done this before us, like 

our seniors and our veterans who have made this country what it 

is. I am particularly concerned that the budget that is being proposed by the majority will target benefits that seniors in my district depend on, like Social Security and Medicare. For the majority 

of retirees, Social Security provides more than half of their annual 

income. Reducing benefits would not reduce the deficit but would 

greatly harm our seniors in my district more than any in Massachusetts. I represent the highest number of our seniors and elder 

citizens. 

An overwhelming majority of my constituents do not want this 

Congress to cut Federal initiatives that serve them, their neighbors, and their families, or our most vulnerable populations. 

I leave you with a story of Sheara Whalley of Scituate, Massachusetts, one of my constituents, to remind you that through targeted cuts, we should be very careful and surgical about how we 

approach these things. This is a personal story. I admired her for 

sharing this with us. And it is important to realize this is just not 

issues; these are faces. These are people. And it is behind every 

dollar we spend. 

Ms. Whalley had contacted my office because of the threat of 

budget cuts to cancer research. You see, Mr. Chairman, Ms. 

Whalley chose to live in Massachusetts precisely because of the access of cutting-edge research that occurs in that State. She is a survivor of advanced ovarian cancer, and she has participated in clinical trials that she credits with her life nearly 5 years after the diagnosis. 

There is still much work to be done in cancer detection, treatment, and prevention at the National Cancer Institute, the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense 

Ovarian Cancer Research Project. Ms. Whalley wrote to me that 

the cancer that she suffered through is still a short-term death sentence for many today. 

As a new Congressman, I take these budget negotiations seriously, knowing that my constituents are relying on me to share 

with Congress their personal stories and to make sure that they be 

heard over the political rhetoric that often consumes us. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to 

working with you and your colleagues in a bipartisan manner to 

ensure that the American people’s priorities are reflected in this 

budget. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of William R. Keating follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM R. KEATING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Budget Committee today. My constituents on the South Shore, Cape and Islands in Massachusetts have strong opinions about how their taxpayer money should be spent, and I 

am here to communicate their views. 

Last week, I emailed my constituents to make sure that they had the opportunity 

to share with me their priorities on the budget. What’s most important to them? 

The responses I got were overwhelming. The people of Massachusetts want to be 

heard. 
65 

Most of my constituents want this budget to reflect their top priority: job creation. 

As this country emerges from the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, the people of Massachusetts want more action on jobs. 

• Tax credits to hire veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, who have 

some of the highest unemployment rates in the country; 

• Incentives for businesses to keep jobs in America—rather than offshore; 

• A renewed focus on green jobs because these are the jobs of the future and 

America must be prepared to lead in this sector. 

Many of my constituents understand that the key to job growth is effective education. Cutting education priorities is the wrong move at the wrong time. The federal government has an obligation—a sacred responsibility—to prepare our children 

for a competitive global economy and the challenges of the 21st century. Education 

is the great equalizer, so cutting the Workforce Investment Act job training initiatives or cutting Pell grants for needy college students threatens job and economic 

growth and American competitiveness. 

Education has allowed Massachusetts to become a hub of technology and innovation. Americans and people all over the globe know that they will encounter world— 

class ideas and get world-class care at Massachusetts institutions. We are proud of 

the contributions that we can share with the rest of the country, but these initiatives are at risk without proper funding. And, let’s be clear: the federal government 

should be funding these initiatives. They save American lives and create American 

jobs. 

We also need to consider those who have done for us before, like our seniors and 

our Veterans. I am particularly concerned that the budget that is being proposed 

by the majority will target benefits that seniors in my district depend on, like Social 

Security and Medicare. For the majority of retirees, Social Security provides more 

than half of their annual income. Reducing benefits would not reduce the deficit, 

but it would greatly harm our seniors. 

An overwhelming majority of my constituents do not want this Congress to cut 

federal initiatives that serve them, their neighbors, their family and our vulnerable 

populations. 

I leave you with the story of Sheara Whalley of Scituate, Massachusetts, one of 

my constituents, to remind you that though targeted cuts must be made, there is 

a person—a story—behind every dollar we spend. And a person—a story—behind 

every tax dollar we earn. 

Ms. Whalley contacted my office because of the threat of budget cuts to cancer 

research. You see, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Whalley chose to live in Massachusetts precisely because of access to cutting edge research. She is a survivor of advanced ovarian cancer, and she has participated in clinical trials that she credits with her life 

nearly five years after diagnosis. There is still much work to do for cancer detection, 

treatment and prevention at the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research 

Program. Ms. Whalley wrote to me that the cancer that she suffered through is still 

a ‘‘short-term death sentence for many today.’’ 

As a new Congressman, I take these budget negotiations seriously, knowing that 

my constituents are relying on me to share their stories and make sure that they 

are heard over the political rhetoric. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with you 

and our colleagues in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the American people’s priorities are reflected in this budget. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mr. Keating. 

Ms. Bass, I will defer to you if you want to make a comment. 

Ms. BASS OF CALIFORNIA. Yes, thank you for your testimony, Mr. 

Keating. I did have a question. 

You described several areas that you didn’t feel should be cut. 

And I believe you had some proposals that you put on the floor a 

few weeks ago. So perhaps you could tell us if we don’t cut those 

areas, how could we afford to close the deficit? 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you very much. And it is great to see 

you here as a fellow freshman participating so fully. 

We do have to look at those areas. We have to do it in a way— 

one area I do believe divides America and will not save money is 

raising the retirement age of Social Security. That does not mean 
66 

that we have to look at other alternatives, maybe indexing above 

the $106,000 should be explored, if necessary. If necessary. 

In the areas on the floor I took action on certainly to jump out 

I think that could have savings without affecting the quality of life 

of the people that I serve, that was an opportunity to save $43.6 

billion in oil subsidies. 

Now, I have done my research and talked to the think tanks that 

are involved, nonpartisan think tanks and asked them where these 

moneys go. And the answer was to shareholders. Now, that is great 

if you are a shareholder of an oil company. But that does not serve 

any need. And that is a significant amount of money that could be 

cut. 

I also think in the defense budget looking at the moneys we are 

expending right now—and there was an amendment offered I believe by Mr. Paul—about cutting some of our expenditures in Europe in areas where the vestiges of the Cold War still remain, and 

we are still out of date in funding needs that are no longer needs, 

not only for this country nor even the countries involved. And those 

are a couple of examples. But there are areas, approached surgically, where we can do things. 

But the one thing that we shouldn’t do is just look at what I 

think is an artificial number of $100 billion. Look further about 

what is done. I am concerned and have shared on the floor as well 

the fact that people like Mark Zandi from Moody’s, who was an adviser for Senator McCain, has said that moving ahead with those 

type of cuts right now would cost us 700,000 lost jobs by 2012. And 

I am concerned of the effect of those lost jobs. 

Now, Massachusetts is doing slightly better than the rest of the 

country. Ninety-seven percent of our citizens have health insurance. We were the first State to come out of—statistically come out 

of the recession. We are fifth right now in creating new jobs. But 

we are still doing that with much too high an unemployment rate 

and people suffering from the effects of not having a job. So that 

will remain my priority, getting people back to work. That is the 

best way to address all of our country’s problems. 

Ms. BASS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. 

Maybe California could borrow some money from Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. 

Ms. BASS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Keating. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Keating, very briefly, thank you for your testimony. 

Thank you, by the way, for taking the time to actually come up 

with specific proposals. We are going to need as many of those as 

we can get in the coming days. 

I will reference the report that you mentioned, however, regarding the 700,000 jobs that are lost. I have seen a similar report I 

think from Goldman Sachs that said we would cut 2 percent off of 

the GDP. If you run the math at that multiplier level, then the 

stimulus bill should have created 9 million jobs and added 26 percent to GDP. So I think the gild is off the lily when it comes to 

the multiplier effect of government spending. 

But to your larger point, all of these cuts have faces attached to 

them. There is no question. Every single person in this Congress 

has folks in their constituency who will be affected by them. I just 
67 

hope we don’t lose the sight of the other faces, which are the folks 

who are paying the debt. I have three 11-year-olds who are faced 

with a crushing debt in their future and a dramatically lower 

standard of living. So I know that we share some of the same goals. 

I think we probably have different ideas on how to get there. But 

I do appreciate your testimony today. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if I may—— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Certainly. 

Mr. KEATING. If we are making cuts, I do want to see that applied to the deficit. And I think there is a real question that the 

cuts will not translate into deficit reduction. So that is something 

with we can discuss together and work towards, because I agree 

with you, the deficit reduction is important. 

And I also believe, seeing what is happening in my State, that 

delicate balance of maintaining and creating new jobs while at the 

same time creating a framework to deal with that deficit remains 

all of our—all of us here in Congress—that remains our number 

one priority. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Next up, Mr. Olson from Texas. 

Mr. Olson, thank you for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE OLSON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

I appear before you to express my strong and unwavering support for the principles of American leadership in human space 

flight. As the former ranking member of the Space and Aeronautics 

Subcommittee and a proud Representative of the 22nd Congressional District of Texas, home to the Johnson Space Center, I call 

for careful consideration of human space flight funding within the 

overall NASA budget. 

Since the first Mercury flight of May 5, 1961, the U.S. human 

space flight program has been a source of pride and inspiration for 

our Nation. A strong commitment to human space exploration is 

vital to America’s national security and economy. And I respectfully 

submit that our Republican budget should reflect this national priority. NASA is a unique agency that has spurred private-sector job 

growth and fuels the economy with American ideas and innovation. 

The extraordinary challenges of achieving access to space have 

also motivated and accelerated the development of technologies and 

industrial capabilities that have widespread applications and have 

contributed to the technological excellence of the United States. 

Human space exploration also continues to inspire our young 

Americans to pursue careers in the key areas of science, technology, engineering, mathematics. 

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s budget for NASA 

cedes our historical dominance in human space flight to countries 

like China, Russia, India, who are anxious to seize the mantle of 

space supremacy. The President’s budget also dismisses the priorities that Congress defined and the President signed in the NASA 

Authorization Act of 2010. The President’s budget calls for more 
68 

funding for advancing the development of private commercial crew 

services at the expense of developing a space launch system and a 

multipurpose crew vehicle to replace the retiring shuttle. 

With the cancellation of the Constellation program, we are also 

facing a gap between shuttle retirement and America’s ability to 

independently access low-Earth orbit and beyond. America will be 

forced to rely solely on Russia to get our astronauts to the International Space Station, which the United States has paid the overwhelming share to build. Russia has learned the value of capitalism and recently announced that they are hiking the price of 

rides to the space station from $56 million to nearly $63 million per 

astronaut starting in 2014. This lack of independent access stems 

from a failure on the part of Congress to provide adequate resources to complete the mission we gave NASA. 

As a strong fiscal conservative, I know that our Nation is on an 

untenable economic path. We face a tidal wave of debt. In getting 

our fiscal house in order, we must focus on ensuring that we preserve critical capabilities and guarantee that agencies are focused 

on their primary mission. For NASA, that mission is human space 

flight, plain and simple. 

However, for years Congress has charged NASA with completing 

tasks that fall outside the scope of its primary mission. Specifically, 

NASA spent over $1 billion in fiscal year 2010 on global warming 

research and climate change studies. Yet climate change research 

is currently being conducted by 16 different agencies in our Federal 

Government. Our Federal Government spent over $8.7 billion on 

these programs in 2010 alone. In this time of limited resources, we 

must take a commonsense approach to Federal spending by cutting 

duplicative programs. We must focus our limited resources where 

they will most be effective, by reorienting NASA’s mission back toward human space flight. If we reduce funding for climate change 

research, we have can lower the overall NASA budget while maintaining our human space flight at levels that do not cede our Nation’s global leadership to other Nations. 

NASA’s core mission is providing exceptionalism through human 

space exploration. America and the world have reaped benefits of 

this investment. The commitments we make to continuation of 

human space flight today will yield meaningful and sustained economic returns for decades to come. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I yield back my time, and am 

happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Pete Olson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

I appear before you to express my strong and unwavering support for the principles of American leadership in human space flight. 

As the former Ranking Member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee and 

the proud representative of the 22nd district of Texas—home to the Johnson Space 

Center—I call for careful consideration of human space flight funding within the 

overall NASA budget. 

Since the first Mercury flight on May 5, 1961, the U.S. human space flight program has been a source of pride and inspiration for our nation. 

A strong commitment to human space exploration is vital to America’s national 

security and economy, and I respectfully submit that our Republican budget should 

reflect this national priority. 
69 

NASA is a unique agency that has spurred private sector job growth and fuels 

the economy with American ideas and innovation. 

The extraordinary challenges of achieving access to space have also motivated and 

accelerated the development of technologies and industrial capabilities that have 

widespread applications and have contributed to the technological excellence of the 

United States. 

Human space exploration also continues to inspire our young Americans to pursue 

careers in the key areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. 

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration’s budget for NASA cedes our historical 

dominance in human space flight to countries like China, Russia, and India, who 

are anxious to seize the mantle of space supremacy. 

The President’s NASA budget also dismisses the priorities that Congress defined—AND the President signed—in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. 

The President’s budget calls for more funding for advancing the development of 

private commercial crew services at the expense of developing a Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) to replace the retiring Shuttle. 

With the cancellation of the Constellation program, we are also facing a gap between shuttle retirement and America’s ability to independently access low earth 

orbit and beyond. 

America will be forced to rely solely on Russia to get our astronauts to the International Space Station, which the United States has paid the overwhelming share 

to build. 

Russia has learned the value of capitalism and recently announced they are hik- ing the price of rides to the Space Station from $56 million to nearly $63 million 

per seat starting in 2014. 

This lack of independent access stems from a failure on the part of Congress to 

provide adequate resources to complete the mission we gave NASA. 

As a strong fiscal conservative, I know that our nation is on an untenable economic path; we face a tidal wave of debt. 

In getting our fiscal house in order, we must focus on ensuring that we preserve 

critical capabilities and guarantee that agencies are focused on their primary mission. 

For NASA, that mission is human space flight. Plain and simple. 

However, for years Congress has charged NASA with completing tasks that fall 

outside the scope of its primary mission. 

Specifically, NASA spent over one billion dollars in FY2010 on global warming research and climate change studies. 

Yet, climate change research is currently being conducted across 16 different federal agencies. Our federal government spent over $8.7 billion on these programs in just 2010 

alone. 

In this time of limited resources, we must take a common-sense approach to federal spending by cutting duplicative programs. 

We must focus our limited resources where they will be most effective, by reorienting NASA’s mission back toward human space flight. 

If we reduce funding for climate change research, we can lower the overall NASA 

budget while maintaining human space flight at levels that do not cede our nation’s 

global leadership to other nations. 

NASA’s core mission is proving American exceptionalism through human space 

exploration. 

America and the world have reaped the benefits of this investment. 

The commitments we make to the continuation of human space flight today will 

yield meaningful and sustained economic returns for decades to come. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mr. Olson. 

Ms. Bass? 

Ms. BASS OF CALIFORNIA. No questions. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Olson, I have no questions. 

Thank you very much for your testimony today. I appreciate the 

effort. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Gentlemen, we are sort of operating on a first 

come, first served at this point. 

So if it is okay with you, Mr. Loebsack, we will move now to Mr. 

Duncan. 
70 

Mr. Duncan, thank you for coming in. You have 5 minutes, 

please, sir, to make your presentation. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. DUNCAN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It 

is good to see you in the chairman’s chair, as just a side note. Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Federal 

budget priorities which are of importance to the American people 

this afternoon. Our Nation faces an unprecedented spending and 

debt crisis that threatens our whole economy. And I appreciate the 

committee’s willingness to hear from Members of Congress on these 

issues. 

Mr. Chairman, as I traveled across the Third District of South 

Carolina last week, I encountered one overarching theme from the 

people in the Palmetto State: Government spending is out of control. Our Federal Government is too large, spends too much money 

and is out of touch with the needs of the American people. What 

we need to start doing today is roll back the size and scope of the 

Federal Government. 

As you know all too well, we are now more than $14 trillion in 

debt, and we are in our third year of deficit spending in excess of 

$1 trillion. To make matters worse, the budget we received from 

President Obama is projected to run an additional deficit of $1.6 

trillion for fiscal year 2012. We must stop the spending insanity. 

If the people of South Carolina made one thing clear in November, it was that our government must make significant spending 

cuts now in order to build surpluses, reduce our Nation’s debt, and 

jump-start real job creation. Congress needs to accept the same financial realities that families and businesses are facing all across 

the country. We must look for practical ways to lower costs and 

control the runaway government spending, which represents one of 

the greatest threats to our national security. That is why we need 

to make fighting Washington’s urge to grow government one of our 

top priorities. 

We begin this process by going back to the basics. And that 

starts by adhering to the United States Constitution. Mr. Chairman, when I read this document, I don’t see run a car company. 

I don’t see take over banks. I don’t see fund America’s largest abortion provider. And I don’t see run a national health insurance 

scheme listed in my copy. 

Ending these government takeovers of private-sector functions 

and questionable line items should be the first things we address 

when we cut this budget. 

In addition, the GAO has found duplicate programs within our 

government that could save another $200 billion a year. If we decide that a government program is a legitimate answer to a problem we face, then let’s only have one program that is responsible 

for the problem, not 17, or as you heard Mr. Olson say, many, 

many more addressing certain issues. 

Beyond that low-hanging fruit, my constituents want me to make 

sure there are no sacred cows in this budget. Everything has to be 

on the table. For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have 

helped to fuel our addiction to government spending. But the 
71 

American people expect this Congress to finally cut up the credit 

cards and get spending under control. A lot of these cuts won’t be 

easy. But we are all going to have to row this boat if we are going 

to get this country headed in the right direction. 

This means reforming our entitlement systems, eliminating programs, reducing the size and scope of government, which will in 

the end ensure a future for our children where the government is 

solvent and secure. As a small business owner, when times were 

tough, I had to cut back. I had to set priorities and really address 

my spending. We all know that you can’t dig your way out of a 

hole, and our country can’t spend its way out of debt. Only by managing our government the same way that we manage our homes, 

our small businesses, and our large businesses will we be able to 

tackle this fiscal crisis. 

If this is not the time to cut Federal spending and begin to work 

toward a balanced budget, I ask, when is the time? I would contend 

that the time is now. The time is now. Let history show that this 

Congress took this Nation back from the brink of financial disaster 

and put it on the right path to fiscal sanity. Again, Mr. Chairman, 

I want to thank you for giving us as Members of Congress and not 

members of the Budget Committee an opportunity to have a voice 

in this process. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Jeff Duncan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss these matters of importance today. Our nation faces an unprecedented crisis that threatens all of our economy, and I appreciate your willingness to hear from members on these issues. 

Mr. Chairman, as I toured the Third District last year as part of my campaign, 

I encountered one, overarching theme among my constituents—Government has 

gone out of control. Our federal government is too big, tries to do too much, and 

spends too much hard-earned taxpayer money in the process. What we need to start 

doing today is to roll back the size and scope of the federal government. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know all too well, we are now more than $14 Trillion dollars in debt. That number equates to approximately 94% of our Gross Domestic 

Product. Economists tell us that debt over 90% of GDP costs us 1% of economic 

growth per year. Mr. Chairman, when you extrapolate that over the size of the 

American market, that means we are losing one million jobs per year in this country 

because of our debt. It is no wonder that our national unemployment rate remains 

far too high—and I can tell you that in the Third District of South Carolina, our 

unemployment rate remains above the national average. 

Mr. Chairman, to make that worse, the budget we received from President Obama 

purports to run an additional deficit of $1.6 trillion dollars for Fiscal Year 2012. 

Some suspect that number to actually be much higher, possibly as high as $2 trillion dollars. Mr. Chairman, for the voters of South Carolina, this would be an unacceptable outcome. 

If there has been one message I have heard as a Congressman from my constituents it is this—cut spending now. Cut discretionary spending, cut entitlements, but 

balance the budget in a way that does not mortgage the future of my boys and my 

future grandchildren. 

Mr. Chairman, we need to start this process by going back to basics. If this Constitution, which I carry in my pocket every day, Mr. Chairman, if this Constitution 

doesn’t specifically enumerate powers to this government, then this government 

should stop doing those things, and we in this body should ensure that taxpayers 

stop having paying for them. I do not see ‘‘run a car company,’’ ‘‘takeover banks,’’ 

‘‘pay off Planned Parenthood,’’ or ‘‘run a national health insurance scheme’’ listed 

in my copy of the Constitution. Ending these government takeovers of private sector 

functions and questionable line items should be the first things we cut in this budget. 
72 

In addition, Mr. Chairman, the GAO has found duplicate programs within our 

government that could save another $200 billion dollars a year. If we decide that 

a government program is the legitimate answer to a problem, let’s only have one 

program that is responsible for that problem, not seventeen. 

Beyond that low hanging fruit, Mr. Chairman, my constituents want to make sure 

that there are no sacred cows in this budget. Everything has to be on the table. No 

pet project, no pet program, no constituency is safe from the debt crisis that we face, 

so none of those spending priorities can go unscathed. This means reforming our entitlement systems, dialing back the pensions of federal employees, eliminating programs, and in the end returning our financial future to solvency. 

Common sense dictates that we cut up the credit cards and live within our means, 

just like every American household has to do. 

Mr. Chairman, if we cannot make the tough choices in this crisis, facing a debt 

meltdown not unlike what the failed Socialist euro-states have faced, when can we? 

If this isn’t the time to cut federal spending back to a balanced budget, to surpluses 

that help us pay down this debt, when is that time? I would argue that this time 

is now. Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, I hope that you also will 

be as committed to ending these deficits and this debt, and will produce a budget 

that does not spend more than it takes in. Prudence, and our constituents, demand 

no less. 

Thank you for this time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

Ms. Bass? 

Mr. Duncan, all I can say is I appreciate your testimony. It 

sounds like you are speaking to some of the same people that I 

may be speaking with, but that would cover the fact that our districts touch each other. So maybe that explains that. Thank you, 

sir. I appreciate you coming in. 

Mr. Loebsack, thank you for waiting, and thank you for coming 

in a little bit ahead of time today. You can go ahead and have 5 

minutes, please, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID LOEBSACK, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, ranking 

member, for the opportunity to testify today about my constituents’ 

priorities for the 2012 budget. 

As we know, our country is facing great challenges that demand 

tough choices and really very serious bipartisan work. We must 

come together to make thoughtful decisions that eliminate unnecessary spending and prioritize job growth, economic recovery, and the 

long-term fiscal health of our Nation. We must work together to get 

our fiscal house in order. 

However, at a time when so many families and businesses are 

still struggling, we must ensure that the choices we make do not 

set back our economic recovery but instead pave the way for ongoing economic growth. I have heard time and again from my constituents that especially in these tough economic times, we cannot 

divest in the areas that promote economic growth, job creation, and 

strong communities. Renewable energy development that will create jobs, training to ensure American workers lead the 21st century 

global economy, infrastructure that businesses and farmers need to 

support economic growth, research that promotes innovation and 

industrial competitiveness, and equipment that our first responders 

need to keep our families safe are just some of the areas that my 

constituents have told me are critical to our communities, to our 

State, and indeed to our Nation. 
73 

Furthermore, there are two overarching issues that continue to 

be important in my district and are pressing as you consider the 

budget, flood recovery and education. As I have testified the past 

2 years before this committee, Iowa suffered the worst natural disaster in our State’s history in 2008, and our communities are still 

struggling to recover. It is vitally important for not only my district 

but districts across the country that FEMA be provided adequate 

resources to respond to natural disasters and also fulfill its obligation of previous recovery commitments. 

I also hope that FEMA and the other Departments involved will 

be provided resources to examine reforms to the disaster recovery 

system. Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers provides vital 

disaster response, recovery, and flood-prevention functions. I urge 

you to consider the critical need for a new WRDA bill and funding 

for new flood protection projects, such as the proposal to protect 

Cedar Rapids in my district. 

Flood protection can also be a community effort. And I am fortunate to come from Iowa, where civic engagement and a sense of 

community are the norm, not the exception. The outpouring of support during the 2008 floods was humbling. But those who responded to the flooding in my district told me that they had to send 

away volunteers who wanted to help, if you can imagine that. This 

wasn’t because they didn’t need the assistance but because they 

didn’t have the infrastructure and planning tools to utilize the sudden influx of people. 

That is why I helped to create the Volunteer Generation Fund, 

to invest in volunteer recruitment and management, and help 

States, cities, and towns develop the infrastructure to effectively respond to natural disasters and other emergencies. It is vital, I believe, that the Volunteer Generation Fund be included in budget 

discussions. 

I would also like to talk today about the importance of education 

for America’s future. The investments that we make in education 

now determine our country’s future competitiveness. That is why I 

believe that this is not the time to make cuts in education. I grew 

up in poverty. And if it hadn’t been for student loan programs and 

financial aid, I would not have been able to attend Iowa State University and, indeed, I would not be here where I am today. 

Earlier this year, I spent a week visiting colleges and community 

colleges across my district, speaking to students about the importance of financial aid and Pell Grants. They told me that Pell 

Grants made it possible for them not only to get a higher education 

but also to enhance their future. I was proud to sponsor an amendment to create year-round Pell Grants in 2008. In its first year, 

760,000 students nationwide took advantage of the chance to access 

financial aid over the summer in order to graduate faster and with 

less debt. This program is making a big difference for many students, and I believe it should be maintained. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge you to consider these priorities. This debate is not about sacred cows or about pet projects; it is about moving America forward. Thank you again for allowing me to testify 

today, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of David Loebsack follows:] 
74 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID LOEBSACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today about my constituents’ priorities for the 2012 budget. 

Our country is facing great challenges that demand tough choices and serious, bipartisan work. We must come together to make thoughtful decisions that eliminate 

unnecessary spending and prioritize job growth, economic recovery, and the longterm fiscal health of our nation. 

We must work together to get our fiscal house in order. However, at a time when 

so many families and businesses are still struggling, we must ensure that the 

choices we make do not set back our economic recovery but instead pave the way 

for ongoing economic growth. 

I have heard time and again from my constituents that, especially in these tough 

economic times, we cannot divest in the areas that promote economic growth, job 

creation, and strong communities. 

Renewable energy development that will create jobs; training to ensure American 

workers lead the 21st century global economy; infrastructure that businesses and 

farmers need to support economic growth; research that promotes innovation and 

industrial competitiveness; and equipment that our first responders need to keep 

our families safe are just some of the areas that my constituents have told me are 

critical to our communities, state, and nation. 

Furthermore, there are two overarching issues that continue to be important to 

my District and are pressing as you consider the budget—flood recovery and education. 

As I have testified the past two years before this Committee, Iowa suffered the 

worst natural disaster in our state’s history in 2008 and our communities are still 

struggling to recover. 

It is vitally important for not only my District but districts across the country that 

FEMA be provided adequate resources to respond to natural disasters and also fulfill their obligation to previous recovery commitments. I also hope that FEMA and 

the other Departments involved will be provided resources to examine reforms to 

the disaster recovery system. 

Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers provides vital disaster response, recovery, and flood prevention functions. I urge you to consider the critical need for a 

new WRDA bill and funding for new flood protection projects such as the proposal 

to protect Cedar Rapids in my District. 

Flood prevention can also be a community effort and I am fortunate to come from 

Iowa where civic engagement and a sense of community are the norm. The outpouring of support during the 2008 Floods was humbling, but those who responded 

to the flooding in my district told me that they had to send away volunteers who 

wanted to help. This wasn’t because they didn’t need the assistance, but because 

they didn’t have the infrastructure and planning tools to utilize the sudden influx 

of people. 

That is why I helped create the Volunteer Generation Fund to invest in volunteer 

recruitment and management and help states, cities, and towns develop the infrastructure to effectively respond to natural disasters and other emergencies. It is 

vital that the Volunteer Generation Fund be included in budget discussions. 

I’d also like to talk today about the importance of education for America’s future. 

The investments that we make in education now determine our country’s future 

competitiveness. That is why I believe that this is not the time to make cuts in education. I grew up in poverty and if it hadn’t been for student loan programs and 

financial aid, I would not have been able to attend Iowa State and would not be 

where I am today. 

Earlier this year, I spent a week visiting colleges and community colleges across 

my District, speaking with students about the importance of financial aid and Pell 

Grants. They told me that Pell grants made it possible for them to not only get a 

higher education, but also to enhance their future. 

I was proud to sponsor an amendment to create year-round Pell grants in 2008. 

In its first year, 760,000 students nationwide took advantage of the chance to access 

financial aid over the summer in order to graduate faster and with less debt. This 

program is making a big difference for many students and it should be maintained. 

I urge you to consider these priorities. Thank you again for allowing me to testify 

today. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Loebsack, thank you very much for coming 

in today. We appreciate your presentation. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 
75 

Mr. MULVANEY. We will move right now to Ms. Hanabusa from 

Hawaii. Thank you for coming in as well. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of several 

programs that are not only very critical to Hawaii but also you will 

find, when I mention them, are very timely and have great significance to not only Hawaii but all of the Pacific Rim. 

First of all, I would like to ask this committee’s consideration on 

the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. As you know, the H.R. 1 was 

cutting about 21 percent from the NOAA budget. By doing that, of 

course, the National Weather Service would be cut and in addition 

to that the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. I need not tell you 

about the impact of what happened with the tsunami, earthquake, 

and the devastation that happened to Japan. What prevented Hawaii’s loss of lives was the fact that the Pacific Tsunami Warning 

Center was really on the mark on all of its projections, telling us 

exactly when the waves would hit, the height of those waves, and 

where we would be in danger. 

It doesn’t mean we didn’t suffer damage. We have at least $30 

million suffered on the Big Island alone. But we were fortunate in 

that there were no loss of lives. 

It is also critical not only for Hawaii, but it is critical for the 

whole Pacific area. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center works in 

conjunction with Alaska. And through that, they both protect not 

only protect Alaska, Hawaii, all the territories we have in the Pacific, but Oregon, California, Washington. Those coasts are also 

taken care of. 

We cannot afford to lose what this institution does. It is about 

$25 million. I will admit to you right up front the Pacific Tsunami 

Warning Center has been an earmark for Hawaii, and we no longer 

will see earmarks. But that doesn’t eliminate or in any way diminish the importance that this establishment serves. 

Think about what has happened. It caused one of our colleagues 

to say we need something like the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center 

on the Atlantic side, in the Caribbean, to also give people the proper warning. We are talking about lives; $25 million, yes, but the 

lives of the people, the preparation, and the years and years of experience. 

I would like to share with you that my staff was there just about 

a week ago. And while they were being given a tour of the Pacific 

Tsunami Warning Center, another earthquake hit off the coast of 

Japan exactly in the same place. And they were told—it was about 

5 points on the Richter scale—they were told then that a tsunami 

would not be generated. That is the kind of information that we 

need. That is the kind of information, because fear and people acting in a frantic manner causes as much problems as anything else. 

In addition to that, I would like to also ask this committee’s consideration for the East-West Center. The East-West Center was 

created by Congress about 50 years ago. The East-West Center has 

been cut, and yes, I will also say that in President Obama’s budget, 

it is cut to $10 million. It is a $21 million necessity. It has tradi-
76 

tionally always been plussed up. What this means for the Pacific 

area is really the future of economic development. It shows us that 

at a time when Japan, a major ally of ours, is going through great 

changes, it also provides the institution that brings the Pacific Nations together, like China, like Korea, and it gives everyone the opportunity to meet, to meet in an academic, as well now with APEC, 

in an economic setting. This is very critical. And we ask that this 

committee also look at that and realize that it is very significant, 

especially with the devastation that we must now rebuild in the 

Pacific. 

I have also pointed out two other programs. One is the Native 

Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program. That has been cut to 

zero. Today there has been a bill introduced to make things right 

with the native Hawaiians, the last of the indigenous people that 

we must make right. And in light of that bill, I ask that this also 

be restored. Because we know that part of our commitment when 

the native Hawaiians were given by way of the Hawaiian Homes 

Commission Act by Congress in 1920, it was the necessity of 

homes. 

And finally, last but not least is the rail project. Honolulu is second only to the ranking member’s Los Angeles in terms of congestion. And we do not have mass transit of that nature. This project 

needs to continue. It also reduces our dependence on fossil fuels. 

We are the most fossil fuel-dependent State in the Nation because 

we are in the middle of the Pacific. Please assist us in getting free 

of fossil fuel dependence. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ranking member. 

[The prepared statement of Colleen Hanabusa follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of several programs that are of importance to the State of Hawaii: the Pacific Tsunami Warning 

Center, the East-West Center, Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants, and the 

Honolulu Rail Transit Project. 

PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER

Within minutes following the recent devastating earthquake off Japan, NOAA’s 

Pacific Tsunami Warning Center was able to issue warnings for Japan, Russia, 

Marcus Island, and the Northern Marianas Islands. Additionally, NOAA’s West 

Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center issued a tsunami information statement (assessing potential tsunami threats) for Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California. These centers later issued tsunami warnings for Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California. This advanced warning allowed local emergency managers and the public to take life-saving actions such as local evacuation 

orders. 

In their haste to cut every program no matter its value, the House Republican’s 

budget which passed in February slashed $1.2 billion, or 21 percent, of President 

Obama’s proposed budget for NOAA. Part of the NOAA budget is the National 

Weather Service which includes the Tsunami Warning Program. 

The FY 2011 request for the Tsunami Warning Program was $25 million. This 

provides for 24 hour/7 days a week tsunami monitoring, maintenance of the DART 

buoy tsunami warning system, advanced computer modeling of the coast lines most 

at risk to tsunamis and the issuing of tsunami advisories, watches and warnings 

for the entire coastline of the U.S. and its territories as well as many nations in 

the Pacific. 

If these drastic cuts from H.R. 1 were to take effect, a NOAA-wide rolling furlough 

scenario would likely be inevitable, impacting Buoy Center employees, contractors, 
77 

and Tsunami Warning Center personnel. NOAA would attempt to plan any furloughs to ensure at least one Tsunami Warning Center would remain fully staffed. 

However, the risk to forecasts would increase by creating a single point of failure. 

Additionally, most NOAA observing systems would be maintained on an emergencyonly basis. 

These reckless cuts put considerable stress on national tsunami monitoring, hindering scientists’ ability to forecast weather and alert communities about imminent, 

dangerous events. Ultimately these irresponsible cuts put American lives at risk. 

EAST-WEST CENTER

The East-West Center, which was established by an act of Congress 50 years ago, 

is a national institution headquartered in my Honolulu district and employs 190 of 

my constituents. It needs an appropriation commensurate with previous levels approved by Congress—at least $21 million—in order to sustain its core functions, 

which I believe are vitally important to our national interests. 

This brings me to the budget, and I want to make four main points. First, this 

is a government-sponsored program that for good reason is set up outside the government but with a great deal of governmental involvement. The Secretary of State 

appoints a third of the members of the governing board of the East-West Center, 

and an assistant secretary of State sits ex officio on the Center’s board. The Center 

works closely with governmental authorities, but it can be far more flexible, far less 

expensive, and can reach groups that government programs have a harder time 

working with, such as Muslim journalists, minorities, or Taiwanese authorities. 

Second, this is a program that brings a significant share of non-appropriated resources to the public good that it provides, unlike the big government bureaucracies. 

The high point in the governmental budget for the East-West Center was during 

the administrations of former Presidents Reagan and George H. Bush. Last year’s 

Congressional appropriation was still less than that during the administration of 

George H. W. Bush. 

The Center’s gets a big bang for the Federal buck by using the appropriated 

money to leverage other income. Over the years, the Center has evolved into a true 

public-private partnership. The effect of any reductions in the appropriated level 

would be to dramatically undermine the Center’s ability to leverage Federal funds 

to obtain private monies. Most of the appropriated income goes to salaries and infrastructure, while most of the programmatic money comes from non-appropriated resources. Thus, the Center estimates that if the appropriation is reduced from the 

levels that Congress has appropriated in recent years to the OMB request—which 

would amount to a decrease of more than 50 percent in one year—it would have 

to eliminate 120 positions. This would inflict a staggering blow to the Center’s ability to conduct its public diplomacy activities. 

Third, as you know, the President’s budget request for the Center in FY 2012 is 

$10.830 million. In previous administrations as well as the current one, it has been 

widely understood that the President’s budget request for the Center is artificially 

low in expectation that Congress will plus this figure up to enable it to implement 

programs and activities that complement and add critical value to State Department’s efforts in Asia. Indeed, for the past five fiscal years, the OMB figure generally has hovered in the $10 million to $12 million range, which if left unaltered, 

would incapacitate the Center. Fortunately, Congress has approved appropriations 

for the Center ranging from $19.240 million in FY 2005 to $21 million in FY 2009 

and $23 million in FY2010. And importantly, neither the State Department nor 

OMB has objected to the ‘‘plus up’’—precisely because they expect it. 

Finally, I would like to underscore a policy point. Funding for the Center at the 

$10.8 million level would have an immediate and potentially disastrous impact on 

this country’s foreign policy and national security interests in one of the most dynamic regions of the world, the Asia Pacific. I want to reiterate that the East-West 

Center is not a foreign aid program. It serves as a key instrument of public diplomacy aimed at projecting US values and interests by working directly with our regional counterparts on key issues of mutual concern. At the President’s proposed 

budget, it simply would not be able to carry out these core functions. 

A more than 50 percent cut in the East-West Center’s funding would send a powerful negative signal of US disinterest in Asia Pacific just ahead of the summit in 

Hawaii this November of the heads of government of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC)—a group that includes China, Russia, Japan, Australia, 

and many other of our partners and allies in the region. The East-West Center has 

long been involved in APEC. It would be unable to provide meaningful help to the 

State Department in hosting this year’s meeting. In addition, draconian cuts to the 

Center’s current budget will mean that it no longer could serve as the organizing 
78 

US committee for the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC), an official ‘‘second track’’ to APEC—an activity it assumed some years ago at the request of the 

Department of State. 

The Center has been a key partner with the State Department and with state and 

local officials and the business community in providing staff and facilities for the 

APEC meeting and leading national outreach efforts focused on the trade and foreign policy implications of APEC. In short, without the Center’s help, the United 

States risks falling short as an APEC host in the eyes of the nations of the Asia 

Pacific. 

To conclude, Mr. Chair, and particularly in light of tight fiscal resources, I urge 

the committee to support the East-West Center at the Congressional level in the 

past fiscal years—$21 million—so it may continue to provide vital, cost-effective 

support for U.S. foreign policy and security interests in a critically important, fastgrowing region of the world. This is truly an example of public diplomacy that 

works—an effective program that gives the taxpayers the best value for their 

money. 

THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT (NHHBG) PROGRAM

The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) program fulfills a trust obligation which Congress created in 1920 through the Hawaiian Homes Commission 

Act, recognizing that it is necessary to return Native Hawaiians to the land for the 

preservation of their culture, traditions, and values. This grant program provides affordable housing opportunities to low-income Native Hawaiian families eligible to 

reside on the Hawaiian home lands. Funds are used to develop new and existing 

units and the infrastructure to support them, as well as support services, housing 

counseling, and community facilities for residents. A disruption in funding would 

have a devastating impact on the 20 regional plans in development statewide—including a new 18-home community designed to zero out electricity costs through sustainable energy technologies. According to the Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands’ 2010 Native Hawaiian Housing Plan, there are 7,300 Native Hawaiian families living on Hawaiian home lands; 25,000 Native Hawaiian applicants on the wait 

list to reside on Hawaiian home lands; and an estimated 32,000 potential Native 

Hawaiian applicants. 

HONOLULU RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT AND SUPPORT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION’S PROPOSED FY 2012 BUDGET

The Administration’s Department of Transportation FY 2012 budget proposal in- cludes $3.2 billion for Capital Investment Projects (New Starts Account). This includes $250 million in funding for the Honolulu Rail Transit Project. The $3.2 billion proposal is an increase of $1 billion over the Administration’s FY 2011 request. 

While some of my colleagues may push back on this increased funding, the reality is that our country faces nearly $4.00/gallon gas on the mainland and is already an 

average of $4.14/gallon in Honolulu. It is essential that the country increase its investment in public transit as the cost of daily commuting by car becomes prohibitive 

and struggling middle class families are forced to choose between meeting essential 

family needs like paying the mortgage, rent, medical and grocery bills or spending 

$80 just to fill up the family car. 

According to a recent study, Honolulu was the 2nd most congested Metro area in 

the country in 2010, only behind Los Angeles and worse than San Francisco, Washington DC and New York. Public transportation is extremely well utilized in Honolulu as ridership statistics show. Honolulu has the 4th most annual transit 

boardings per capita and the 4th most annual transit passenger miles per capita 

in the country. 

Individuals completed 77 million unlinked trips in 2009 and utilized an active 

fleet of 531 buses. With a 41 cents operating expense per passenger mile, Honolulu 

had the best bus cost effectiveness among the nation’s top 50 transit bus operators. 

The population of O’ahu continues to grow, thus the demand on ridership and car 

traffic will be higher in the coming years. By 2030 it is estimated that compared 

to 2005, O’ahu will have 200,000 more residents, 100,000 more jobs and 750,000 

more daily trips. 

This new 20-mile rail system will connect East Kapolei to the Ala Moana Center 

with 21 stations including stops at Honolulu International Airport and Aloha Stadium. This $5.5 billion project will be paid for through local and federal government 

funding. 70 percent coming from the state/local government and 30 percent from the 

federal government. The local government is holding to its end of the bargain with 

over $613 million in General Excise & Use Tax collected to date. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Ms. Hanabusa. 
79 

Ms. Bass? 

Ms. BASS OF CALIFORNIA. I just wanted to make a comment. 

Thank you, Congress Member, for testifying. I just really, one, 

want to express my sympathy for what happened on the island 

after the earthquake and my really appreciation to you for bringing 

it to our attention about the tsunami center, because I think living 

on the West Coast in California, we have the tsunami warning center as well. And I think most of the times we think ourselves beyond the realm of possibility of facing a tsunami. And you have put 

a human face on that. But also coming and giving us a specific example about how that benefited in this last crisis. 

And I could imagine that if that center had not been there when 

the earthquake happened last week, I could imagine that people 

would have just been very fearful. Because I remember watching 

the news when that actually happened, and the tsunami warning 

went off in Japan. So thank you for your testimony and for raising 

our awareness about the significance of that to Hawaii. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. 

But I would also like to add that the Pacific Tsunami Warning 

Center does serve the Pacific. Yes, it is in my district. It is in Hawaii, but it does service the whole Pacific. And everyone looks to 

them for any information. CNN was telling the rest of the Nation 

what was going on by reports by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, again. We are going to take a brief 

recess to round up some more testimony, and be back in about 10 

minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN [presiding]. The House Budget Committee will 

come to order. 

And the chair will recognize Congresswoman Mazie Hirono for 5 

minutes. Thank you for being here. I look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. This committee has an important job. Crafting the congressional budget resolution is a statement of our national priorities. And I appreciate the opportunity to 

offer my views on what some of those priorities should be. 

While I recognize that over the long term we must rein in our 

budget deficit, arbitrarily cutting our Federal spending back to fiscal year 2008 levels, which has been proposed, is in my view a 

meat-ae approach to fiscal discipline. It is also an inadequate response to the domestic and global challenges that we face. This approach fails to recognize something very important about the programs being slashed and what they mean to our local communities. 

Our local communities are the backbone of our Nation. They are 

where we make our homes, where we raise and educate our children. They are also where small businesses get their start, sometimes on the road to becoming big businesses. 
80 

In short, our local communities are the bedrock on which our national strength is built. Continuing to adequately fund the programs that mean the most to these communities is vitally important to our long-term success. Today I would like focus on three 

programs that provide critical support to all of our communities. 

First, Community Development Block Grants, CDBG; second, Community Services Block Grants, CSBG; and third, Head Start. 

Programs like these are highly successful because they are community identified and community led. It is not the Federal Government telling them what to do at every step. Earlier this month, 

hundreds of county leaders converged in D.C. for their annual National Association of Counties meeting. All of the county council 

members from my district impressed upon me the importance of 

these programs, because they fulfill important needs of the people 

they represent. I am sure your local leaders conveyed the same 

message to you. In fact, leaders of this bipartisan group adopted 

two resolutions that support full funding of programs like CDBG 

and CSBG. 

Since 1974, the CDBG program has been a lifeline to people from 

all of the four counties in Hawaii. CDBG funds have supported economic development, job creation, and facility needs for the most 

disadvantaged in Hawaii. It has also given some of them a much 

needed hand up when times are tough, a hand they wouldn’t have 

received without the Federal funding. 

For example, CDBG funds helped families on the Island of Kauai 

access affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing in a place 

as expensive as Hawaii is a serious concern for many people in 

Kauai and indeed throughout the State. More than 1,300 residents 

are on Kauai Habitat for Humanity’s affordable housing waiting 

list. With CDBG funds, Kauai Habitat for Humanity will complete 

the final phase of infrastructure improvements and build affordable 

homes for over 125 low- to moderate-income families. 

Turning to Community Service Block Grants, the Community Action Network supported by these grants helps 20 million people, 20 

million people in need across the country. One Community Action 

Program in my County of Maui, called the Maui Economic Opportunity, MEO, receives about $466,000 annually in CSBG funding. 

This funding helps generate $18 million a year in services to lowincome individuals and their families and to small businesses. 

With CSBG funds, MEO provided a wide variety of services to 

some 22,000 people in that county, which includes the Islands of 

Lanai, Molokai, and Maui last year alone. These include comprehensive programs like early childhood services, business development and job programs, transportation for seniors and the disabled, and an array of other services that strengthen the community and provide opportunities to all ages. 

The third area I ask the committee to support is robust funding 

for Federal programs that help our keiki, a Hawaiian word meaning children. In Hawaii and nationwide, helping our children thrive 

is an investment in our future. For children in poverty, achievement gaps begin well before kindergarten. Study after study has 

shown that investing in quality early learning programs can yield 

a huge return on investment by reducing the costs of special education, high school dropouts, teen pregnancy, crime, incarceration, 
81 

and dependence on social services later in life. Quality early-learning programs increase the likelihood of college attendance and completion. So, robust support for programs like Head Start makes 

sense. 

I recently med with Family Support Services of West Hawaii. 

And this program was recently able to open a new Head Start center in the rural community of Ka’u on the Island of Hawaii. A target of our Race to the Top reform efforts, Ka’u remains one of the 

most economically disadvantaged areas in my State. 

Head Start not only supports our children; it creates opportunities for others in our communities and for people of all ages. Let 

me tell you about Regina. Regina enrolled three of her children in 

the Head Start at Maui Economic Opportunity. She started out as 

an active volunteer of the program, transitioned into a position as 

a family case manager, continued her education at Maui College, 

and now works as a disability and mental health specialist. Head 

Start provided Regina and her family with the educational resources and the vocational skills needed to improve their lives. 

So you can see there is a tremendous multiplier effect when we 

support these kinds of community-led, community-identified programs. Without them, low-income families would have even less of 

a chance to reach the middle class one day. They help our children 

to grow up safe and healthy, and give them a leg up in an increasingly competitive world. 

I urge the committee to authorize robust funding for programs 

that have proven to be successful in strengthening our local communities and creating greater opportunities for all of our citizens. 

And I thank you for this opportunity. 

[The statement of Mazie K. Hirono follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee 

today. This Committee has an important job. Crafting the Congressional Budget 

Resolution is a statement of our national priorities, and I appreciate the opportunity 

to offer my views on what those priorities should be. 

While I recognize that over the long term we must rein in our budget deficit, arbitrarily cutting our federal spending back to fiscal year 2008 levels, which has been 

proposed, is in my view a meat-axe approach to fiscal discipline. It is also an inadequate response to the domestic and global challenges we face. This approach fails 

to recognize something very important about the programs being slashed—what 

they mean to our local communities. 

Our local communities are the backbone of our nation. They are where we make 

our homes and where we raise and educate our children. They are also where small 

businesses get their start—sometimes on the road to becoming big businesses. In 

short, our local communities are the bedrock on which our national strength is built. 

Continuing to adequately fund the programs that mean the most to these communities is vitally important to our long-term success. 

Today I would like to focus on three programs that provide critical support to all 

of our communities: first, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), second, 

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG), and third, Head Start. Programs like 

these are highly successful because they are community-identified and communityled. Earlier this month, hundreds of county leaders converged in D.C. for their annual National Association of Counties meeting. All of the county council members 

from my district impressed upon me the importance of these programs because they 

fulfill important needs of the people they represent. I’m sure your local leaders conveyed the same message to you. In fact, leaders of this bipartisan group adopted 

resolutions that support full funding of programs like CDBG and CSBG. 

Since 1974, the CDBG program has been a lifeline to people from all of the four 

counties in Hawaii. CDBG funds have supported economic development, job cre-
82 

ation, and facility needs for the most disadvantaged in Hawaii. It has also given 

some of them a much needed hand up when times were tough—a hand they 

wouldn’t have received without this funding. 

For example, CDBG funds help families on the island of Kauai access affordable 

housing. The lack of affordable housing is a serious concern for many people in 

Kauai and throughout the state. More than 1,300 residents are on Kauai Habitat 

for Humanity’s affordable housing waiting list. With CDBG funding, Kauai Habitat 

for Humanity will complete the final phase of infrastructure improvements and 

build affordable homes for 125 low- to moderate-income families. 

Turning to the Community Services Block Grants—the community action network 

supported by these grants helps 20 million people in need across the country. 

One community action program in Maui County, Maui Economic Opportunity (MEO), receives about $466,000 annually in CSBG funding. This funding helps generate $18 million a year in services to low-income individuals and families, and to 

small businesses. With CSBG funds, MEO provided a wide variety of services to 

some 22,000 people in Lanai, Molokai, and Maui last year alone. These include comprehensive programs like early childhood services, business development and job 

programs, transportation for seniors and the disabled, and an array of other services 

that strengthen the community by providing opportunities to all ages. 

The third area I ask the Committee to support is robust funding for federal programs that help our keiki, or children, in Hawaii and nationwide. Helping our children thrive is an investment in our future. 

For children in poverty, achievement gaps begin well before kindergarten. Study 

after study has shown that investing in quality early learning programs can yield 

a huge return-on-investment by reducing the costs of special education, high school 

dropouts, teen pregnancy, crime, incarceration, and dependence on social services 

later in life. Quality early learning programs increase the likelihood of college attendance and completion. 

So, robust support for programs like Head Start makes sense. I recently met with 

Family Support Services of West Hawaii. Family Support Services was recently able 

to open a new Head Start center in the rural community of Ka’u on the island of 

Hawaii. A target of our Race to the Top reform efforts, Ka’u remains one of the most 

economically distressed areas of our state. 

Head Start not only supports our children. It creates opportunities in our local 

communities for people of all ages. Let me tell you about Regina Agcaoili. Regina 

enrolled three of her children in Head Start at Maui Economic Opportunity. Regina 

started out as an active volunteer of the program, transitioned into a position as 

a family case manager, continued her education at Maui College, and now works 

as a disability and mental health specialist. Head Start provided Regina and her 

family with the educational resources and the vocational skills needed to improve 

their lives. 

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, these programs have a tremendous multiplier effect in our communities. Without them, low-income families would have even less 

of a chance to reach the middle class one day. They help our children to grow up 

safe and healthy and give them a leg up in an increasingly competitive world. I urge 

the Committee to authorize robust funding for programs that have proven to be successful in strengthening our local communities, and creating greater opportunities 

for all of our citizens. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. And I want to clarify the number 

that you mentioned. What is the waiting list for the Habitat For 

Humanity. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thirteen hundred residents, and that is just on one 

island. And if you have ever been to Hawaii you know how expensive it is. Housing is very expensive. We don’t have enough affordable housing. They can barely keep up. But if we didn’t have the 

support of CDBG funding, then there would be an even greater 

number on that list. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. What is the unemployment rate in Hawaii? 

Ms. HIRONO. It is a little bit less than the national average, but 

it is still—I think it is about 7 percent. But different islands have 

higher unemployment. For example, the island of Molokai has very 

high unemployment. The island of Hawaii, I think the unemployment figures are the lowest for Oahu. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Tonko, do you have any questions? 
83 

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlelady for coming, and she has done 

a great job clarifying everything. 

I will share with you I heard a lot in my district about the block 

grants and the empowerment that comes with investment from 

working families, and so certainly across the country there are 

grave concerns about leveraging new programs. 

Ms. HIRONO. I think, as I mentioned, the hundreds of our local 

leaders who have converged in Washington, D.C., earlier this 

month, and they visited all of their Members of Congress, bipartisan, they were to a person supportive of these kinds of grants. 

And the beauty of these grants is that the communities themselves 

with their local leaders identify what their priority needs are, and 

they use this money not only to provide the programs but it 

leverages into many times over in benefits, economic as well as otherwise. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you very much. It has been very helpful, 

and it is always good to hear what is happening in the beautiful 

State of Hawaii. We know we all have challenges. Thank you for 

representing your district, and thank you for your testimony here 

to the Budget Committee. 

Ms. HIRONO. As we say in Hawaii, mahalo nui loa. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Next, we have Congresswoman Laura Richardson 

to testify. Thank you for being here. You have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LAURA RICHARDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. Really directed to Chairman Ryan, 

Ranking Member Van Hollen, and those of you who are the brave 

member souls of this committee, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before you. 

I am here to speak for the people I represent, the hardworking 

and really hard-pressed men, women, and children and businesses 

of the 37th Congressional District. The unemployment rate in California still hovers around 12 percent, but in some areas of my district like Compton it is over 20 percent. The foreclosure rate for 

California is one out of 239. That is more than twice the national 

average, and in Compton in my area the foreclosure rate is four 

times that amount. 

Today, I would like to focus my statement on areas of the budget 

that I think could create jobs, rein in unnecessary spending, and 

invest in our Nation’s infrastructure that will help keep our people 

working and also safe. These priorities will set America on a path 

towards fiscal responsibility, economic growth, prosperity, and will 

also provide us with needed investments that will help us get into 

the future. 

First of all, in terms of jobs for Americans, as we consider our 

budget priorities for full year 2012, we must enact a budget that 

will actually create jobs and invest in our future prosperity. At the 

same time, however, I am committed to reining in spending and I 

have some ideas of how we might do that. 

Last session, I introduced a bill and I plan on reintroducing it. 

It is called the The Cost Recovery and Fair Value for Services Act. 
84 

I will reintroduce that bill. What it essentially does is it encourages 

Federal agencies to set their user fees for services provided at a 

cost recovery basis. 

Now for the accountants and those of you who are into finance 

here, we have many agencies and departments who are providing 

services, and yet they are not really getting the full cost recovery 

dollars of it. So for every person who might be happening to work, 

whether it is a national park, administrative fee, any fees that we 

have, we need to do an overall analysis to make sure that, for the 

services it costs us to provide that, that we are gaining in the full 

cost recovery for it. 

Now if we are bringing in too much money, we should evaluate 

that, too; and if we are charging more than what we should, we 

should make the appropriate reduction. 

By setting appropriate user fee rates, agencies can contribute to 

the shared fiscal responsibility that our current economic situation 

demands. Specifically, The Cost Recovery and Fair Value for Services Act requires the chief financial officer of every Federal agency 

to provide a report to the Director of OMB reviewing fees charged 

for services provided. 

The second area I would like to suggest is transportation and infrastructure. When it comes to creating jobs, there is no more effective way. And I would say all you had to do is look at all of the 

Sunday talk shows and when we talked about the successes of the 

stimulus and the American recovery dollars all of them would turn 

to the success of the dollars that we have spent based upon transportation and infrastructure. 

In my district, we happen to move 40 percent of the entire Nation’s cargo. The President’s budget has proposed a 66 percent increase in the full year 2010 levels in overall funding for transportation infrastructure so that we might pass our $556 billion 6-year 

surface transportation reauthorization proposal. 

I just came from a Budget Committee on transportation about 

this very topic. And everyone agrees that, given the money and the 

resources, we could actually get results, which is to improve our deteriorated roads and highways, put people back to work; and right 

now those resources are at a very economical cost, and we can actually save money. 

Where the time that we wait—I will give you an example in my 

district. A bridge that we should have fixed that now we have a 

diaper underneath it to catch the concrete that is falling that covers 20 percent of our Nation’s goods are going over this bridge, 5 

years ago it cost $600 million, now it costs $1.6 billion. So it is not 

going to cost us less. It is just going to cost us more. 

Also, I think that we should seriously consider taking away the 

dogma feeling of no taxes at all. I have a bill, the Freight FOCUS 

Act, that would establish a freight planning office within the Department of Transportation and would consider increasing the diesel tax, which has not been increased since 1993. Now no one can 

disagree with the impacts of the roads, of what has happened by 

the trucks on our roads and our highways. 

Now interesting, what I wanted to make sure was clear for the 

record, ATA, which is the American Trucking Association, supports 

this. If we have industries that agree to tax themselves for a dedi-
85 

cated funding source to be able to pay for roads and highways to 

improve so we can move our goods, we, as Members of Congress, 

should not be in the way. 

The fourth point that I wanted to bring up had to do with homeland security. My district is home to many high-value terrorist targets, such as the Port of Long Beach, water treatment facilities, 

CERT facilities and so on. I am deeply troubled by the proposed cut 

of $93 million, 58 percent, in funding for international cargo 

screening. We haven’t had an incident of cargo screening. However, 

we have in air cargo. And when you look at the vulnerabilities of 

people who live in port communities, that is an area that we should 

not confuse and view it as not an area to focus on. 

The President’s budget proposal requests only $1.8 billion for 

FEMA’s disaster relief fund. All we have to do is look at what happened recently in Japan, what has happened in American Samoa 

with their tsunami, and look at Hurricane Katrina to say this is 

really a not smart decision. In full year 2011, FEMA’s disaster fund required $3 billion to cut 

out of its operations and significant cuts to fund all the resources 

that we needed. So to cut this to $1.8 billion is not the answer to 

the problem. I applaud the President’s request to provide $420 million for the 

Staffing for Adequate Fire and Energy Response, SAFER, grants. 

However, I do not support the administration’s decision to cut $140 

million from the Assistance to Firefighters grants. 

Finally, I want to talk about Member responsibility, and I would 

hope this committee would consider working with me as I get ready 

to approach House Administration with Mr. Lungren. 

As a Member of Congress and a new Member, when I went to 

replace the furniture in my district office, to lease a vehicle, I believe we need to consider a kind of form of a private GSA. Currently, other agencies utilize Government Services Administration, 

which is their funding mechanism. We as Members, there should 

be a Toyota price for all hybrid vehicles. There should be a company who provides furniture that all of us could use, that we could 

utilize that price and save money. 

I thank you for the time that you have given me, and I look forward to any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Laura Richardson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LAURA RICHARDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and Members of the Budget Committee: Thank you for convening this hearing and allowing me and our colleagues 

the opportunity to share with the Committee our budgetary priorities for Fiscal 

Year 2012. I ask that my entire statement be included in the record of this hearing. 

Coming as we do from all regions of the country and both sides of the aisle, the 

testimony you hear today is a fair reflection of the collective hopes and dreams of 

the American people. This Committee has the daunting task of crafting a budget 

resolution that expresses the values and reflects the character of our country. 

I am here to speak for the people I represent, the hard-working and hard pressed 

men, women, children, and businesses of the 37th Congressional District of California. 

Mr. Chairman, my state and my district have experienced, and still are going 

through, the toughest economic times in recent memory. The unemployment rate in 

California still hovers around 12 percent, but in some areas of my district, like 

Compton, it is closer to 20 percent. The foreclosure rate for California (1/239) is 
86 

more than twice the national average (1/577). In the City of Compton, the foreclosure rate is over 4 times the national average (1/137). 

The budget priorities that I will outline today are what I believe is needed to restore the American dream for the millions of Americans who have been most affected by the difficult economic environment that we are just starting to overcome. 

These priorities will set America on a path toward fiscal responsibility, economic 

growth and prosperity, and will provide us with needed investments that will pave 

the way to the future. 

PRIORITY #1: JOBS FOR AMERICANS

As we consider our budget priorities for FY 2012, we must enact a budget that 

will reflect the need to create jobs and invest in our future prosperity. Although we 

have been encouraged by signs that the economy is recovering, we can’t make reckless cuts at the expense of our ongoing recovery. Instead, we must take a prudent 

approach to addressing the deficit, making targeted cuts in some areas and targeted 

investments in others. We need to ensure that every American who is willing to 

work to get ahead has the opportunity to do so. That is why creating jobs—good 

paying jobs with benefits to sustain families—must be our central objective. 

The fiscal challenges that our nation currently faces are real and must be addressed with an honest dialogue between members on both sides of the aisle. We 

need to create a budget resolution that makes smart investments in job creating 

programs and projects that will put Americans back to work. At the same time, we 

must make an effort to rein in spending on programs that are not producing adequate results. Making these targeted cuts will help put us down a sustainable fiscal 

path, while maintaining support for programs that are proven to help the American 

people succeed. 

An initiative that I believe will help reduce the deficit, and rein in unnecessary 

spending is a bill that I introduced in the last congress entitled ‘‘The Cost Recovery 

and Fair Value for Services Act.’’ 

PRIORITY #2: COST RECOVERY ACT

The Federal government has an obligation to the American people to be stewards 

of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars by operating in an efficient manner. There are 

hundreds of federal agencies in the executive branch offering an array of services 

and programs. It is critical, especially in times when the national debt is high, for 

these agencies to ensure that the services and programs they offer are self-financed 

to the greatest extent possible. 

The Cost Recovery and Fair Value for Services Act that I will soon reintroduce 

will help meet this obligation by ensuring that the federal agencies set their user 

fees for services provided at rates that are both equitable and cost-effective. By setting appropriate user fee rates, agencies can contribute to the shared fiscal responsibility that our current economic situation demands without overburdening the public or inhibiting public engagement. 

Specifically, the Cost Recovery and Fair Value for Services Act requires the chief 

financial officer of every federal agency to provide a report to the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget reviewing fees charged for services provided. The 

report will contain recommendations on possible adjustments to those fees rates taking into account the following factors: 

1. The extent to which the fee will cover the agency’s cost for providing that service; 

2. The extent to which each user is paying an equitable amount considering that 

user’s ability to pay; and 

3. The extent to which the use of the service provides a public benefit. 

PRIORITY #3: HELP FOR SMALL BUSINESS

As a member who spent 14 years working in the business world before coming 

to Congress, I understand that small business is the backbone of our economy. The 

26.8 million small businesses in the United States represent more than 99.7 percent 

of all employers, employ just over half of all private sector employees, and generated 

64 percent of the net new jobs created since 1995. 

Clearly, if we are to grow our way out of this economic mess, small business is 

going to help lead the way. I therefore support the President’s request to provide 

small businesses with access to the credit needed to expand and create new jobs. 

As a New Democrat and a former business owner, I am a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction. We have already helped companies deemed 

‘‘too big to fail.’’ Now it is time to provide help for small business so that they do 

not remain ‘‘too small to succeed.’’ 
87 

PRIORITY #4: EDUCATION

We have a responsibility to provide Americans with the skills and opportunities 

they need to be successful in the global marketplace. Pursuant to the request of 

President Obama to out-educate, out-innovate, and out-compete the rest of the 

world, it is important that Congress make key investments in education and job 

training programs that are essential to the future health of our economy. 

Nothing is more crucial to our nation’s long-term future than an educated citi- zenry. That is why I am pleased that the President’s budget requests $77.4 billion 

in funding for the Department of Education for FY 2012, a 20% increase over FY 

2010 enacted levels. I also support the President’s budget proposal because it increases investment in K-12 education to ensure that our children receive a quality 

education that will enable them to compete in the global economy. Investing in our 

nation’s future through public education will help to ensure long-term economic 

growth and prosperity for our nation by creating a more educated and higher earning workforce. 

However, I would like to point out a few areas of the President’s education budget 

that can be improved: 

First, we need to make sure that Title I funding is being allocated to the schools 

and the children who need it the most. Child poverty is on the rise, and it is our 

responsibility to ensure that children who come from disadvantaged families have 

the same opportunities as their peers whose parents belong to a different socioeconomic background. In 2009, research shows that over 20 percent of children lived 

in poverty. That is clearly unacceptable and targeted investments in Title I funding 

to schools in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods will provide the foundation 

needed for these children to succeed. That is why I support a 10% increase in funding for the Title I program over FY 2010 enacted levels. 

Second, while I am generally supportive of the Administration’s focus on ensuring 

that competitive grant programs provide an important incentive for our nation’s 

public schools to improve curriculum and overall student performance, we need to 

ensure that the Administration balances its emphasis on competitive grant programs with formula grant programs that provide funding to schools that need it the 

most. 

These formula-based grant programs are essential to schools in urban areas that 

are already facing stark fiscal realities. During these tough economic times we cannot rely solely on competitive-based grants, but need to ensure that federal funds 

are being allocated in a manner that reflects the needs of underperforming schools. 

Third, the President’s budget proposal provides a modest increase in funding for 

the IDEA special education program, but funding levels remain inadequate. I would 

like to see an 8% increase in funding for IDEA over FY 2010 levels. This will bring 

the federal share of the program back to the 2006 level of 17.6%. 

The modest increases in funding do not go far enough to ensure that every child 

who suffers from a disability that requires special accommodation will have access 

to an education. Failing to provide grants to states at necessary levels will prove 

detrimental to the overall health of special education programs across the country. 

The Administration’s budget proposes a modest cut to the program. As a strong 

supporter of Career and Technical Education State Grants, I do not support this decrease in funding. These grants provide a needed service to those in disadvantaged 

communities to develop hands-on, career-oriented postsecondary training. At a time 

when unemployment rates are high, cutting funding for programs that helps individuals gain skills that will make them more competitive in the job market is a wise 

policy. Conversely, a 6% increase in funding over FY 2010 enacted levels will go a 

long way in preparing participants in vocational training programs for careers in 

a wide array of industries. 

PRIORITY #5: OLDER AMERICANS

When older Americans, those 50 and older, lose their jobs, they remain unemployed for much longer periods than younger counterparts. Many get discouraged 

and leave the labor market altogether. If they are fortunate enough to secure a replacement full-time job, invariably the pay is less, the hours are fewer, and the benefits are minimal or non-existent. 

One way to provide targeted and immediate relief for jobless older Americans is 

to fully fund the Senior Community Service Employment Program. I am discouraged 

by the President’s FY 2012 budget proposal which cuts funding for this important 

program by 45 percent from FY 2010 enacted levels. In FY 2010 this program was 

funded at a level of $825 million, a significant increase in funding from past years. 

However, the President’s budget proposal will cut funds for this program nearly in 

half and significantly impact low-income senior citizens’ ability to find work. I 
88 

strongly urge that funding for this vital program be maintained at not less than 

$700 million for the next five years. And I will soon reintroduce legislation that will 

make this program more accessible by lowering age and income eligibility requirements. 

PRIORITY #6: TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE

When it comes to creating jobs, there is no more effective means than investing 

in infrastructure. It has been demonstrated time and again that for every dollar invested in infrastructure, at least $1.63 is economic activity is generated. 

Our most recent example of effective investment in infrastructure is the Recovery 

Act, which thus far has created nearly one million jobs over the first year of investment while at the same time improving the lives of virtually every American who 

can enjoy the roads, bridges, and transit systems that were built or improved 

through this funding. 

I come from the district that embodies the nation’s transportation needs, with the 

largest ports in the country, three airports, major freight rail lines, and 40% of the 

nation’s goods moving along our rails and four major interstate highways. And as 

a member of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, I understand how 

sound transportation and infrastructure investments will make our nation globally 

competitive and enhance the quality of life in our communities. 

The President’s budget proposes a 66% increase above FY 2010 levels in overall 

funding for transportation and infrastructure. This increase also includes a $556 billion six-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal that will provide a $50 

billion ‘‘up-front’’ investment to be distributed in the first year to spur job creation 

and economic growth. 

Passing a surface transportation reauthorization bill that provides funding for 

projects that are critical to national greatness needs to be a top priority of this Congress. One such project is the Gerald Desmond Bridge located in Long Beach, California. The Desmond Bridge may not be as famous or glamorous as the Golden Gate 

or the Verrazano, but it carries a larger percentage of the nation’s cargo—10 percent—than any other bridge. 

That is why it is so shocking and short-sighted that we have not rebuilt this 40 

year-old bridge, which is now reduced to wearing a ‘‘diaper’’ to catch the concrete 

and debris that falls daily from its underside. It is imperative that programs such 

as the Projects of National Significance and the Freight Improvement Program receive ample funding so essential projects like the rebuilding the Desmond Bridge 

can be completed. 

I have recently introduced H.R. 1122, the Freight FOCUS Act to establish an office of Freight Planning in the Department of Transportation that will be responsible for freight planning and creating a merit based, competitive grant program. 

This bill provides for public and private sector involvement in the process, and 

prioritizes major goods movement corridors and projects to alleviate choke points. 

This comprehensive national freight policy will facilitate the movement of goods 

across the country and will also help the American economy grow. 

Investing in our freight infrastructure is vital to the creation of jobs in the manufacturing industry and will allow us to boost exports. I am pleased to report that 

my legislation enjoys the support of industry and key stakeholders, which is willing 

to accept a 12 cent increase in the diesel fuel tax paid by trucks to raise revenue 

for the creation of new freight infrastructure projects. The bill also creates a Goods 

Movement Trust Fund, which would be dedicated to funding such projects, and contains safeguards to ensure that funding generated from a specific mode is used for 

projects benefitting that mode. 

When it comes to transportation funding, we must also be forward-thinking and 

pro-active to position our country to compete and win in the global economy. Nowhere is this more important than in the area of high-speed rail. As the founding 

co-chair of the California High-Speed Rail Caucus, I applaud the President for requesting $53 billion over the next three years to invest in the construction of a national high-speed rail network. 

But a larger commitment is needed. It will cost about $40 billion to bring highspeed rail to California. But with it will come a revolution in travel and a model 

for the rest of the country. The benefits include a cleaner and quieter environment, 

reduced traffic congestion, and 450,000 new jobs in California to build the line. 

High-speed rail is the wave of the future and we must make a real commitment 

to it to remain competitive. 
89 

PRIORITY #7: HOUSING

The need for housing and redevelopment assistance is great in my district, my 

state, and across the nation. California ranks third in the nation, trailing only Nevada and Arizona, in the rate of housing foreclosures. Therefore, I strongly oppose 

the President’s proposal to cut $300 million from the Community Development 

Block Grant (CDBG) from FY 2010 enacted levels. This drastic reduction would 

have a devastating impact on communities all across America, including my district, 

and hinder our ability to continue doing our part in aiding the Nation’s economic 

recovery. CDBG works. In Los Angeles County, for example, CDBG funding has provided a direct benefit to low- and moderate-income residents and their neighborhoods, something that simply would not have been possible without this federallocal partnership. 

I also do not support the President’s decision to request a $68 million reduction 

in funding for the Section 202 Housing for the Elderly program and a $104 million 

reduction for the Section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, which 

funds the new construction of housing for those groups. Our seniors and the disabled are among the most vulnerable populations in society and we cannot neglect 

their housing needs. 

PRIORITY #8: HOMELAND SECURITY

I am the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness, 

Response and Communications Subcommittee. In addition, my district is home to 

many high-value terrorist targets, such as the Port of Long Beach. I am therefore 

deeply troubled by the proposed cut of $93 million (58 percent!) in funding for international cargo screening. This decrease reflects an emphasis on remote screening of 

freight instead of physical inspection. The 9/11 Act established the goal of 100 percent cargo screening by 2010; the proposed budget cut will not bring it closer to 

achieving this national objective. 

I am also troubled by the President’s proposal to cut 8% from FEMA Grant Programs. Similarly, the President’s budget proposal requests only $1.8 billion for the 

FEMA’s disaster relief fund. These funds are integral to the mission of keeping the 

American people safe in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. In FY 2011, 

FEMA’s disaster relief fund required $3 billion to carry out its operations and significant cuts to the fund will curtail FEMA’s capability to save lives by being able 

respond appropriately to unforeseen disasters. 

I applaud the President’s request to provide $420 million for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grants to rehire laid-off firefighters 

and retain veteran first responders. These funds will enhance the ability of local fire 

departments to meet community needs and maintain the readiness of local first responders during all types of emergencies. However, I do not support the Administration’s decision to cut $140 million from the Assistance to Firefighters Grants which 

allow fire departments and EMS agencies to provide the training and equipment 

necessary to save lives. 

I also strongly believe that we should substantially increase funding for the Fire 

Station Construction Grant Program so cities like Compton, in my district can have 

the resources needed to protect the local citizenry and to assist in the protection of 

a vital national asset like the Alameda Corridor. This corridor splits the city down 

the middle, while it transports the nation’s cargo to and from the Ports of Long 

Beach and Los Angeles. 

Finally, I would also like to stress the importance of full funding for the State 

and Regional Preparedness Program, which provides grants to fund programs such 

as the Citizens Corp and Interoperable Emergency Communications Grants. A recent GAO report stated that only about half of American households had disaster 

supplies in their home and a household emergency plan. Clearly, there is more that 

must be done to get our people in an optimal state of readiness. 

PRIORITY #9: NATIVE AMERICANS

Perhaps nowhere is the need more urgent than in Indian Country, which is grappling with an average unemployment rate of 22 percent, which is higher than any 

state. Addressing the disparities in health care, education, housing, and crime in Indian Country also remains a challenge. I therefore am pleased that the President’s 

budget requests $4.6 billion for the Indian Health Service, an increase of 14 percent 

over the FY 2010 enacted level. I am also pleased that the FY2012 request for Indian Affairs focuses on core programs and services that are vital to Indian country, 

such as the $424 million for criminal justice programs, a 29 percent increase over 

FY 2010 enacted levels. 
90 

PRIORITY #10: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Finally, I wish to briefly address the Function 150—International Affairs budget 

and say that I strongly support the President’s request for $59.64 billion, a 5.1% 

increase over the current funding level. 

Although America’s domestic needs are great, it is in our interest and consistent 

with our tradition and character to be engaged in the world. Whether it is providing 

diplomatic, development, peacekeeping, security, and humanitarian assistance, or 

combating human trafficking and modern day slavery, American leadership and involvement is indispensable. 

The $59.64 billion requested for the International Affairs budget is to be sure a 

lot of money. But to put it in perspective, the entire International Affairs Budget 

is just 1.6% of the total FY 2012 Budget. Even at this level of funding, the International Affairs Budget represents only 0.42% of GDP. 

The diplomatic role of the United States in the international system cannot be understated. By supporting economic development, human rights, and democracy 

throughout the world, the International Affairs Budget is a bargain and one of the 

best investments we can make. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, let me say that while a budget is a record of expenditures, outlays, 

and revenue receipts, it is much more than that. It is an expression of our most 

cherished values, a reflection our character, and the fulfillment of the social contract 

among generations, tying the present to the past and future. In a budget we commit 

ourselves to the actions needed to keep faith with our obligation to our forefathers 

and to generations unborn to do all we can to make this a more perfect union. It 

is in that spirit that I have suggested the priorities outlined above. 

Thank you for listening. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you very much. 

I think you clarified or you mentioned that 40 percent of the Nation’s goods come through—is it the Long Beach Port that is where 

those goods come through or—— 

Ms. RICHARDSON. It is the San Pedro complex. Both the Port of 

Long Beach and Los Angeles are adjoined, and 40 percent of the 

entire Nation’s cargo goes through my district. So, for example, the 

Gerald Desmond Bridge, which is the bridge that connects the two, 

15 percent of the entire Nation’s cargo. But out of San Pedro complex, 40 percent. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Most of the infrastructure there is Federal infrastructure? 

Ms. HIRONO. No. It is shared. For example, the Gerald Desmond 

Bridge, it included Federal money, State money, and also bonding 

from the taxpayers. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. I share your opinion that, with putting off an infrastructure project, the price tag just escalates. And we are trying to 

have more effective government and rid it of waste and inefficiency. 

I think you are prudent to have an appropriate level of funds set 

aside for infrastructure improvements and projects, not only addressing that sticker shock situation but also the employment 

issue. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Exactly. Thank you, sir. And history tells us 

that if we invest in our infrastructure it has proven to be a very 

prudent financial decision. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay, thank you very much. 

I think we have time for one more witness before we have to go 

to vote. Thank you, Ms. Richardson; and at this time the chair recognizes the Honorable Gene Green from Texas. 
91 

Mr. Green. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GENE GREEN OF TEXAS. I want to thank you, and I will 

speak as fast as a guy from Texas can. 

I am pleased to be here to provide my views on the fiscal year 

2012 budget resolution and to follow, although she has left, our 

basketball coach tonight, because Members of Congress are playing 

the Georgetown law faculty. 

And we also share—I represent the Port of Houston, which is the 

largest foreign tonnage port in the country. Of course, most of our 

tonnage is petrochemical, both crude oil coming in and refined 

products and chemicals going out. 

The Budget Committee is faced with difficult choices that crafts 

this congressional budget. Democrats and Republicans must work 

together to produce a budget that simultaneously helps meet our 

economic, health care, energy, and social challenges. 

The two issues I want to address is, one, energy provisions. Unfortunately, the President’s budget again includes several tax increases aimed at America’s natural gas and oil industry, which has 

been part of the U.S. code since 1926 and another that was created 

to help U.S. manufacturers maintain and create well-paying jobs. 

I am concerned about this because increasing costs on our domestic 

energy industry would jeopardize small business jobs and increase 

our reliance on foreign sources of energy. 

While instability in the Middle East continues to threaten our 

supply, we should not punish our offshore and onshore producers 

with punitive tax hikes but instead encourage the safe and responsible production of our domestic resources in order to reduce this 

reliance on foreign imports and in turn increase our economic 

growth. 

The oil and natural gas industry is one of the largest employers 

in our country, supporting more than 9.2 million jobs. And while 

people love to talk about ‘‘big oil’’, the average independent producer company has only 12 employees, the definition of a true 

small business. Yet the administration’s fiscal year 2012 budget 

proposal includes almost $90 billion in tax increases on this industry alone. I urge the Members to avoid these punitive taxes. 

The second issue is NASA. I am sharing your concern with the 

current direction of NASA. Last year, Congress passed an authorization bill that represented a compromise and provided a solid 

path forward for the agency. Congress spoke with what many of us 

thought was unmistakable clarity that NASA’s mission is to continue human space exploration. I would like to ask this committee 

to include language that adheres to the compromise included in 

last year’s authorization bill. I think the provisions enjoy broad 

support in Congress and would be welcomed by the tens of thousands of engineers, scientists, and employees that work directly 

and indirectly on NASA projects every day. 

The harsh reality of the situation is the space shuttle program 

will end this June. I was encouraged about our Nation’s future in 

human space flight when the NASA authorization bill was signed 
92 

last year into law. The plan in the authorization would provide for 

immediate transition to our next generation human space program. 

Unfortunately, my encouragement turned to disappointment 

when I saw NASA’s budget proposal. Their plan reflects an approach that is dismissive of the will of Congress and exhibits unbelievable lack of respect for the law that was signed by the President, the final decision maker in their chain of command. 

NASA and our country deserve far better than a jurisdictional 

and philosophical spat between bureaucrats. The law is the law, 

and NASA’s job is to follow it to the letter, not spend time and resources in an attempt to be evasive. If NASA follows its own plan, 

human space flight will be put in limbo once the space shuttle missions conclude. If our budget incorporates the compromise of 

NASA’s authorization bill, we can use the valuable work accomplished during the Constellation program for the next generation 

of human space flight. 

We can maximize cost savings and offer the best value by 

leveraging taxpayer dollars that are already being spent for the 

biggest benefit. These are goals that we must pursue during such 

difficult fiscal times. 

If we do not effectively guide NASA back toward a plan that is 

within the confines of the law, it will result in significant duplicative costs and unnecessary job losses. Not only that, but it will also 

cost more to wind down many efforts, only to ramp them back up 

years later. 

Local economies like my home in Houston, home of the Johnson 

Space Center, will be hit hard when we have just begun to recover. 

It is estimated by the human space flight industry that at least 

10,000 employees will be laid off under the more expensive, less effective NASA budget proposal. A failure to maintain preeminence 

in space flight will have ripple effects that damage our education 

system, our industry’s capability to innovate, and could handicap 

our global competitiveness for years to come. 

We spend so much time talking about the importance of inspiring 

our students to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math 

disciplines. NASA serves as the biggest catalyst for this inspiration. Under the NASA budget proposal, there will be no new jobs 

for STEM students. We must change the trajectory of NASA. The 

plan in the authorization bill costs less, does more, and will allow 

our Nation to maintain its role as the leaders in space. 

Again, I appreciate the time today and would be glad to try and 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Gene Green follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to provide my views on the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget 

Resolution. 

This committee is faced with many difficult choices as it crafts this year’s congressional budget. 

Democrats and Republicans must work together to produce a budget that simultaneously helps meet our economic, health care, energy, and social challenges. 
93 

ENERGY PROVISIONS

Unfortunately, the President’s budget again includes several tax increases aimed 

at America’s natural gas and oil industry—one of which has been a part of the US 

code since 1926 and another that was created to help U.S. manufacturers maintain 

and create well paying jobs. 

I am concerned about this because increasing costs on our domestic energy industry could jeopardize small business jobs and increase our reliance on foreign sources 

of energy. 

While instability in the Middle East continues to threaten our supply, we should 

not punish our offshore and onshore producers with punitive tax hikes, but instead 

encourage the safe and responsible production of our domestic resources in order to 

reduce this reliance on foreign imports and in turn, increase our economic growth. 

The oil and natural gas industry is one of the largest employers in our country, 

supporting more than 9.2 million jobs. 

And while people love to talk about ‘‘Big Oil,’’ the average independent producer 

company has only 12 employees—the definition of a true small business. 

Yet, the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget proposal includes almost $90 

billion in tax increases on this industry alone. 

I strongly urge the Members of this committee to avoid these punitive taxes. 

NASA

I am extremely concerned about the current direction of NASA. Last year, Congress passed an authorization bill that represented a compromise and provided a 

solid path forward for the agency. 

Congress spoke with, what many of us thought was, unmistakable clarity that 

NASA’s mission is to continue human space exploration. 

I would like to ask this committee to include language that adheres to the compromise included in last years’ authorization bill. 

I think these provisions will enjoy broad support in Congress and would be welcomed by the tens of thousands of engineers, scientists, and other employees that 

work directly on NASA projects every day. 

The harsh reality of the situation is that the Space Shuttle program will end in 

June. I was encouraged about our nation’s future in human space flight when the 

NASA Authorization bill was signed into law. 

The plan in the authorization would provide for an immediate transition to our 

next generation human space flight program. 

Unfortunately, my encouragement turned to disappointment when I saw NASA’s 

budget proposal. 

Their plan reflects an approach that is dismissive of the will of Congress and exhibits an unbelievable lack of respect for the law that was signed by the President, 

the final decision maker in their chain of command. 

NASA and our country deserve far better than a jurisdictional and philosophical 

spat between bureaucrats. The law is the law and it is NASA’s job is to follow it 

to the letter, not spend time and resources in an attempt to be evasive. 

If NASA follows its own plan, human space flight will be put into limbo once the 

Space Shuttle missions conclude. 

If our budget incorporates the compromise of the NASA authorization bill, we can 

use the valuable work accomplished during the Constellation program for the next 

generation of human space flight. 

We can maximize cost-savings and offer the best value by leveraging tax payer 

dollars that have already been spent for the biggest benefit. These are goals that 

we must pursue during such difficult fiscal times. 

If we do not effectively guide NASA back toward a plan that is within the confines 

of the law, it will result in significant duplicative costs and unnecessary job losses. 

Not only that, but it will also cost more to wind down many efforts only to ramp 

them back up in later years. 

Local economies, like my own in Houston, home of Johnson Space Center, will be 

hit hard when we have just begun to recover. 

It is estimated by the Human Space Flight industry that at least 10,000 employees will be laid off under the more expensive, less effective, NASA budget proposal. 

A failure to maintain preeminence in human space flight will have ripple effects 

that damage our education system, our technology industry’s ability to innovate, 

and could handicap our global competitiveness for years to come. 

We spend so much time talking about the importance of inspiring our students 

to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines. NASA serves as 

the single biggest catalyst for this inspiration. 
94 

Under the NASA budget proposal, there will be no new jobs for our STEM students. We must change the trajectory at NASA. The plan in the authorization bill 

costs less, does more, and will allow our nation to maintain its role as the leader 

in space. 

Thank you for the time to testify today. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Green. 

I know we are running real short on time to get to the floor to 

vote, but I would have one quick question. How many are employed 

by NASA in south Texas? 

Mr. GENE GREEN OF TEXAS. It is actually represented by Pete 

Olson. Our district is just north of it. But we are in the thousands 

of people. But literally we worked real hard last year to pass the 

authorization bill to provide a glide path for NASA, but the President’s budget doesn’t reflect what is in the statutory law now. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. I think you have highlighted everything well, 

and as a member of Science and Tech I know of the struggles to 

get NASA up to its appropriate levels. 

Mr. GENE GREEN OF TEXAS. Thank you for being on the committee last year to be able to work hard for a good authorization. 

Now we need to make sure they spend the money like it is supposed to be. 

Mr. TONKO. I hear you. Thank you so much, Representative 

Green. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

At this time, we will take a brief recess as we vote; and we will 

begin when Members appear to the committee to testify. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. The House Budget will come to order, and we 

will continue with our testimony. Our first witness for this session 

will be Ms. Woolsey from California. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. You are welcome, and you have 5 minutes. 

Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LYNN WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Castor, for being here. 

Like you, I recognize the challenges facing your committee and 

facing our country. I believe our success will depend on how we invest in our people and how we understand their values. 

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been focused on ways 

to advance job creation, invest sustainably, and cut unnecessary 

and wasteful spending. And for many years now the CPC has offered an alternative budget resolution that embodies these goals 

and principles. 

Nothing has been a larger strain on this country’s finances than 

the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have now cost us 

more than $1.1 trillion. Poll after poll confirms that the public no 

longer supports endless wars that don’t advance the interests of 

working families, and they are asking this Congress to end these 

military quagmires. 

The CPC alternative budget does this by providing for the responsible and orderly redeployment of our troops and military con-
95 

tractors from Iraq and Afghanistan, saving more than $1.5 trillion 

above current law spending levels over 10 years. 

Our caucus looks for ways to reduce excess spending as well at 

the Pentagon, so that we will not jeopardize our national security 

but save. Working with Congressman Barney Frank, we have come 

up with a list of defense cuts totaling $800 billion over 10 years. 

This includes reducing our nuclear arsenal to 1,000 deployed warheads, it includes reforming missile defense spending and canceling 

outdated Cold War-era weapons systems. 

We can gain robust and immediate savings also from paring 

down the Pentagon’s budget. We must look further for ways to reduce spending and to improve the efficiency of government services. 

To that end, we achieved historic reform with passage of the 

health care reform bill. However, we believe the reforms could go 

farther by including a public option that would provide competition 

to private insurers and reduce the cost of health care for working 

families and the Federal Government. 

This year, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, announced 

that the increased competition resulting from a public option would 

save the government $68 billion between the year 2014 and 2020. 

In fact, CBO included the public option as a recommendation in its 

biennial report outlining ways to reduce spending. The co-chairs of 

President Obama’s Fiscal Commission, Erskine Bowles and former 

Senator Alan Simpson, also included the public option in their set 

of final recommendations to reduce the deficit. 

Working families are struggling right now to make ends meet 

and to give their kids a viable future. The budget resolution must 

include a substantial job creation initiative to get our economy 

moving. It must provide a safety net for people who have exhausted 

all other resources. And it must provide for quality education for 

all. 

So, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I ask that you introduce a budget resolution that includes substantial reductions in 

defense spending and a robust public option, both of which will 

help set our country on a prudent and sustainable fiscal path. 

With that, I thank you very much; and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Lynn Woolsey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and members of the Budget Committee, thank you. 

Like you, I recognize the challenges facing this Committee and our country. I believe our success will depend on how we invest in our people and their values. 

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has been focused on ways to advance job creation, invest sustainably, and cut unnecessary and wasteful spending. 

And for many years now, the CPC has offered an alternative budget resolution that 

embodies these goals and principles. 

Nothing has been a larger strain on this country’s finances than the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have now cost us more than $1.1 trillion. Poll after 

poll confirms that the public no longer supports endless wars that don’t advance the 

interests of hardworking families, and they’re asking this Congress to end these 

military quagmires. 

The CPC alternative budget does this by providing for the responsible and orderly 

redeployment of our troops and military contractors from Iraq and Afghanistan, saving more than one and a half trillion dollars above current law spending levels over 

ten years. 
96 

Our caucus looks for ways to reduce excess spending at the Pentagon in ways that 

will not jeopardize our national security. Working with Congressman Barney Frank, 

we have come up with a list of defense cuts totaling more than $800 billion over 

ten years. This includes reducing our nuclear arsenal to 1,000 deployed warheads, 

reforming missile defense spending, and canceling outdated Cold-War era weapons 

systems. 

We can gain robust and immediate savings from pairing down the Pentagon’s 

budget. But we must look further for ways to reduce spending and improve the efficiency of government services. 

To that end, we achieved historic reform with passage of the health care reform 

bill. However, we believe the reforms could go farther by including a public option 

that would provide competition to private insurers and reduce the cost of health 

care for working families and the federal government. 

This year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that the increased 

competition resulting from a public option would save the government $68 billion 

between 2014 and 2020. In fact, CBO included the public option as a recommendation in its biennial report outlining ways to reducing spending. The Co-Chairs of 

President Obama’s Fiscal Commission, Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan 

Simpson, also included the public option in their set of final recommendations to reduce the deficit. 

Working families are struggling right now—to make ends meet and to give our 

kids a viable future. The budget resolution must include a substantial job creation 

initiative to get our economy moving. It must provide a safety net for people who 

have exhausted all other resources. And it must provide for quality education for 

all. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I ask that you introduce a budget resolution that includes substantial reductions in defense spending and a robust public 

option, both of which will help set our country on a prudent and sustainable fiscal 

path. 

Thank you and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you for your testimony, and you have 

helped us get back on track a little bit by a minute. 

One question I quickly have—and you addressed the wars in Iraq 

and Afghanistan and I understand the toll that it is taking not only 

our military but our budgets as well. Is the Progressive Caucus 

going to address the Libyan conflict at all? And what were some 

of the feelings there? Obviously, we are in the beginning stages. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I can’t quite speak for the entire caucus. We are 

77 members at the moment. 

We are very concerned about what this is going to cost us by 

having a third war in the Middle East, if it goes into that; and we 

are asking our administration for clear guidelines on what would 

be the end, when will we know we can leave, and how can we be 

sure that we are not going to have ground forces in that area? 

We all know that if NATO is involved, which of course they are 

now, the United States carries much of the burden for the NATO 

troops and for the expenses. So, right now, they say they have already spent over $5 million in a week and a half in our involvement in Libya. So you can know it will be $1 billion in a year. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Absolutely. I know we are all concerned about 

the situation. Thank you. 

Ms. Castor, do you have a question? 

Ms. CASTOR OF FLORIDA. No questions. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony; and we 

will move to our next witness, the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. 

Schakowsky. 
97 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Stutzman. I appreciate it. And 

thank you, Representative Castor. 

I served, along with the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Ryan, on the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. And from that experience, I know that we do 

bring very different perspectives to the debate on how to address 

our large deficits while encouraging economic growth. But as you 

know from our meetings, experts that appeared before us said we 

cannot solve the problem only by making cuts. Revenues must be 

a key part of any deficit reduction strategy. Not only do we need 

revenues, but we need to do it in a fair way. Those who have been 

enjoying the prosperity of recent years should have to pay their 

share. 

It pays to remember that just 10 years ago we had a budget surplus—easy to forget—and the debt was rapidly decreasing. During 

the Bush years, those surpluses disappeared and huge debt accumulated due to two unfunded wars, two unfunded tax cuts that 

mainly enriched the already wealthy, and a blind eye to the recklessness of Wall Street, which caused 8 million Americans to lose 

their jobs and devastated our economy. 

And now we are on a so-called ‘‘unsustainable fiscal path’’, to 

quote the commission report, which threatens our economic viability. But the alarming redistribution of wealth that is shrinking the 

middle class is another grave threat to both our economy and our 

democracy. 

Over the last 30 years, there has been a dramatic and deliberate 

transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very, very rich. Income inequality is now at highest levels since 1928. Wages have 

stagnated for middle and lower income families, despite enormous 

gains in productivity. 

We have the most productive workers in the world. So where has 

the money gone? From 1976 until 2005, the bottom 20 percent of 

households saw their incomes increase by $200. That bottom fifth 

is way at the left. You can see what you need to see just by this 

chart. But this is 20 percent of Americans who saw their income 

go up $200. 

Over the same period, the top .1 percent saw income growth of nearly $6 million a year. That is growth. Their average income 

here is $27 million. The average income for the bottom 90 percent 

is around $31,000. 

Twenty-seven million, 31,000. 

Meanwhile, Republicans, who squandered a budget surplus, created the huge deficit, and whose policies allowed Wall Street recklessness to bring our economy to near collapse, are now demanding 

that the middle class foot the bill. And the solution to our fiscal 

mess that they suggest is to drop vital programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and to make cuts in domestic spending that would cause an additional 700,000 Americans to lose their 

jobs. 

There is another way. I have introduced H.R. 1124, the Fairness 

in Taxation Act, which would create new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, starting at a rate of 45 percent and rising 
98 

to a top rate of 49 percent for billionaires. It would also address 

a fundamental inequality in our current law by taxing capital gains 

and dividends at ordinary income rates in those brackets. 

Historically, those rates are relatively modest. During most of 

the Reagan administration, the top income tax rate was 50 percent; 

and in previous decades the top rate was as high as 94 percent. 

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the Fairness in Taxation Act would raise nearly $62 billion in fiscal year 2012, allowing us 

to avoid the harsh cuts that will hurt the middle class. 

It is time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. 

This isn’t about punishment or revenge. It is about fairness. 

This is an idea that the public supports. In a recent poll, 81 percent of respondents supported placing a surcharge, a surtax on 

Federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million a 

year in order to reduce the deficit. 

So I would like consideration of the Fairness in Taxation Act in 

the budget resolution. It will allow us to stop the war on the middle class, restore fiscal integrity and fairness, and fund those initiatives that reflect our American values and goals. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Jan Schakowsky follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, we served together on the President’s National Commission on 

Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. From that experience, I know that we bring very 

different perspectives to the debate on how to address our large deficits while encouraging economic growth. 

But as you know, from our meetings, experts that appeared before us said we cannot solve the problem only by making cuts—revenues must be a key part of any deficit reduction strategy. 

Not only do we need revenues, but we need to do so in a fair way. Those who 

have been enjoying the prosperity of recent years should have to pay their share. 

It pays to remember that just 10 years ago we had a budget surplus and the debt 

was rapidly decreasing. During the Bush years, those surpluses disappeared and 

huge debt accumulated due to two unfunded wars, two unfunded tax cuts that 

mainly enriched the already wealthy, and a blind eye to the recklessness of Wall 

Street which caused 8 million Americans to lose their jobs and devastated our economy. 

Now we are on an ‘‘unsustainable fiscal path,’’ to quote the Commission report, 

which threatens our economic viability. But the alarming redistribution of wealth 

that is shrinking the middle class is another grave threat to both our economy and 

our democracy. 

Over the last 30 years, there has been a dramatic and deliberate transfer of 

wealth from the middle class to the very, very rich. Income inequality is now at the 

highest levels since 1928. Wages have stagnated for middle and lower income families despite enormous gains in productivity. 

Where has the money gone? To the very top. 

From 1979 until 2005, the bottom twenty percent of households saw their incomes 

increase by $200. Over the same period, the top 0.1 percent saw income growth of 

nearly six million dollars—each year. 

The top one-hundredth of 1 percent now make an average of $27 million per 

household per year. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of Americans? 

$31,244. 

Meanwhile, Republicans, who squandered a budget surplus, created the huge deficit, and whose policies allowed Wall Street recklessness to bring our economy to 

near collapse, are now demanding that the middle class foot the bill. 

Their solution to our fiscal mess is to gut vital programs like Social Security, 

Medicare and Medicaid and to make cuts in domestic spending would cause an additional 700,000 Americans to lose their jobs. 

There is another way. 

I have introduced H.R. 1124, the Fairness in Taxation Act, which would create 

new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, starting at a rate of 45 percent 
99 

and rising to a top rate of 49 percent. It would also address a fundamental inequity 

in our current law by taxing capital gains and dividends at ordinary income rates 

in those brackets. 

Historically, these rates are relatively modest. During most of the Reagan Administration, the top income tax rate was 50 percent, and in previous decades, the top 

rate was as high as 94 percent. 

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the Fairness in Taxation Act would raise 

nearly $62 billion in fiscal year 2012, allowing us to avoid the harsh cuts that will 

hurt the middle class. 

It’s time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. This isn’t about 

punishment or revenge—it’s about fairness. 

This is an idea that the public supports. In a recent poll, 81 percent of respondents supported placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more 

than $1 million in order to reduce the deficit. 

I encourage you to include the Fairness in Taxation Act in the budget resolution. 

It will allow us to stop the war on the middle class, restore fiscal integrity and fairness, and fund those initiatives that reflect our American values and goals. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Ms. Schakowsky. 

Ms. Castor, any questions? 

Thank you very much for your testimony. I know obviously here 

on the Budget Committee we are all concerned about spending and 

revenue, and we have a lot of work in front of us. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And I hope fairness as well. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. I look forward to working with you in a bipartisan manner. 

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

I am wondering if I could put into the record these two charts. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Without objection. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 
100 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Next on our list for testimony is the gentleman 

from Florida, Mr. Nugent. Thank you for being here. I am looking 

forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICH NUGENT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. NUGENT. First, let me thank the chairman and ranking 

member from Florida for having us here today. 

I am sure everyone here agrees that our respective congressional 

districts are different. We have different industries, different eco-
101 

nomic issues, and different demographics. Mine is no exception. 

With over a quarter of a million seniors living in my district, more 

than any other in the country, the overriding concern that I have 

for long-term deficit reduction should be clear. 

In case it is not clear, I want the committee to know that my constituents and I cannot support any reform that would cut benefits 

to those on or near retirement. I view those benefits as a sacred 

promise this government has made and that my constituents and 

yours have paid into over their lifetimes in good faith. 

My district may be different in the unusual size of its senior population, but I would argue that each and every senior citizen across 

this country has paid the same, been promised the same, expects 

the same, and deserves the same thing from this government. 

And while our individual districts and States may have a great 

deal of variation between them, we bear the burden of our national 

budget together. As you all know, every single man, woman, and 

child that we represent owes $46,000 as his or her share of the national debt; and that number is growing fast. 

We in Washington wax on about how much we love this country 

and how we want to do right by the people we represent, but the 

bill that we are currently running up in their names suggest otherwise. 

The blame goes beyond any particular party, any particular 

President, or any particular generation. It has been a collective 

failure of leadership over many decades. Politicians of all stripes 

have made promises that they knew could not be kept. They have 

squandered precious resources, hidden their misdeeds behind the 

false belief that America could always pay for it later. 

The 112th Congress has a choice to make. We can kick the can 

down the road again and tell the American people that everything 

is fine and there is nothing to worry about, or we can step up to 

the plate and do what our predecessors should have done long ago. 

Make no mistake about it. This responsibility falls to us, Republicans and Democrats alike. The President has made it clear that 

he is not going to lead on this issue. And while I would prefer to 

have a strong commitment from the White House, I am not willing 

to wait for it. So we are here left with a question of what to do. 

While negotiations continue between the House and the Senate 

about funding for the remainder of this year, I know the Budget 

Committee is wrestling mightily with the much larger question of 

what funding will look like over the next 50. It is not a simple task, 

but I know it is one that you all take very seriously. In my short 

time here, I have yet to find an elected official in Washington who 

refuses to acknowledge the unsustainable nature of our budget, but 

I found plenty who refuse to do anything about it. The American 

people should know that the members of this Committee will be 

different. 

In closing, I would like to ask the committee that, as you move 

forward with your work reforming the budget, can you assure me 

that you share my commitment to protecting those on or near retirement from any benefit cuts? 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Rich Nugent follows:] 
102 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD B. NUGENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

First, let me thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for having us here today. 

I’m sure everyone here would agree that each our respective congressional districts are different. We have different industries, different economic issues, and different demographics. Mine is no exception. With over a quarter of a million seniors 

living in my district—more than any other in the country—the overriding concern 

that I have for long-term deficit reduction should be clear. 

In case it is not clear, I want the committee to know that my constituents and 

I cannot support any reform that would cut benefits to those on or near retirement. 

I view those benefits as a sacred promise that this government has made and that 

my constituents and yours have paid into over their lifetimes in good faith. 

My district may be different in the unusual size of its senior population, but I 

would argue that each and every senior citizen across this country has paid the 

same, been promised the same, expects the same, and deserves the same thing from 

this government. 

And while our individual districts and states may have a great deal of variation 

between them, we bear the burden of our national budget together. As you all know, 

every single man, woman, and child that we represent owes $46,000 as his or her 

share of the national debt and that number is growing fast. 

We in Washington wax on about how much we love this country and how we want 

to do right by the people we represent, but the bill that we are currently running 

up in their name suggests otherwise. 

The blame goes beyond any particular party, any particular president, or any particular generation. It has been a collective failure of leadership over many decades. 

Politicians of all stripes have made promises that they knew could not be kept. They 

have squandered precious resources and hidden their misdeeds behind the false belief that America could always pay for it later. 

The 112th Congress has a choice to make. We can kick the can down the road 

again and tell the American people that everything is fine that there is nothing to 

worry about. Or we can step up to the plate and do what our predecessors should 

have done a long time ago. 

Make no mistake about it, this responsibility falls to us—Republican and Democrat alike. The President has made it clear that he is not going to lead on this issue. 

And while I would prefer to have a strong commitment from the White House, I 

am not willing to wait for it. 

So, we are left with a question of what to do. 

While negotiations continue between the House and Senate about funding for the 

remainder of this year, I know the Budget Committee is wrestling mightily with the 

much larger question of what funding will look like over the next fifty. It is not a 

simple task, but I know it is one you all take very seriously. 

In my short time here, I have yet to find an elected official in Washington who 

refuses to acknowledge the unsustainable nature of our budget, but I have found 

plenty who refuse to do anything about it. 

The American people should know that the members of this committee will be different. 

In closing, I would like to ask the committee, that as you move forward with your 

work reforming the budget, can you assure me that you share my commitment to 

protecting those on or near retirement from any benefit cuts? 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nugent. 

I am interested—your district obviously has a lot of seniors. 

What do you hear—— 

Mr. NUGENT. There are 260,000 seniors out of 1 million. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. What do you hear when you go home regarding 

not only spending in Washington, Social Security, and Medicare, 

obviously—and I agree with your position on protecting those who 

have invested in Social Security for years and years. What do you 

hear? Is there an openness to reforming Social Security? What kind 

of ideas? What do you hear generally from your constituents? 

Mr. NUGENT. In general, first of all, obviously, from the 260,000 

that are currently retired they are concerned about how do they 

plan for the future? They want to make sure that their benefits are 
103 

secure today; and those that are near term, 55 and above, they 

need to have the ability to plan for their future and retirement. 

But reform is not a dirty word. Reform is really what I am hearing from those that are not currently drawing from Social Security. 

Just like my sons who are all in the military, they understand that 

Social Security is going to look very different in the future than 

how it does today. 

I think that the American people really—you hear this a lot—but 

I really think they get it. They get the fact that we can’t sustain 

where we are today in the way we spend. 

In the hearings that I have had, the town hall meetings—I have 

had five in 2 days—we laid out exactly the budget and that we are 

actually putting half of our expenses on a credit card every day. 

And they understand that they couldn’t do that in their own home, 

and they don’t believe that the Federal Government should be 

doing that today up here with their tax dollars and what they owe 

in the future. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. I believe that the American people are expecting 

us to move and to make responsible, wise choices for the future, 

not only for themselves but also for future generations of our country. 

Mr. NUGENT. Absolutely. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. I appreciate your testimony. That is very insightful, and I appreciate your being here. 

Mr. NUGENT. I appreciate the committee’s hard work and God 

bless you. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. 

Next, we will take testimony from the gentleman from California, Mr. Becerra. Thank you for being here, and I am looking 

forward to your testimony. You have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. XAVIER BECERRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and good 

luck to you as you try to make it through all the testimony that 

will be coming before you. I served on the committee the last few 

years. It is an interesting place to be because you are on top of it, 

and I wish you much luck. 

I would like to focus on what I think is the most important part 

about the budget and that is that it is a reflection of our priorities. 

What we do with the budget tells Americans what we think about 

America and how we believe we should move forward as a country 

together. 

And I must say to you, looking back at the last 10 years—and 

I have been here now 18 years—when I look back at when President Bush took office in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office, the 

nonpartisan scorekeeper, told us that we were looking at somewhere around $51⁄2 trillion over the projected 10-year period of 

record surpluses in our budget; and we were actually beginning to 

pay down the national debt. But by the time President Bush left 

office in January, 2009, he had handed over the keys to the White 

House to President Obama with unprecedented budget deficits. In 

fact, at the time, we also were losing—we were hemorrhaging some 

three-quarters of a million American jobs a month. 
104 

And so I must say to you, Mr. Chairman, that right now I believe 

that most Americans would agree that the biggest deficit we face 

in this country is a jobs deficit. When some 14 million American 

aren’t working, the greatest task we have before us to is to come 

up with sound budgets, smart budgets that put America back to 

work. 

I don’t believe that folks back in my district are any different 

from folks anywhere else throughout the country. But if they were 

to look at this chart that I have up before you and they were to 

take a look at what were the contributors to these Federal deficits 

that we have today, they would be somewhat startled to find just 

how much the deficits are due not just to the recession but to 

things like the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. The greatest contributor, in fact, to today’s deficits are the fact that the Bush tax 

cuts, which went mostly to very wealthy people, drained the Treasury of a great deal of money. They were never paid for; and, as a 

result, many of the other programs, whether it was defense, whether it was health care, whether it was education, had to figure out 

how to cover their costs without the resources from the lost tax revenues from the Bush tax cuts. 

You can also see, of course, the Afghan and Iraq wars, again unpaid for during that decade; and, as a result, those added about $1 

trillion to the deficits of this country, to the national debt. And you 

can see how quickly it adds up. 

And so when folks in my district and I daresay folks anywhere 

throughout the country take a look at what caused the mess, they 

certainly would hope that we would focus on those contributors to 

help now contribute to the resolution of the mess. 

Unfortunately, it seems that this House through H.R. 1, the 2011 

budget bill, are not focusing on those that contributed to creating 

these deficits but in other ways. A quick example in my own District in Los Angeles, there is an art teacher who I have gotten to 
105 

know, Mr. Garcia, who works at Jefferson High School. Before Mr. 

Garcia arrived at Jefferson, very few students participated in his 

specialty, which is arts. But, after just 6 years, he has been able 

to encourage so many of the young people at Jefferson to participate in the art competitions throughout the city of Los Angeles. 

And in fact he was the winner of our local congressional arts competitions—one of his students was the winner of our local congressional arts competition. 

At my coffee this past weekend, I talked to a seasoned teacher 

from Eagle Rock Elementary School in my district as well, a school 

which is a National Blue Ribbon and Title 1 Achievement School. 

She told me this year eight teachers will be laid off from the school, 

which, of course, will increase class size. The stories go on and on. 

So when we hear that in the House continuing resolution, H.R. 

1, we are cutting money for education for our schools, I suspect a 

lot of these teachers are wondering why are they paying for the 

sins that were done by others? As we see from this chart, I don’t 

think any teacher had anything to do with spending money in Afghanistan and Iraq. I doubt that any of those teachers got anything 

in tax cuts from the Bush tax cuts that went mostly to wealthy 

folks. 

But perhaps, if I could, I would like to focus the rest of my time 

on chart number 2 and what I will have as chart number 3, and 

that is what seems to me a trend now to claim that Social Security 

is part of the cause of our deficit problem. When, in fact, Social Security, as you can see from this chart, has never contributed one 

dime to the national debt or any of our deficits because, over the 

years of its existence, more than 75-plus years, we have, as Americans, paid into the system over $13 trillion. 

And we have had to pay out to those who are retired or survivors 

of workers or who are disabled Americans, who receive Social Security as well, some $12 trillion. So just from what we have contrib-
106 

uted over 75 years as Americans more than covers what we have 

had to use as benefits by over a trillion. 

When you add the interest that has been earned on those contributions that have been provided by Americans over those 75 

years, that is over a trillion dollars in interest that has been 

earned. You can see that over $2.5 trillion of additional resources 

are within the Social Security system to pay for benefits to those 

who are retiring. 

So to now hear that some people believe we have to cut benefits 

for Social Security for our seniors who are receiving Social Security 

in order to balance the budget, we have to wonder what is going 

on? Well, I will tell you that as much as some people will say, well, 

Social Security has its problems, the reality is that Social Security 

by law can never go bankrupt. By law, it can never pay more than 

it has available to it. And therefore, it is one of the greatest programs we have ever seen generated by the public or private sector 

of this country. 

I would say looking now at the final chart that I have, that we 

can see if Social Security has any challenges, and those would be 

long term in the next quarter century, we can address those very 

easily. One quick way, simply by removing the tax cuts, the Bush 

tax cuts for the top 1 percent of American earners, the wealthiest 

1 percent. You would more than cover any type of challenge that 

Social Security might face into the future. 

So, Mr. Chairman, as you move forward in trying to help craft 

a budget, I hope everyone will agree that we should have those who 

really partied during the first decade of the 21st century and made 

the deficits that we have today pay for their sins, while not putting 

the onus on our seniors to cover for the mistakes made by those 

in the past. So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Xavier Becerra follows:] 
107 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. XAVIER BECERRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Good afternoon Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen and members of 

the Budget Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee. 

The Budget Resolution that this Committee is considering is about choices and 

priorities. As a former member of the Budget Committee, I know what a difficult 

task you face. But before making those choices, we must first ask: how did we get 

here? 

When President Bush took office in 2000, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a record surplus of $5.6 trillion over 10 years, and we were paying down 

the debt. Then, President Bush and the Republican Congress made fateful policy 

choices where they cut taxes that disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans and entered into two unpaid for wars. A total of $1.3 trillion—93%—of the 

2009 budget deficit was directly attributable to decisions made on President Bush’s 

watch. 

On top of all this, the Bush Administration was at the wheel when our economy 

entered into the Great Recession of 2007-2009. This was America’s worst economic 

collapse since the Great Depression, a direct result of underfunding regulatory agencies that were supposed to protect consumers from the abusive practices of Wall 

Street. Eight million people lost their jobs. Now, a recession caused by failed economic policies and Wall Street greed and recklessness is being used to blame the 

average American for being too greedy. 

From labor protections being stolen from Wisconsin workers to the conscious decision to strip seniors of their earned benefits, the middle class is under assault. Instead of tackling the cause of the budget deficit, many want to attack the middle 

class. This strategy is already on display at the state level. 

Facing a $2 billion budget deficit, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder chooses to leave 

Michigan seniors with the bill by taxing their retirement income so that corporations can pay $1.8 billion less in taxes. 

In New Jersey, Republican Gov. Chris Christie proposes spending $200 million in 

corporate tax breaks even though the state is looking at a $10.7 billion budget deficit. 

In Florida, Republican Gov. Rick Scott chooses to address the state’s $4.7 billion 

deficit by making students and workers pay for the bill. His proposal would send 

6,700 state workers to the unemployment line and cut education funding by $4.8 

billion in the first year. Yet he’s willing to add to the state’s deficit by spending $1.5 

billion over two years on corporate income tax cuts. 

In Ohio, the Republican-controlled House proposed spending up to $10 million in 

tax breaks for the petroleum industry even though the state has a $463 million 

budget deficit. 

In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker targeted teachers and workers to pay 

for the state’s $3.4 billion deficit while he chose to spend $140 million in corporate 

tax giveaways. 

The choice my Republican colleagues have made to focus spending on tax cuts for 

the wealthy instead of investments in education and healthcare for the middle class 

have real world effects. In my own district, Louis Genaro Garcia, an art teacher and 

alumni of Jefferson High School, was just given the pink slip. Before Louis arrived 

at Jefferson, students rarely submitted works of art in local art competitions. In just 

six years since he’s been there, he has encouraged and inspired his students to realize their potential. His students have won city art competitions and in fact, one of 

his students, Francisca Rodriguez, won our local Congressional Art Competition last 

year. 

At a coffee I held in my district last weekend, a seasoned teacher at Eagle Rock 

Elementary, a national Blue Ribbon and Title I Achievement School, told me that 

eight teachers will be laid off this year. The principal at another school in my district, Frank Del Olmo Elementary, said that he will have to let six teachers go this 

year. 

For one of the families in my district, the Affordable Care Act has made a world 

of difference. Maria Gama’s daughter suffers from Type 1 diabetes, requiring daily 

insulin shots. And because diabetes is considered a ‘pre-existing condition,’ Maria’s 

insurer wouldn’t cover her daughter. 

Maria was forced to pay over $400 out of pocket each month for medication for 

her daughter. 

Now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Maria has the right to add her daughter 

to her insurance policy. Say good-bye to $400 per month out of pocket expenses! 

The attack on the middle class is about to be on display here in Washington. 

From what I hear, many in the House Republican majority are targeting senior citi-
108 

zens’ Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. As the Ranking Member on the Ways 

and Means Social Security Subcommittee, I want to make one thing clear today. Social Security has not added one dime to today’s current deficit. 

Social Security and seniors didn’t cause the current deficit, and destroying Social 

Security will not fix it. Over its lifetime, Social Security has collected $14.6 trillion 

and has only had to pay out $12.0 trillion in benefits and administrative costs, leaving a healthy $2.6 trillion balance in its trust fund. These balances are invested in 

interest-bearing U.S. Treasury bonds, the safest investment money can buy, sought 

by investors the world over. Even if Social Security’s trust fund had never earned 

interest, the tax contributions alone—$13.1 trillion—have more than covered the 

cost of providing family and retirement security to hundreds of millions of Americans. 

Social Security is not a budget resolution issue. Social Security does face challenges in the out years—some 25 years from now. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee that oversees Social Security, I am committed to engaging in a thoughtful, bipartisan discussion about strengthening it for the future. But the budget resolution is the wrong place for this discussion—Social Security’s challenges do not 

occur within the five year time horizon covered by this budget resolution, and Social 

Security should not be used as a piggybank to plug holes in other parts of the budget. 

Cutting Seniors’ benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will have devastating effects on seniors and their children and grandchildren who will be forced 

to replace the income from the Trust Fund. For so many seniors across our country, 

whether they live in rural, urban or suburban America, Social Security is a lifeline 

to a life of dignity. 

Social Security is essential to seniors. The average social security retirement benefit is $14,000 per year. The median overall income of a senior household is $24,000 

per year. Six in ten senior households rely on Social Security for the majority of 

their income. One in three beneficiaries depend on Social Security for 90 percent 

or more of their income. Its benefits lift nearly 13 million seniors out of poverty. 

In my district, 32,560 retirees depend on the social security benefits they’ve earned 

through a lifetime of work. 

Social Security is necessary now more than ever. Less than half of workers have 

a pension or savings plan through work. In 2007-2008 alone, the value of American’s 

private retirement accounts dropped by $2.8 trillion and their overall net worth 

plummeted by $11.8 trillion. 

Seniors are counting on us to make the right choices in this budget. One fact in 

particular makes clear the real choice before us: Social Security’s entire 75-year 

shortfall is less than the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the top one percent 

of taxpayers—people who earn nearly half a million dollars a year. Seniors are 

counting on us to protect the benefits that they have earned through a lifetime of 

work. 

As I said Mr. Chairman, budgets are about priorities. For most of our history 

we’ve had our priorities straight: invest in Americans ready to work, children preparing to learn and lead, and repaying our seniors for building a better America. 

Let’s continue to build on that heritage by producing a budget that is smart, lean 

and invests in America. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Next we have the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cedric Richmond. Thanks for being here. And you have 5 minutes to testify. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chairman. 

Thank you for having me today. And thank you for listening to 

the needs of Louisiana’s Second Congressional District, which I 

think mirror the needs of most urban cities around the country at 

this time. 

I will tell you that while I was home last week, I spoke to many 

of my neighbors, both in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes. Again and 

again and again, they asked me to fight for Federal investments in 

our district. They told me that at this crucial juncture in our eco-
109 

nomic recovery and our physical recovery from Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita, and our recovery from the BP oil spill, that now is just 

not the time to cut investments in our area. 

So as you prepare the allocations of spending authority for the 

next fiscal year, please remember that only smart, strategic, and 

focused investments will keep our America great. One thing that 

I like to focus on, especially in my time in the State legislature, 

with the responsibility of doing what we do here, is to make sure 

that the money we spend, we look at the return on investment that 

we receive as we spend money and invest. 

I will say that in today’s global marketplace, children in Kenner 

and the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans are competing with 

children in New Delhi. Small businesses in New Orleans place 

their products on the shelves besides products from Beijing. If 

America is going to continue to be a leader in the global economy, 

then we must act like economic leaders and continue smart, strategic investments in our economic tools. 

China and India are investing at the Federal level in their massive populations, and we must not be left behind. We must invest 

in our small businesses and in economic development for hard hit 

communities. We must protect investments into education. We 

must invest in infrastructure, a proven job creator, and vital to 

moving people and goods. 

So today I will just focus on three areas that I think are very 

critical in economic recovery and smart investment that gives us a 

return on our dollar. The first, we have to invest in our waterways 

and the maintenance of them to make sure that we can compete. 

So that means for me that this committee must appropriate the full 

amount in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for dredging. And 

once we consider that roughly 60 percent of all U.S. grain exports 

are shipped via the lower Mississippi River and we as America 

have a goal of doubling our exports in the next 5 years, we have 

to have a commitment to dredge our Nation’s most traveled waterways. Those waterways are our trade superhighways. 

Waterways are a huge economic engine; with cargo activity, just 

the port of New Orleans alone generates $2.8 billion in Federal 

taxes each year. Shippers have paid billions of tax dollars into the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, specifically for the purpose of 

keeping channels dredged to authorized depths. 

Unfortunately, much of this funding is just sitting idle in the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and not being used for its intended purpose. Maintaining the Mississippi River will lower shipping costs, allowing U.S. growers, producers, and manufacturers to 

compete in the global economy. This will create good-paying jobs 

here at home. But more importantly, these jobs do not require an 

advanced college degree. What it requires is the willingness of a 

person to work hard and earn an honest day’s work. 

So, for these reasons, I would urge the Budget Committee to allocate the full amount in the fiscal year 2010 trust fund proceeds to 

dredging. And just as a side note, last year, the trust fund collected 

almost $1.4 billion, and we spent $828 million on dredging, which 

that balance we need and we should invest in it. 

The second thing I would urge us to continue to invest in and 

reduce the cuts to would be Community Development Block 
110 

Grants, Pell Grants, and Head Start. When you had look at early 

childhood education and our investment as a society, for every dollar that we invest in early childhood education, we get a nine to 

one return. And right now, although we are facing tough economic 

times and we have to make the tough decisions of balancing a 

budget, I think we have to look very carefully at investing in things 

that in years to come will reap such a return that we are not in 

fact still trying to cut in those years. So, as we look at that, I would 

again point to the Pell Grants, CDBG, and Head Start as ways 

that we help urban areas and we prevent future drains on our 

economy. 

And the last thing I will talk about is just our investment in 

small businesses and our lending community. If we are going to 

stay competitive and we are going to out-innovate around the 

world, we have to invest and we have to provide access to capital 

for those small businesses. So as a member of the Small Business 

Committee, I want to go on record as opposing the views and the 

estimates that came out of the Small Business Committee in terms 

of the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget. 

Also, we can’t strip support from America’s small businesses by 

decreasing the funding to the Small Business Administration. The 

SBA is the only government agency responsible for supporting our 

Nation’s small businesses. So I would urge you to remain serious 

about job growth and our small businesses, which are one and the 

same. I urge the committee to allocate spending authority that is 

consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for 

the SBA, which is $985.4 million. So those are the things that are 

very critical to I think the future of where we are going. 

I would just add as an aside, while I talk about investment and 

especially our Community Development Financial Institutions, our 

CDFIs are very critical in terms of providing access to capital to 

businesses that otherwise wouldn’t get it. And that investment 

turns over sometimes and gets leveraged as much as 17 to 1. So, 

again, when I talk about the budget, I am very mindful to specify 

that we invest in things that we know we are going to get a return, 

and we are spending our money wisely, as any homeowner, any 

small business person, any big business person would do. 

And lastly, Mr. Acting Chairman, I would just encourage us to 

meet the President’s goal in terms of funding the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement so that we can 

get those permits through the system so that we can continue to 

drill out in the Gulf of Mexico; 330,000 jobs in Louisiana are tied 

to oil and gas exploration. We have to make sure that we give them 

the tools to make sure that they are drilling safely, that we regulate them, and that we can get the permits through the process 

quickly so that we can continue to move this country forward. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would thank you for allowing me 

to talk about the importance of those things that I articulated here, 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Cedric L. Richmond follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen, thank you for hearing the 

needs of Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District. 
111 

While at home last week, I spoke with many of my neighbors in both Jefferson 

and Orleans Parishes. Again, and again, and again they asked me to fight for federal investments into our District. They told me that, at this critical juncture in our 

economic recovery, we can’t axe investments. 

As you prepare the allocations of spending authority for the next fiscal year, 

please remember that only smart, strategic and focused investments will keep our 

America great. 

In today’s global marketplace, children in Kenner are competing with children in 

New Delhi. Small businesses in New Orleans place their products on shelves beside 

products from Bejing. If America is going to continue to be a leader in the global 

economy then we must act like economic leaders and continue smart, strategic investments in our economic tools. 

China and India are investing at the federal level in their massive populations 

and we must not be left behind. We must invest in our small businesses and in economic development for hard hit communities. We must protect investments into 

education. We must invest in infrastructure, a proven job creator and vital to moving people and goods. 

I will focus on three priorities. 

• First, we must invest in our waterways. This Committee must apportion the 

full amount of the Harbor Maintenance Tax for dredging. • With roughly 60% of all U.S. grain exports shipped via the Lower Mississippi 

River, America’s goal of doubling exports in the next 5 years depends on a commitment to dredge our nation’s most traveled waterway. Waterways are a huge economic engine, with cargo activity within the Port of New Orleans alone generating 

$2.8 billion in federal taxes each year. • Shippers have paid billions of tax dollars into the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund specifically for the purpose of keeping channels dredged to authorized depths. 

Unfortunately, much of this funding is just sitting idle in the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund. • Maintaining the Mississippi River will LOWER SHIPPING COSTS, allowing 

U.S. growers, producers and manufacturers to compete in the global economy. This 

will create good paying jobs here at home. Most importantly, these jobs to not require an advanced college degree, but if a person is willing to work hard, a man 

or woman can make a fair salary and provide for their family. • For these reasons, I urge the Budget Committee to allocate the full amount of 

the FY2010 Trust Fund proceeds to dredging. This will create jobs and decrease consumer products inflation. It’s a no-brainer. • Second, we must continue to invest in the renewal of our urban areas. • I urge this Committee to reject the wrong headed priorities set out in HR 1. • HR 1 would make hurtful cuts to priorities such as Community Development 

Block Grants, Pell grants and Head Start. My constituents rely on funding to these 

programs to help move their families and communities forward. 

• HR 1 would make cuts to these programs at the same time that State budgets 

are constrained—this is unacceptable. 

• I urge my colleagues to fully fund Pell Grant awards at a maximum level of 

$5,550, only $819 above 2008 levels. 

• I urge the Committee to meet the President’s requested $3.7 billion for CDBG 

to help local governments survive these troubled times and keep their communities 

going. 

• I urge my colleagues to allocate spending authority above $8 billion for Head 

Start. 

• Third, we must invest in small businesses and community lending. 

• As a Member of the Small Business Committee, I go on the record as opposing 

the views and estimates provided to you by the Majority on that Committee. 

• Those Members want to strip support from American small businesses by decreasing funding to the Small Business Administration. The SBA is the ONLY government agency responsible for supporting our nation’s small businesses. 

• I urge you to remain serious about job growth and our small businesses. I urge 

the Committee to allocate spending authority that is consistent with the President’s 

FY 2012 Budget Request for the SBA, $985.4 million. 

• Additionally, I urge the Committee to recognize the importance of investing in 

Community Development Financial Institutions. 

• The CDFI Fund invests in underserved communities, leverages out federal 

funds 17 to 1, gives taxpayers bang for the buck, and brings lending to areas big 

banks have neglected. 

• These investments create jobs and ultimately help contribute to the tax base 

for investments in schools, hospitals, police and fire departments in hard hit communities. 
112 

• I urge the Committee to set the allocation of spending authority for the CDFI 

Fund at FY 2010 enacted levels. 

Thank you Mr Chairman, and Ranking Member Van Hollen. I yield back. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Richmond. 

I guess I would like you to elaborate a little bit more. You mentioned the infrastructure challenges, and obviously with the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, you mentioned dredging. And also, 

what are some of the other infrastructure challenges that you 

have? And how are things progressing in New Orleans and around 

the Gulf Coast in Louisiana? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, I will tell you, and that is just a long story, 

but as a person who is responsible for our budget and what we do 

and the direction we are going in Congress, I will tell you that 

through the storm, we learned some things that make a lot of 

sense. And we learned some things, unfortunately, that make no 

sense at all, which I think are what taxpayers get furious about. 

And even myself, a couple times I found some things that just don’t 

make sense. 

And I will give you one short example of that, and I will answer 

the rest of your question. But for example, down in St. Bernard 

Parish in Louisiana, there is a trailer park community. And those 

trailers cost anywhere from $60,000 to $90,000. People live in 

them. It is a great way of life, and they are happy. After the storm, 

when those trailers washed away, because of the Stafford Act, we 

could not put or invest in buying them new trailers to match their 

money. We spent as a government $60,000 to $80,000 to put temporary trailers there for them until we could find out a way to help 

them buy permanent trailers. Well, our investment at the end of 

the day was far more than what it cost to just get them a new 

trailer. So we spent, in some examples, over $100,000 or $150,000 

just to get them the benefit of a $60,000 to $90,000 new permanent 

home. 

Those are the types of things that I think that we have to go in 

and look at. But overall, I want to thank Congress for what they 

did because they are helping us come back. In terms of the levees— 

go ahead. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. How would one of those homes be insured? Is 

there any insurance? 

Mr. RICHMOND. They do have insurance. And part of what we 

went through during the storm, and I can give examples of that, 

once people paid off their mortgage they didn’t have the requirement to maintain all of those insurances that they had before because their mortgage is now gone. And so people who worked very 

hard, worked 30 years, who are now at an age of retirement, who 

were really just, for lack of a better description, off and minding 

their own business and living the best years of their life, they were 

at a financial point where they paid off their homes and they 

weren’t mandated or they weren’t informed to keep that flood insurance and, more importantly, to raise the value of it with construction costs. So that is why we found so many homes underinsured. 

But those trailers did have insurance. Most of them were underinsured. But for us to come in and spend $60,000 to $80,000 just 

to put the 400-, 500-square foot temporary trailer on that piece of 
113 

land when that is the cost of a permanent trailer only because the 

Stafford Act dictates you can’t pay for permanent housing sometimes just didn’t make sense. And those examples of paying for 

temporary housing that cost just as much as permanent housing, 

those are the types of things that we just shouldn’t duplicate effort. 

But in terms of where we are now, I want to thank Congress for 

taking the interest and the commitment to put $14 billion aside 

and in the Corps budget that they already have to secure our levees and continue our flood protection. 

One issue that is coming up now and it will come up in the budget process is who will regulate or who will operate and maintain 

the flood structures at the east bank and the west bank? And both 

of them are massive structures that have cost hundreds of millions 

of dollars to build. But what they do, although they are flood control, and one of the structures, the west closure, I live—the east 

closure, I live maybe a mile or two from it, which is a great structure in terms of flood control. However, it blocks off a waterway. 

So if our flood authority decides to close it, then it affects interstate 

commerce by the tune of millions and millions and millions of dollars. 

So the Corps of Engineers, they are the body that consistently 

handles, operates, and manages those types of things because that 

is more of a commerce as opposed to flood control. The Corps 

agrees that they should manage it. We agree that they should. But 

they don’t have the money to do that. And that is to the tune of 

I think somewhere around $5 million a year. But we don’t want $5 

million a year to start to affect the commerce coming up and down 

the Mississippi River, the port of New Orleans, and the port of 

South Louisiana, which are two of the largest 10 ports in the country. So that I think is something we should all pay attention to, especially those 30 States and Canada that depend on the Mississippi 

River to do it. 

. So those are just small things in the grand scheme of a budget. 

But I think that they have the ability to affect tens of millions, if 

not hundreds of millions of dollars, worth of commerce. But the investment that this country and this Congress has in the metropolitan region of New Orleans is a wise investment. It is coming back 

very strong. And we continue to spend the money as carefully and 

prudently as possible to make sure that we get the bang for every 

penny that we put in. 

So we are safeguarding the money. We are spending it wisely. 

And every indication is June 1st this year, when hurricane season 

starts, the Corps will have lived up to its commitment to provide 

the 100-year flood protection; 500 year would be the goal. However, 

President Bush and President Obama both said that they wanted 

to get up to a 100-year flood protection by this June 1. They put 

the money there. They have lived up to the commitment to invest 

in it. And so that is where we are right now. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. I know, coming from the State of Indiana, obviously the Mississippi River is very important to us and agriculture. 

I also appreciate your comments mentioning the drilling off the 

coast. That is obviously very important for the entire country. And 

I know the country has been watching. We appreciate your testimony, and thank you for being here. I know we have a lot of chal-
114 

lenges in front of us, budgetary problems and challenges. So I am 

looking forward to working in a bipartisan manner to meet those 

needs. So thank you very much. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you again for having me. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Next, we have the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 

Whitfield. Thank you for being here. Looking forward to your testimony. And 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Chairman Stutzman, thanks so much. 

And I appreciate this opportunity to visit and talk about some 

issues of concern. In 1974, Congress passed the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Act, which was intended to give the 

President and Congress a timeline on which to base a budget and 

appropriations bill. Interestingly enough, during the 36-year history of the Budget Act, Congress has met the deadline for completion of a budget resolution only six times. And last year, for the 

first time ever, there was no Budget Committee markup and no 

floor consideration of the budget resolution. 

About 6 years ago, David Dreier and I, along with Senator Pete 

Domenici of New Mexico, introduced a 2-year biennial budget and 

appropriation act. The whole thought was that every year Congress 

is so tied up with the budget process, with the appropriation process, the authorizing committees waiting for their numbers, and it 

is like a major train wreck; everything just comes to a grinding 

halt. And as a result of that, in my view, we end up exacerbating 

a lot of problems with authorizing legislation, because frequently 

the only bills that will be moving during this time period are appropriation bills. 

And so appropriators naturally will try to do little fixes on substantive law without hearings or the involvement of the authorizing committee. And as a result of these Band-Aid approaches, it 

basically makes substantive law sometimes even worse than it is 

today, makes problems worse than they are today. 

So our thought was if we could pass this 2-year budget appropriation bill, that one year the appropriators could totally focus on 

the financial aspect of the Federal Government, oversight, and 

then, in the second year, the authorizing committees could totally 

focus upon what is wrong with current law, what needs to be 

changed. It would give appropriators and authorizers more time for 

oversight. 

And on the executive branch of government, it would certainly 

give OMB and others more time to develop in a more thoughtful 

way a budget instead of being hung up every single year with a 

complicated budget process. 

First President Bush supported this. President Clinton supported 

this. George Walker Bush supported this. And I understand that 

even President Obama supports a 2-year budget cycle. But going 

back to about 5 years ago when David Dreier and I introduced it 

on the House side, we actually had a vote on the floor and received 

a little over 200 votes in support of this legislation. 

Now, historically appropriators have been opposed to it because, 

obviously, if they have annual appropriation opportunities then 
115 

they like that. But I will say that in the last time we voted on this 

on the floor, the chairman of the appropriation bill at that time 

supported it. So I am here today simply to say that this bill has 

been reintroduced. It is referred to as H.R. 114, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act of 2011. 

I genuinely believe that one of the major problems facing Congress today is our budgetary and appropriations process. And if we 

could simplify it in this way to provide more oversight and more 

opportunity for meaningful review, I believe the American people 

would benefit from it. 

So I hope that, Mr. Chairman, you and others, as you move forward in addressing the serious budget issues, would consider this, 

and hope that you all might be able to support it, as a matter of 

fact. We do know that there is renewed interest on the Senate side 

to do this. And this may be our opportunity to really make a difference. 

So, with that, I would yield back the balance of my time and 

thank you again for giving me the opportunity to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Ed Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Members of the Committee, for giving 

me the opportunity to be here to testify before you today. 

As you well know, we are currently in the midst of uncertain and difficult economic times. 

While the White House says we are on the road to economic recovery, working 

families in my District, the First Congressional District of Kentucky, are still struggling to hold onto their jobs, their home and their health care. 

While the national unemployment rate has fallen to 8.9%, Kentucky’s unemployment rate remains at an alarming 10.4%. 

In fact, many counties in my District have an unemployment rate that is even 

higher then Kentucky’s state average. 

Adding to our economic troubles is the national debt, which has skyrocketed over 

the past few years, reaching almost $14.2 trillion today. 

The last time the nation’s debt was this high as compared with gross domestic 

product was immediately following World War II. 

According to a 10-year baseline projection issued by the Congressional Budget Office in January, if Congress continues to spend at the rate it is doing now, the federal debt is projected to equal 76 percent of the GDP by the end of 2020. 

In order to maintain our global competiveness it is essential that we drastically 

reduce our federal spending. 

One way to cut wasteful government spending is to reform and streamline our 

budget process. 

In 1974, Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, which 

was intended to give the President and Congress a timeline on which to base a 

budget and appropriations bills. 

As we well know, even when followed, the Budget Act has resulted in an annual 

rush which results NOT ONLY in a poor process but also reduces the amount of 

time available for careful oversight and management of existing federal programs. 

During the 36 year history of the Budget Act, Congress has met the deadline for 

completion of a budget resolution only six times. 

Last year, for the first time, there was no Budget Committee markup and no floor 

consideration of a Budget Resolution. 

Even now, as we discuss the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution, the Senate has 

yet to pass and the President sign, a FY 2011 Continuing Resolution. 

With these procedural problems in mind, Representative Dreier and I have introduced H.R. 114, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act of 2011. 

Specifically, this bill will require the President to submit a two-year budget and 

Congress would consider a two-year budget resolution and a two-year appropriations 

cycle. 
116 

I believe that a biennial budget cycle will result in better scrutiny of federal 

spending and the elimination of wasteful and duplicative government programs. 

As you begin to craft the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution, I encourage you 

to consider how procedural reform could positively affect the fiscal management of 

our nation. 

In closing, I ask that you keep in mind the hardworking Americans in rural areas 

like my District, where unemployment remains much higher than the national average. 

We must substantially reduce our federal spending so that America will remain 

globally competitive and our economy will get back on track, but in doing so we also 

must make sure that any reductions give some priority to programs that help people 

get through this rough economic period. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for letting me 

testify before you today. 

At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Well, thank you. 

I appreciate you bringing this matter to the Budget Committee 

and for consideration. 

As you know, many States pass 2-year budgets. And I know in 

the State of Indiana, where we have a 2-year budget, it has worked 

quite well. And from my experience there, seeing exactly what you 

are saying, is after we pass the budget, we have a year of oversight. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. It seems here as a freshman legislator, freshman 

Congressman, there seems to be more attention on spending in the 

next budget rather than oversight on the previous. And it seems 

that sometimes you have to one up the last one. So I know for myself, I would be very interested in supporting your proposal. And 

I think that there is definitely, from the discussions that we have 

had on the Budget Committee, an interest in reforming the process. 

Because there seems to be a disconnect, or there seems to be a better way than what we currently have. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I hope the freshmen can lead the way and 

help us resolve this. Because as I said, when you consider that in 

the 36-year history of the Budget Act, Congress has met the completion deadlines only six times, so we need help. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. And I appreciate your experience, and as a neighbor to the south, know the experience that you have and others 

have here and am anxious to hear more and learn about it and 

anxious to consider myself personally and maybe even spread the 

information around to the other Budget Committee members. And 

maybe we can renew some interest in this. So thanks for proposing 

it. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Chairman, thanks so much. I look forward to 

working with you. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. 

. Seeing that there are no others to testify, we are going to recess 

until 3:45, and resume approximately quarter until 4. The Budget 

Committee is in recess until 3:45. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HUELSKAMP [presiding]. We will call this meeting back to 

order. 

I see a few more witnesses here. I know we have been busy with 

other meetings. 

Next up, I will call the next witness, Theodore Deutch from the 

State of Florida. 
117 

Hopefully, I have pronounced that correctly. Welcome to the witness stand. I appreciate you coming before the Budget Committee. 

Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. THEODORE DEUTCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today and 

give voice to the constituents that I am so privileged to serve. 

We need a healthy debate about our Federal Government’s expenditures, and I welcome that discussion. However, in these 5 

minutes before you today, it is unfortunate that I feel the need to 

talk about an issue that does not belong this this conversation at 

all. That is the issue of Social Security, a program forbidden by law 

from drawing upon our Nation’s general budget revenues and contributing to our deficit. 

We all agree that our Federal budget must reflect our priorities, 

our priorities as a Nation. Today, I respectfully request that my 

colleagues ensure that our Federal budget also reflects reality. No 

matter how many times that you say Social Security is broken, the 

reality is that Social Security’s independent revenue stream and its 

trust fund’s investments maintain the program’s solvency until 

2037. Social Security is legally prohibited from contributing to the 

deficit. It cannot use debt to pay out benefits, not today, not tomorrow, and not in 2037. 

If Congress fails to address this modest shortfall sometime in the 

next quarter century, Social Security will then pay out reduced 

benefits to the tune of 78 percent of what is owed to beneficiaries. 

Having introduced the Preserving Our Promise to Seniors Act, legislation that would address this shortfall, I am the first to say that 

we should take action to overcome this challenge and extend Social 

Security’s solvency for future generations. 

However, it would be disingenuous for me to promote my legislation using the deceitful claim that Social Security faces an imminent crisis. We have a quarter century to shore up Social Security. 

The motion imminent crisis we face is one that we can address 

right now in our 2012 budget, and that is America’s economic crisis. Our economy is riddled with chronically high unemployment, 

ever worsening income inequality, and a middle class lacking any 

sort of economic security. These challenges have consequences for 

Social Security and for the retirement security of all Americans. 

Painfully stagnant wages and the growing divide in earnings account for more than half of Social Security’s projected shortfall 

since the last reforms were enacted in 1983. 

Rising income inequality has led more revenue to escape Social 

Security taxes, which are currently capped at $106,800. More than 

80 percent of income growth since 1980 has gone to the top 1 percent of earners, people who stopped contributing to Social Security 

beyond their first few paychecks. Our economy has grown these 

past few decades, but the paychecks of most Americans have not 

grown with it. They struggle to put food on the table, afford health 

care, pay for college. 

And for many, saving for retirement is not even an option. Over 

50 percent of American households, regular, hardworking people 
118 

lack any retirement savings. And of those with retirement savings, 

over 50 percent have saved less than $50,000, certainly not enough 

to sustain a secure retirement. 

In addition, the pillars of financial stability that many retirees 

in America have relied on in the past are not as dependable as they 

used to be. Traditional pension plans have become virtually nonexistent. Home values are down. The facts on the ground trouble 

me even more when considering some of the proposed reforms to 

Social Security floated by my Republican colleagues, instead of 

plans to create new jobs or bring economic security to middle class 

families. 

One such ill-advised proposal is raising the retirement age. 

Washington may have a new fixation on rising life expectancies, 

but the statistics show our gains in longevity have excluded lowincome workers. Raising the retirement age would mean an immediate benefit cut for men and women of America who toil on their 

feet for 50 years as grocery clerks, coal miners, janitors, and 

nurses. Every year the retirement age is raged is another 7 to 8 

percent benefit cut for all individuals, whether they retire at 62, 

67, or 70. This is not an equitable solution, nor do the American 

people support it. 

Another reform apparently on the table is something called 

means-testing, which would exclude Americans defined as affluent 

from Social Security benefits. Social Security is strong because all 

Americans contribute to it and believe in it. Turning Social Security into a welfare program for lower-income Americans instead of 

a wage insurance program that we all count on is not the answer. 

These proposals such as raising the retirement age, shifting 

wealthier Americans to private accounts, and turning Social Security into a welfare program offends the very wisdom of this stalwart program. Social Security was created on the simple premise 

that we are all entitled to a secure retirement after a lifetime of 

hard work. 

My disagreement with these proposals goes beyond the fact that 

they differ from my legislation, which phases out the unfair cap on 

Social Security contributions, extends solvency for 75 years, and allows people who put more in to take more out, even guaranteeing 

adequate cost-of-living adjustments. 

What I most vehemently object to is the insertion of these proposals into our budget debate when they have nothing to do with 

our Federal budget. Social Security was created with an independent revenue stream and barred from contributing to the deficit 

to avoid subjecting the benefits of disabled Americans and current 

and future retirees to politically charged budget battles like this 

one. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge you to keep Social Security benefits off the 

table in this budget debate, because that is exactly where they belong. 

[The prepared statement of Theodore Deutch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THEODORE E. DEUTCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the House Budget Committee: I am 

grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today and give voice to the constituents I am so privileged to serve. We need a healthy debate about our federal govern-
119 

ment’s expenditures. I welcome that discussion. It is a conversation we need to 

have. 

However, in these five minutes before you today, it is unfortunate I feel the need 

to talk about an issue that does not belong in this conversation at all. That is the 

issue of Social Security, a program forbidden by law from drawing upon our nation’s 

general budget revenues and contributing to our deficit. We all agree that our federal budget must reflect our priorities as a nation. Today, I respectfully request that 

my colleagues ensure our federal budget also reflects reality. 

No matter how many times you say Social Security is broke, the reality is that 

Social Security’s independent revenue stream and its Trust Fund’s investments 

maintain the program’s solvency until 2037, when it may begin to fall short. The 

reality is that Social Security is legally prohibited from contributing to the deficit. 

It cannot use debt to pay out benefits, not today, not tomorrow, and not in 2037. 

If Congress fails to address this modest shortfall sometime in the next quarter century, Social Security will then pay out reduced benefits, to the tune of 78 percent 

of what is owed to beneficiaries. 

Having introduced the Preserving our Promise to Seniors Act, legislation that 

would address 2037’s projected shortfall, I am the first to say we should take action 

to overcome this challenge and extend Social Security’s solvency for future generations. However, it would be disingenuous for me to promote my legislation using the 

deceitful claim Social Security is broken or faces an imminent crisis. 

We have a quarter century to shore up Social Security. The most imminent crisis 

we face is the crisis we have the opportunity to address right now in our 2012 budget, and that is America’s economic crisis. Our economy is riddled with chronically 

high unemployment, ever-worsening income inequality, and a middle class lacking 

any sort of economic security. 

These challenges have consequences for Social Security, and for the retirement security of the American people at large. Painfully stagnant wages and the growing 

divide in earnings account for more than half of Social Security’s projected shortfall 

since the last reforms were enacted in 1983. Rising income inequality has led more 

revenue to escape Social Security taxes, which are currently capped at $106,800. 

More than 80 percent of income growth since 1980 has gone to the richest 1 percent 

of earners—people who stop contributing to Social Security beyond their first few 

paychecks. 

Our economy has grown these past few decades, but the paychecks of most Americans have not grown with it. Middle class families struggle to put food on the table, 

afford health care, and send their children to college. For many, saving for retirement is not even an option. Over 50 percent of American households—regular hardworking people—lack any retirement savings. Of those with retirement savings, 

over 50 percent have saved up less than $45,000—certainly not enough to sustain 

a secure retirement. In addition, the pillars of financial stability that many retirees 

in America have relied on in the past are not as dependable as they used to be. 

Traditional pension plans have become virtually nonexistent. Home values are not 

reliable sources of equity as they once were. The rise of 401(k)’s left many seniors 

vulnerable to more risk, as was the case for many of my constituents who retired 

to South Florida and saw their lifesavings shrink during our latest financial crisis. 

The facts on the ground trouble me even more when considering some of the proposed reforms to Social Security floated by my Republican colleagues instead of 

plans to create new jobs or bring economic security to middle class families. 

One such ill-advised proposal is raising the retirement age. Soon to be 67, let’s 

put aside the fact this retirement age is already higher than most industrialized 

countries. Washington may have a new fixation on rising life expectancies, but the 

statistics show our gains in longevity have excluded low-income workers. Raising 

the retirement age would mean an immediate benefit cut for the men and women 

of America who toil on their feet for 50 years as grocery clerks, coal miners, janitors, 

and nurses. 

Every year the retirement age is raised is another 7 to 8 percent benefit cut for 

all individuals, whether they retire at 62, 67, or 70. This is not an equitable solution, nor do the American people support it. 

Another reform apparently on the table is something called means-testing, which 

would exclude Americans defined as ‘‘affluent’’ from Social Security benefits. Social 

Security is strong because all Americans contribute to it and believe in it. Turning 

Social Security into a welfare program for lower-income Americans instead of a 

wage insurance program we all can count on is not the answer. For my constituents 

who tragically lost their lifesavings in the Madoff Ponzi scheme, Social Security is 

the one reliable source of income they have left. Under this system, if someone 

earns too much money, they would risk losing their Social Security benefits. We 

should be encouraging Americans to save up for retirement, not discouraging them. 
120 

These proposals, such as raising the retirement age, shifting wealthier Americans 

to private accounts, and turning Social Security into a low-income welfare program 

offends the very wisdom of this stalwart program. Social Security was created on 

the simple premise that we are all entitled to a secure retirement after a lifetime 

of hard work. My disagreement with these proposals goes beyond the fact they differ 

from my legislation, which phases out the unfair cap on Social Security contributions, extends solvency for another 75 years, allows people who put more in to take 

more out, and even guarantees adequate cost of living adjustments. 

What I most vehemently object to is the insertion of these proposals into our 

budget debate when they have nothing to do with our federal budget. Social Security 

was created with an independent revenue stream and barred from contributing to 

the deficit to avoid subjecting the benefits of disabled Americans and current and 

future retirees to politically charged budget battles like this one. I urge you to keep 

Social Security benefits off the table in this budget debate, because that’s exactly 

where they belong. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Congressman. 

I appreciate your testimony. Seeing no questions, we appreciate 

your time here. 

Next turn to recognize the next witness, the honorable Donna 

Christensen from the Virgin Islands. Welcome to our committee as 

well. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for the testimony to testify before the Budget 

Committee. I have come here just about every year that there has 

been a Member hearing. 

And generally, I come to talk about the need for an investment 

in health care, particularly funding to eliminate disparities in 

health care that are faced by people of color, people who are poor, 

people who live in our rural areas, and people who live in our Territories. These are disparities that cause preventable, premature 

deaths in individuals primarily because of their race, ethnicity, 

gender, gender identity, and geography. 

All of us want to be responsible in spending the taxpayers’ 

money, and of course, we want to reduce deficits. But we also have 

an obligation to improve the health of all Americans. And I believe 

that we can do so with the proper investment and that that investment would reduce costs over time. So today I want to focus on the 

health care aspect of the 2012 budget. 

First, it is critical that we protect the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in its entirety so that we can expand coverage, 

put health decisions back between the patient and their provider, 

prevent medical errors, expand prevention, make care better coordinated and affordable, address the health care needs of those 

who, because of lack of access to quality care for many reasons, 

most of which are outside of their control, and eliminate the health 

disparities that those barriers cause. 

While there are cuts in the President’s 2012 budget that I don’t 

support, there is much that I do, although there are funding levels 

that are inadequate in some areas, in my opinion. For example, 

those that I support: The President’s budget supports the Prevention and Public Health Fund at $1 billion. And I think that is a 

necessary investment, where incredible public health improvements 

could be realized, and savings will be realized as well. 
121 

While the following are some of the amounts that I would like 

to see increased, I think the 2012 budget does a credible job in supporting numerous of our Congressional Black Caucus Health 

Braintrust priorities: Including $2.4 billion for the Ryan White Program; $161 million for the Minority AIDS Initiative; $940 million 

for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program; $221 million for the Community Transformation Grant Program; investments in the Office 

of Minority Health, Rural Health, and Women’s Health at the Department of Health and Human Services; strong investments 

across several key and highly effective health workforce diversity 

and data collection efforts; $105 million for the Healthy Start program; $269 billion for Medicaid; and $9.98 billion for the Children’s 

Health Insurance Fund. 

And we hope that as we go through this budget process that all 

of those particular areas will remain funded at, at least, that level 

and particularly that there will be no cuts in the Medicaid program. 

We are concerned, though, about funding for the new National 

Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institutes of Health. The 2012 budget provides $214 million, 

far much less than would be required to carry out its mandate. It 

would be funded at a much lower level than all of the other institutes at a time when even the government’s 2010 National Disparities Report, issued just a few weeks ago, stated that the disparities 

in health care are not improving, that they affect all population 

groups, all population groups, and that many require urgent attention. 

I also want to talk briefly about a change on how we budget that 

I have promoted through legislation that I introduced last year and 

will introduce again. If we included in this budget prevention scoring, extending beyond the 10-year window, I believe there would be 

significant cost savings which could be reinvested. And I think we 

ought to find a way to score prevention and to score outside of that 

10-year window. For example, a recent Joint Center report found 

that if we as a Nation had eliminated health inequities and premature deaths for African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans, we would have saved total of $1.24 trillion. There are similar 

reports on the savings from accountability care organizations, from 

early treatment of diabetes, from early treatment of end stage 

renal disease. 

So, Mr. Chairman, in summary, we need to ensure that funding 

is there to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act, even though adjustments may have to be made. We need that 

full funding to remain in place. We need to ensure that prevention 

and health equity programs are robustly funded. And I hope that 

the Budget Committee will support a methodology for scoring prevention, because I think we shortchange the American public if we 

don’t. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Donna M. Christensen follows:] 
122 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Thank you, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen and Members of the 

Committee, for this opportunity to give testimony and weigh in on the FY 2012 

budget during such a historic time. 

While I—like my colleagues on the both sides of the aisle—am interested in supporting a budget that is bold enough to tackle current fiscal challenges, I am also 

interested in ensuring that we accomplish this in a manner that is thoughtful, based 

on the needs and wants of most Americans and that truly makes this nation stronger today and in the future. 

As in years past, as the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health 

Braintrust and as a physician who practiced for more than two decades, I come before you today to discuss what I consider to be one of the—if not the—most important aspect of our federal budget: responsible and necessary health and health care 

spending to improve the quality of and access to health care, and to close the many 

gaps that exist in the health care system. 

When we enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we set the nation on a course that—over the next decade—will: 

• lift 32 million people out of the ranks of the uninsured; 

• put health care decision-making exactly where it belongs: between the patient 

and their provider; 

• protects health care consumers from unnecessary and medically irresponsible 

practices that compromised the patients, as well as their providers; 

• expand access to life-saving preventive care to nation’s most vulnerable residents; 

• bolster support for community health centers, which not only are core elements 

of the larger the health care system, but which also create jobs; 

• increase the number and expand the diversity of health care providers, particularly those at the primary care level; and 

• improve coordination and bolsters accountability and evaluation across and 

throughout not only the Department of Health and Human Services, but also 

throughout the health care system. 

The FY 2012—despite making several cuts in an effort to be fiscally responsible— 

includes support levels for key health and health care programs that will keep this 

nation on the right course following the enactment of health care reform. As such, 

the FY 2012 will ensure that these important objectives and goals that we identified 

and seek to achieve through health care reform come fruition. 

For example, the FY 2012 budget robustly supports the Prevention and Public 

Health Fund to the tune of $1 billion—a necessary investment in a fund that supports programs that will show that an investment in prevention on the front end 

yields incredible public health results and cost savings on the back end. Before I 

continue, I would like to propose an idea that builds on this notion and that I have 

been championing for several congressional sessions. If we included in this budget 

prevention scoring that extended beyond the 10-year window, I guarantee that the 

cost savings—which would be significant—could be re-invested in the nation. Until 

then, however, it is important that we support a budget that funds prevention because those dollars invested today will boast savings that are ten-fold. 

While some of the amounts are those that I would like to see increased, the FY 

2012 budget includes support for numerous CBC Health Braintrust priorities, including: $2.4 billion for the Ryan White Program, $161 million for the Minority 

AIDS Initiative and $940 million for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program; $221 million for the Community Transformation Grant Program; investments in the Offices 

of Minority Health, Rural Health and Women’s Health at the Department of Health 

and Human Services; strong investments across several key and highly effective 

health workforce diversity and data collection efforts; $105 million for the Healthy 

Start program; $269 billion for Medicaid and $$9.98 billion for the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program; and $214 million for the new National Institute for Minority 

Health and Health Disparities at National Institutes of Health. 

Each of these provisions and programs will bring this nation several significant 

steps forward toward health equity and the elimination of all health disparities. 

And, in addition to making millions of hardworking Americans who are disproportionately and detrimentally affected by health inequities—such as people of color, 

low-income populations and those who live in rural communities—this also will save 

the nation more money over three years than the total costs associated with the entire health care reform bill. 

In fact, a recent Joint Center report found that if we—as a nation—had eliminated health inequalities and premature death for African Americans, Hispanics 
123 

and Asian Americans, we would have saved a total of $1.24 trillion dollars in direct 

and indirect costs—and, those savings would have occurred over a three-year time 

frame! Those savings are not only impossible to ignore; it would be downright irresponsible for all of us to do so. 

But, those savings will never be realized unless investments in programs to eliminate health disparities and to achieve health equity are an integral part of the FY 

2012 budget. Currently, we are heading in the right direction and I know that developing and moving a budget that includes health care expenditures that address 

and tackle health disparities and achieves health equity will require the willingness 

to take bold steps and the visionary leadership to ensure that more than one step 

is taken. However, I also know that we have both today—both in this Congress and 

in this Administration. Additionally, we have an economic and public health incentive to work together to achieve this very achievable goal. 

Together, we can develop and pass a budget that meets all of the unmet needs 

of Americans and that champions health equity to improve the health and well 

being, and thus life opportunities of all Americans. And, together Mr. Chairman, we 

can make this nation—one person and one community at a time—healthier, stronger and prepared for tomorrow. 

Thank you! 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate the testimony for the committee. It 

is very important to hear from our other Members as we work forward on the budget process. And seeing no additional witnesses at 

this time, the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Additional statements submitted follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SANDY ADAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Chairman Ryan and members of the Budget Committee: thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today in regards to the Fiscal Year 2012 Federal Budget. 

Specifically, I would like to express my concerns with the budget for the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, the new VA hospital in Orlando, as well as 

ways to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, all important issues 

for constituents in my district in Florida. 

As many of you are aware, I represent Florida’s 24th District, home to the Kennedy Space Center and the epicenter of this country’s adventures to space. The 

hardworking men and women of Florida have supported every mission of NASA. 

The Human spaceflight program has shaped and defined this community for fifty 

years and continues to be an identifying symbol for the entire region. The coastal 

community which has grown out of America’s investments in NASA is even commonly referred to as ‘‘The Space Coast’’. As we continue the discussion on our Republican budget for the 2012 fiscal year, the establishment of, and commitment to, 

human space exploration is critical to our country’s national security and economy. 

NASA is a unique agency that has spurred private sector job growth, fuels the 

economy with American ideas and innovation, and contributes to the development 

of industries which even twenty years ago may have been considered pure fantasy. 

The extraordinary challenges of achieving access to space have motivated and accelerated the development of technologies and industrial capabilities. These capabilities have widespread applications and have contributed to the technological excellence of the United States. In practical terms, space exploration continues to inspire 

our young people to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics—the so-called STEM disciplines. Likewise, NASA’s future space missions are 

critical to the continued development of new American technologies, as well as our 

high-tech infrastructure throughout all sectors of the economy. It is my belief that 

the commitments we make to the continuation of human space flight today will 

yield meaningful and sustained economic returns for decades to come. 

NASA and the aerospace industries are a symbol of pride and honor for our country and represent the best hopes and ideals of our nation. Thus, I believe the issues 

surrounding the development of space technology and the continued use of human 

spaceflight in the United States should be one of the priorities of this Congress. 

NASA’s future space missions are critical to the continued development of new technologies, as well as our high-tech infrastructure and an industrial base which will 

help create jobs and grow our economy. 

Our country needs to set a clear path to success for NASA and we need to have 

a defined way forward, something that so far the Obama Administration has been 

unable to provide for all the stakeholders of the space program. Continuing to give 

NASA the resources they need is only a small piece of what we are facing and it 
124 

is important to think beyond the most immediate needs. The best way to define this 

way forward is through prioritization of resources. 

As our nation faces critical economic challenges, we must look to cut funding in 

places that will be challenging to accept. We appreciate your leadership in putting 

together a budget that not only honors our children by doing what is necessary to 

alleviate the debt that has been placed upon them, but also prioritizes current 

spending where it can do the most with the resources we have. I do believe that 

NASA’s budget can be reduced. Within the NASA budget specifically, I believe there 

is an opportunity to cut funding within the Earth Science account where an overabundance of climate change research is being conducted. This is why I ask for any 

substantial reductions in programs or budget lines within the NASA budget would 

spare human spaceflight. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to also discuss with you ways 

to strengthen and protect Social Security and Medicare. For generations hard-working Americans have paid into these social safety net programs, and making changes 

to Social Security and Medicare that would radically change the participation of retirees and near retirees in the current program is unfair and something I cannot 

support. 

According to the 2010 Annual Reports from Social Security and Medicare Board 

of Trustees, these programs, along with Medicaid, comprise 40% of the federal budget and represent almost 9% of the size of our economy. As you already know, the 

trustees of the Social Security and Medicare programs announced that Social Security and Medicare funds will be exhausted sooner than expected: Social Security in 

2037 and Medicare in just six years (2017). In fact, by 2045, literally every single 

dollar we raise in revenue will go to pay for Social Security and government health 

care programs. It is clear that something must be done. 

Given the demographic makeup of my Congressional district and the number of 

senior citizens reliant on Social Security and Medicare, I welcome all ideas from you 

and our colleagues how to strengthen these programs while protecting the benefits 

of seniors at or near retirement age. Congress must make it a priority to address 

the long-term funding problems of these two programs. I truly believe our nation 

must keep our promise to those who worked their entire lives to prepare for their 

golden years, while also ensuring that future generations will have the same opportunity for a bright retirement in the future. 

One other issue that is of great importance to Central Florida is the construction 

of the new VA Medical Center at the Lake Nona site in Orlando. Recommended for 

construction through the CARES selection process, the new hospital is sorely needed 

to keep up with the health care needs of Florida’s veteran population. With hundreds of thousands of veterans in the Central Florida region, ensuring that the hospital’s construction continues on schedule is extremely important to my constituents 

and me. If there are funding constraints that the Budget Committee feels could inhibit the construction and completion of the hospital, I would hope that Committee 

members would be willing to work with me to find other areas within the VA’s 

budget to reduce in order to ensure an on-time delivery of these life saving health 

care services. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to express my views and explain 

my concerns. I would like to extend my hand to work with you and your staff to 

identify other areas within the FY2012 budget that will reduce unnecessary spending and get our nation’s debt under control, as well as to find solutions to strengthen and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY BIGGERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

As you work to craft a budget for Fiscal Year 2012, I respectfully request that 

you preserve funding for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. 

The Office of Science is critical to lllinois. According to the Illinois Science and 

Technology Coalition, the state’s research enterprise in university and laboratory 

R&D supports 68,000 high-tech jobs. Their leadership in key scientific fields offer 

the public and private sectors the tools they need to turn groundbreaking research 

into jobs, revenue, and tangible benefits for consumers. 

Specifically, developments in nanotechnology, materials science, biotechnology, 

and supercomputing are all areas in which our research infrastructure helps manufacturers reduce costs, increase consumer choice, and ultimately, drive economic activity in essential sectors like health care and energy. 

Preserving our investment in the Office of Science preserves jobs now, and for the 

future. 
125 

I appreciate your consideration of my request and look forward to working with 

you as you finalize the budget for Fiscal Year 2012. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, M.D., A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Chairman Ryan, thank you for allowing me to speak before your committee. 

In your budget resolution, there are several items I hope you will include. First 

and very importantly, the funding and implementation of the health care law must 

be addressed. As I am sure you agree, we cannot afford to spend any money on the 

implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It has already 

proven to paralyze job growth while also increasing premiums for America’s families. 

The law is also affecting states which are unsure if this law will withstand legal 

challenges. Funding by states and the federal government to implement the changes 

should be withheld until the legal status of this law is settled. My desire would be 

to see this law’s funding be addressed in a way that best helps American doctors 

and patients by reducing the bill’s influence over our health care system and economy. Any spending that can be touched, mandatory or discretionary, needs to be examined. 

Another item to be addressed is the Sustainable Growth Rate, also known as 

SGR. This patch must be repealed to create a permanent system for Medicare reimbursement for our nation’s medical system. The current payment system is not only 

unsustainable, it is unreliable. Continuing to operate on short term fixes puts our 

most vulnerable Americans in a perilous situation. Their ability to access care is becoming more difficult. In my home state of Texas just last year, 69% of providers 

cited cash flow problems resulting from back payments from the government. The 

longer we procrastinate on this problem, the more costly it will become. 

Equally as important is the federal government’s revenue and spending provided 

by our tax system. Many in Washington have discussed fundamental tax reform but 

I am here today with a specific proposal. My bill, HR 1040, the Freedom Flat Tax, 

is a common sense alternative to the burdensome tax filing system we have today. 

Allowing taxpayers to pay a flat rate of tax on their income with only a standard 

deduction will eliminate some of the 6 billion hours Americans spend each year preparing their tax returns. 

This proposal is just one idea we can use in changing our ineffective and unfair 

tax system. I am willing to discuss any idea that makes filing simpler and creates 

fewer distortions in economic choices. 

I look forward to this committee approaching these problems with determined, 

comprehensive, and intelligent alternatives. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS

Thank you all for allowing me, as Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus 

(CBC), to present our Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Budget priorities. First of all, I want 

to acknowledge all 43 Members of the CBC, but especially our Budget, Appropriations, and Taxation Taskforce; our Commission on the Budget Deficit, Economic Crisis, and Wealth Creation Co-Chairs; and finally, our FY 2012 Budget Chairs, Congressman Bobby Scott and Congresswoman Gwen Moore. 

In January, the CBC hosted it’s first-ever Commission on the Budget Deficit, Economic Crisis and Wealth Creation. The primary goal of the Commission was to provide an opportunity for the CBC to have a thoughtful reaction to the FY 2012 Budget instead of an emotional reaction. Our Budget Commission report, which I have 

provided copies of today, enabled us to give thoughtful input into the congressional 

budget process. 

In 1981, the Congressional Black Caucus first presented its own ‘‘Constructive Alternative Budget Proposal Initiative’’ and we continue to present sound and responsible alternatives to the budgets offered by both Republican and Democratic majorities in Congress forty years after our founding. 

Generally, a glaring omission from various debt reports and budget proposals is 

a thoughtful analysis of how recommendations will affect the nation’s most economically vulnerable populations. Recognizing this, our Commission was formed to focus 

on the recession—particularly in communities of color—and the long term implications for all of our nation’s communities. 

Our FY 2012 alternative federal budget will address the budget deficit while protecting important safety net programs needed by our communities. Top African- 
126 

American economists from around the nation provided critical recommendations for 

this important document and we found that yes, we need to cut the deficit and 

spending, but we cannot do this on the backs of the most vulnerable. 

As Congresswoman Maxine Waters stated, ‘‘Government investment in people, 

education, infrastructure and innovation can create jobs and these jobs pay for 

themselves and then some over time.’’ Investment allows people to earn, learn, 

spend, save, and invest. Dr. Algernon Austin of the Economic Policy Institute provided these sobering statistics to understand how important it is for our country to 

invest in its citizens: • The US ranks 20th out of 24 countries in providing early childhood education; • The US ranks 12th out of 36 countries in college completion rates; • US schools need nearly $300 billion of required maintenance; • The US ranked 15 out of 30 nations in broadband penetration; and • The American Society of Civil Engineers recently issued a grade of ‘‘D’’ to the 

country’s roadways. 

Cutting funding to programs that assist hard working Americans, help families 

with their most basic needs, maintain our crumbling infrastructure, and expand access to educational opportunities will only make these statistics worse. We cannot 

win the future by leaving people behind. Our success as a nation is interwoven in 

the success of all communities. Until we grasp that concept, as a Nation, we will 

never see the full potential of this country and for that I am truly concerned. 

The CBC’s top priorities for the 112th Congress promotes the success of all communities. We focus on job creation and economic development, providing lifetime 

educational opportunities, and protecting access to the health care that we worked 

so diligently to ensure last Congress and over the past forty years. We can only 

make these goals a reality by sustaining and strengthening the programs that invest in people. Whether it is workforce investment, unemployment insurance, community development block grants, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF), we must continue to invest in people. These programs are vital to national 

interests as they train our workforce, stabilize our economy, and provide funding for 

our cities. I understand that now is the time for us as a nation to sacrifice in order 

to protect our children. However, I struggle to understand how the proposed majority budget helps achieve this goal. 

The CBC is committed to the creation of jobs and economic development. One of 

our top budget priorities is the full funding of the Workforce Investment Act. This 

Act provides adult literacy and education, providing employment and workforce development services to adults. This allows them to increase their incomes through 

occupational and related skills acquisition. We would also like to see a $6 billion 

increase in the infrastructure investment. This will help maintain and improve everything from our dilapidated schools to our deteriorating roads and bridges across 

the nation. Investing in our crumbling infrastructure will create jobs and help our 

economy get back on track. The New America Foundation reports for every $1 billion in infrastructure investment, over 35,000 jobs are created. In times like these 

where the overall unemployment rate hovers near 10% and African American unemployment is approximately 16%, it is wholly necessary to train people for the jobs 

that are available now and invest in areas where we know jobs will be created. 

Overall, the Budget should focus on funding programs that have the most return 

on investment to get our economy moving. As a former mayor, I know that Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) do just that. Data from the Recovery Act 

website shows that for every $7000 investment at least one job in created. This rate 

is eight (8) times as effective as the rest of the jobs programs funded under the Act. 

For this reason, it is necessary to fully fund Community Development Block Grants. 

It provides the greatest return on investment for creating jobs. Also in the area of 

education, training and employment, we want to see programs for our young and 

our elderly. This includes additional funding for the Senior Community Service Employment Program that aides our elderly. Additional dollars for the Youth Activities 

Fund will helps to create summer jobs for young people to learn on-the-job skills 

and gain vital work experience bolster family income and explore career opportunities. 

Finally, the Congressional Black Caucus worked diligently for the passage of the 

Affordable Care Act. However, this is not enough. It is necessary that the Caucus 

remain diligent in addressing health disparities to holistically improve African 

American communities. Furthermore, it is important to protect health equity and 

the access to affordable healthcare. African Americans have long-suffered from poorer health and premature mortality as a direct result of their disproportionately high 

rates of uninsurance, HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and overweight and 

obesity, as well as from the social determinants of health that not only sustain, but 

that exacerbate racial and ethnic health disparities. Furthermore, it is important to 
127 

protect health equity and the reliable access to affordable healthcare that this new 

law will ensure. This is why we want to ensure funding is maintained to successfully implement this law which 

• Expands access to health care to more than 30 million currently uninsured 

Americans; 

• Empowers patients and their providers—not health care executives—to better 

collaborate around health care decisions; 

• Protects patients with strong consumer protections; 

• Supports and collaborates with the new Institute on Minority Health and 

Health Disparities at NIH and the new Offices of Minority Health across HHS; 

• Works with health equity advocates and researchers across the nation to reduce 

racial and ethnic, as well as gender and geographic health disparities; 

• Strengthens the racial and ethnic diversity in the health workforce; and 

• Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid to ensure that our nation’s most medically 

and financially needy residents have access to reliable, affordable, high-quality 

health care; 

A fiscally sound budget that invests in our people is necessary to get our nation 

back on track. Investments in job creation and economic development measures, lifetime education and healthcare are what is truly needed to avoid the economic crisis 

that our nation has suffered through over the past few years. I encourage my colleagues in Congress, especially those sitting on this Budget Committee to peruse the 

CBC’s Commission on the Budget Deficit, Economic Crisis and Wealth Creation. We 

must create a budget that not only cut the deficit and spending but fund programs 

that have the most return on investment to get our economy moving. This will provide a more sustainable solution to our budget deficit crisis and put us on a path 

to bettering our nation. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has a long history of presenting fiscally 

sound and responsible alternatives to the budgets offered by both Republican and 

Democratic majorities in Congress. In light of the deficit reduction recommendations 

made by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, we are concerned that draconian austerity measures will directly impact and harm our communities. 

A glaring omission from various debt reports is a thoughtful analysis of how their 

recommendations will affect the nation’s most economically vulnerable populations. 

Recognizing this, the CBC formed its own debt commission to focus on the recession—particularly on communities of color—as well as approaches to deficit reduction and their implications for vulnerable populations and the nation at large. 

The CBC’s first-ever ‘‘Commission on the Budget Deficit, Economic Crisis, and 

Wealth Creation’’ addresses the federal budget deficit while protecting important 

safety net programs needed by our communities. 

The national debt—that is the total amount that the Federal government owes 

to others—has grown rapidly in the past decade and reached 62 percent of Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP) in 2010. This is a source of concern for many. A large debt 

can be problematic for at least two reasons. First, the larger the debt the more concern there is that creditors might not be willing to continue to hold it or increase 

their holdings. Second, this debt has to be serviced through interest payments 

There are a number of ways of approaching deficit reduction without making vulnerable populations bear a disproportionate burden. One solution is to put at least 

part of the burden for closing the gap on the revenue side, through increases in 

taxes or introduction of new taxes. There are also ways of reducing or modifying 

programs so the entire burden is not placed upon low-income and vulnerable communities. 

Today, many Americans are facing the challenge of economic recovery, enduring 

weakness in the housing market, and persistently high unemployment. Our nation’s 

communities of color have been hit hardest by the effects of the recession as they 

continue to experience disproportionately higher rates of unemployment, home foreclosure, educational disadvantages, and economic hardship. In fact, the most recent 

unemployment numbers show the African American unemployment rate in January 

2011 at 15.7%—several points higher than the overall number. As a result, vulnerable communities are increasingly relying on public programs to meet their basic 

needs. 

In this economic climate, lawmakers dedicated to addressing the core interests of 

their constituents must make rapid, private sector job growth a top priority. This 

objective cannot be effectively pursued if the United States loses its standing as a 

leader in the global economy. A vibrant and dynamic marketplace is the bedrock of 
128 

long term declines in unemployment. As such, the US must make significant investments in education, infrastructure, and research and development and all programs 

that provide a high return on investment for every dollar spent. An example of this 

is Community Development Block Grants which give a $1.62 to $4 return for every 

dollar invested. 

The FY 2012 budget should encourage programs that help to the economy to recover and to spur additional growth, and eliminate programs that while popular 

with powerful interests, do little to grow the economy overall. Our economic recovery is too fragile right now and draconian spending cuts to vital programs could 

jeopardize our recovery. Simply ‘‘cutting’’ our way out of the deficit is not possible. 

We have to remember that with the Federal budget touches lives all over the country. Our fiscal problems are very complex and they need to be addressed, but there 

is no simple, one-size-fits-all solution. Building upon the recommendations made by 

this panel, the Congressional Black Caucus will propose a FY 2012 alternative 

budget that will put us back on the path towards fiscal stability, but not on the 

backs of the Americans that can least afford it. 

SECTION 1: BALANCING DEMAND FOR RESOURCES AND FISCAL CONSTRAINTS

In 2010, the United States’ debt obligation reached 62 percent of Gross Domestic 

Product (GDP), rising from 33 percent in 2001 when the federal budget was last balanced. In addition, in 2010 federal spending was 24 percent of GDP. Only during 

World War II was federal spending a larger part of the economy. Also, tax revenues 

stood at 15 percent of GDP, the lowest level since 1950. 

According to Margaret Simms, Director of Low Income Families Project, the larger 

the debt the more concern there is that creditors might not be willing to continue 

to hold it or increase their holdings. In addition, this debt has to be serviced through 

interest payments. Therefore, current debt will require future interest payments 

that will, in combination with growing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security payments, crowd out all discretionary spending. 

According to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the 

economic recovery will improve the deficit situation in the short run because revenues will rise as people go back to work, and money spent on the social safety net 

will decline as fewer people are forced to rely on it. But even after the economy recovers, federal spending is projected to increase faster than revenues, so the government will have to continue borrowing money to spend at its current level. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if the United States continues on its 

current course, annual budget deficits will remain high throughout the rest of this 

decade and beyond, and debt will spiral even higher, reaching 90 percent of GDP 

in 2020. 

In order to move forward in earnest with reducing the national debt and budget 

deficits the following questions will need to be answered: 

1. When should the sincere effort to reduce the debt and deficit begin? 

2. How fast should the budget gap close? 

3. How much of the budget gap should be reduced through spending reductions 

and how much through tax increases? 

PATHWAY(S) TO REDUCING THE NATIONAL DEBT AND DEFICIT

There are many ways to reduce the national debt by closing federal budget deficit 

and suggestions have been made by numerous organizations. Four paths drawn 

from a report of the National Academy of Sciences Fiscal Futures Committee are: 

High Path: Would move revenue up toward spending, with the budget eventually 

reaching about one-third of GDP. As a result, this would create a much larger public 

sector. 

Intermediate Path 1: Spending and revenues rise gradually to about one-fourth 

of GDP and spending on the elderly population would be constrained to support only 

modest expansion of other federal spending. The growth rates for Social Security, 

Medicare, and Medicaid would be slower than under current policies. This path reflects the view that the federal government should make selective new public investments to promote economic growth, preserve the environment, and build for the future. 

Intermediate Path 2: Spending and revenues would eventually rise to a little more 

than one-fourth of GDP. Spending growth for health and retirement benefits for the 

elderly population would be slowed but less constrained than in the intermediate1 path. Spending for other federal responsibilities would be reduced. This path reflects the view that the government’s implicit promises for the elderly are a higher 

priority than other spending. 
129 

Low Path: Pull spending towards revenues which will be in the area of 18-19 percent. However, this would require a much smaller public sector and ultimately lead 

to cuts in many public programs. 

PROGRAMS TO PROTECT
130 

LOW–INCOME SUPPORT PROGRAMS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY 

[U.S. total, percent] 

Program White 

African 

American/ 

Black 

Hispanic Other Native American Asian Hawaiian Multi-Ra- cial Unknown Total (Num- ber) 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—Active Cases, Percent Distribution of TANF Families by Ethnicity /Race, October 2007—September 2008* ...... 31.5 34.2 28 NA 1.3 2.3 0.6 1.2 0.3 1,629,345 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—Participating Households by 

the Race of the Household Head, FY2009** .......................................................... 34.4 21.4 9.7 NA 3.6 2.5 NA 0.1 21.5 14,981,000 

Medicaid—Distribution of the Nonelderly with Medicaid by Race/Ethnicity, 

2009*** .................................................................................................................. 43 21 28 8 NA NA NA NA NA 44,144,600 

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)—Characteristics of the EITC-Eligible Population, 

Tax Year 1996**** ................................................................................................. 50.8 22.2 20.7 6.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 
131 

African Americans are 12.4 percent of the U.S. population and Hispanics are 15.1 

percent, but they represent a much higher percentage of the participants in a number of government programs. 

SAFETY NET & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Public programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, 

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and others are necessary to maintain the stability of vulnerable communities. 

• Social Security 

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies with the support of the American Association of Retired Persons reported that African Americans benefit significantly from the Social Security program. This includes as retirees, as disabled workers or their dependents, and as survivors of deceased workers. Although black 

Americans are more likely than white Americans to receive retirement benefits and 

survivor benefits, their return from taxes paid into the Social Security system exceed that of white. In addition, older African Americans are more dependent on 

these benefits. Conversations about this reform must include these population 

whose dependence Americans and other racial/ethnic subpopulations whose dependence on the system is great but whose patterns of usage may differ from the ‘‘norm.’’ 

Social Security is an integral part of the nation’s social safety net. In the event 

of disability, death or retirement, Social Security benefits are available to a worker 

and/or to the worker’s dependents. Social Security benefits are often the only source 

of income for African Americans, especially for retirees. For two of every five African 

American retiree households age 65 or older, Social Security benefits are the only 

source of support. 

• Unemployment Insurance 

The unemployment insurance system, like Social Security, is one of the great innovations in federal policy that came out of lessons learned during the Great Depression. Helping stabilize demand for goods and services by smoothing the income 

of unemployed workers keeps more people employed—if a loss of income means a 

drop in consumption, the drop in demand for food and clothes means a drop in demand for grocery clerks and salespeople. If we rely on workers increasing their savings to ‘‘insure’’ themselves from unemployment spells, that only makes drops in demand steeper; precisely what occurred in 2009 when the unprecedented drop in demand for automobiles brought the U.S. auto industry to bankruptcy. The multiplier 

effect—the circulation of spending—from unemployment benefits is among the largest for any federal outlay. 

The unemployment insurance system is run at the state level, with states setting 

eligibility and benefit amounts, and the federal government establishing minimal 

guidelines on unemployment insurance tax levels. During job expansions, states 

build up reserves in their system because more taxes come in than benefits are paid 

out. Ideally, states would build up reserves into a trust fund large enough to cover 

benefits if the economy started losing jobs. 

The budget proposes addressing the potential increase in payroll taxes that would 

tax place this year. But, the National Urban League Policy Institute and the Kirwin 

Institute at the Ohio State University have documented a sizeable disparity in unemployment benefit recipiency for African American and Latino workers. Those disparities are the result of variations in the state unemployment insurance programs; 

the same variation that has resulted in the insolvency of the program. States should 

be required to set uniform standards that make access to unemployment insurance 

the same for all American workers. States with low recipiency rates, and low benefits, make the unemployment insurance system less effective as a stimulus to protect jobs; so we all lose from those states that have small unemployment insurance 

programs. African Americans have the highest unemployment rates, and so solving 

the current crisis in solvency should also address the lower rate of African American 

unemployed workers who get unemployment benefits. 

• Workforce Investment Act (WIA): 

African Americans are almost twice as likely to be enrolled in a workforce program as their representation in the overall population would suggest. At a time 

when the nation is recovering from the deepest recession in our lifetime, it is unwise 

to cut spending. However, if we must cut spending, the nation’s safety net should 

be preserved since so many Americans rely on that safeguard for their survival. 

• Medicaid 

During this recession, Medicaid enrollment has grown by 8% nationally. Medicaid 

is only 7% of the budget but provides healthcare for 19% of the population. Almost 

half of these persons are children. Medicaid is also an important source of health 
132 

insurance coverage for African Americans and Hispanics as over 21% of African 

Americans and 27% of Hispanics are enrolled in Medicaid. The current economic climate and state fiscal environment threaten access to healthcare for Medicaid beneficiaries since many states have proposed Medicaid cuts to close their budget gaps. 

The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided relief to states 

through an enhancement in the federal matching rate (FMAP). This relief prevented 

cuts in Medicaid in FY 2010. Unfortunately, the enhanced FMAP has expired and 

states are announcing cuts Medicaid for FY 2011. States are announcing reductions 

in benefits (e.g. dental, hearing, vision, transplants, and adult services), eligibility, 

provider reimbursements (nursing homes, physicians, and hospitals) and an increase in cost sharing. Medicaid cannot sustain current levels of reduction at the 

federal level. Further reductions in the FMAP or failure to authorize spending to 

support Medicaid expansion will jeopardize care for poor especially low income African Americans and Hispanics. Cuts will result in the poor delaying care until they 

are forced to seek expensive emergency services, a practice which will only increase 

healthcare costs in the long run. 

• Medicare 

Opponents of Medicare grossly underestimate the importance of the program to 

the most vulnerable pockets of society. Medicare is the safety net for our seniors, 

especially minority seniors, as 67% of African American and 70% of Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries are poor or near poor, i.e. below 200% of federal poverty levels. 

These low income beneficiaries cannot afford to supplement their coverage with 

Medigap policies nor do they have employer-sponsored insurance for retirees. Without Medicare, younger generations will be responsible for the overwhelming cost of 

care to their parents and grandparents which could wipe out families’ savings and 

jeopardize financial resources needed to sustain homes or fund children’s educations. 

Because African American and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries have limited financial resources to supplement their Medicare coverage, the closing of the Medicare part D ‘doughnut hole’ is a very important provision for minority seniors. More 

than one in four beneficiaries reach the Medicare coverage gap where they face the 

full cost of their prescribed medicines. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) addresses this 

access problem by reducing the price of brand name drugs by 50% thereby allowing 

seniors access to their prescriptions and a eliminating the need to choose between 

medicine and other life necessities. Opponents of Medicare spending fail to recognize 

that cuts will eventually result in higher costs and threaten families’ financial viability. 

Proposed Avenues to Maintain the Medicare budget: 

• Only 43% of Medicare’s budget comes from general revenues. Medicare has a 

dedicated tax base that could be adjusted to meet the needs of future generations. 

• Raising the payroll tax ceiling and adjusting the eligibility age are appropriate 

measures to take to preserve Medicare for another generation. 

DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAID AND MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN 

[In percentages] 

Medicaid Medicare 

Black ................................................................................................................................................ 21.2 10.6 

Hispanic ........................................................................................................................................... 27.2 7.6 

Asian ................................................................................................................................................ 4.0 3.0 

White ................................................................................................................................................ 44.1 77.7 

Other ................................................................................................................................................ 2.9 1.1 

Total ................................................................................................................................... 100.0 100.0 

Source: Table C-2 Health Insurance Coverage by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1999 to 2009 DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-238, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2010. 

PERCENT OF POPULATION ENROLLED IN MEDICAID AND MEDICARE 

Medicaid Medicare 

Black ................................................................................................................................................ 27.1 11.9 

Hispanic ........................................................................................................................................... 26.5 6.7 

Asian ................................................................................................................................................ 13.9 9.3 

White ................................................................................................................................................ 10.7 17.1 
133 

PERCENT OF POPULATION ENROLLED IN MEDICAID AND MEDICARE—Continued 

Medicaid Medicare 

Total ................................................................................................................................... 15.7 14.3 

Source: Table C-2 Health Insurance Coverage by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1999 to 2009 DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, 

and Jessica C. Smith, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-238, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the 

United States: 2009, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2010. 

COMMUNITY PUBLIC HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)

Smaller health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration promote community health and 

are particularly beneficial to vulnerable populations. Programs sponsored by these 

agencies are critical to addressing health and health care disparities that negatively 

affect communities of color. Communities of color suffer from, among other things, 

higher rates of mortality and morbidity and have lower access to quality healthcare 

services. A number of agency-sponsored programs promote disease prevention and 

access to health screening, fight against communicable and chronic diseases, fund 

community health centers, train physicians and other healthcare workers, provide 

substance abuse treatment, and offer many other community-based services to 

which low-income citizens would have little access otherwise. Even small cuts to 

these agencies can have a large impact that will be disproportionately felt by the 

most defenseless members of our society. 

Efforts to hinder the ACA could have devastating effects on African Americans, 

Hispanics and other communities of color. Currently, African Americans and Hispanics currently have extremely high rates of uninsurance (i.e., 23% and 34% respectively). Under the ACA, the number of uninsured persons will drop dramatically 

from 49.9 to 22.1 million, many of whom are below 200% of federal poverty line 

(FPL). This is due to the proposed Medicaid expansion to 133% of FPL, the inclusion 

of childless adults, and the creation of Health Insurance Exchanges and subsidies 

to small businesses that will make health insurance more affordable for small businesses, their employees, and low wage earners. Also, the ACA provides resources to 

expand community health centers in underserved communities which will reduce geographic barriers to care for communities of color that disproportionately face health 

provider shortages. 

The ACA also positions the nation to address health and health care disparities 

that cost the government $1.2 trillion every four years. ACA elevated the National 

Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities to institute status to help elucidate the causes of disparities and find solutions. ACA also requires the collection 

of health information by gender, race, ethnicity, primary language, and disability 

status to help public health agencies and other health organizations address health 

and healthcare disparities. 

HOW TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT WITHOUT CUTTING PROGRAMS

Taxes: 

• One of the proven successful options to close the budget gap on the revenue side 

is through increases in taxes or introduction of new taxes. The economy would be 

in better shape had the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts had not been enacted. These cuts 

alone cost the nation $1.3 trillion dollars in revenue. It is estimated that the extension of those cuts in 2010 are going to cost $860 billion. Reinstating these taxes 

would do much to lower our deficit. New taxes such as a financial speculation tax 

would also help. It would generate revenue and not incentivize short-term speculating and would be a help build a safer financial sector. 

Reducing or modifying programs: 

• Modify the Social Security programs by increasing the contribution cap, that is 

the percent of earnings on which FICA payroll taxes are levied, to 90% of earnings, 

schedule modest future rate increases now so people have time to adjust their private retirement planning, and treating all supplemental retirement annuities like 

401Ks, which would mean they would be subject to FICA and Medicare taxes (but 

not income taxes). These measures would generate sufficient revenues to close the 

projected gap in the Trust Fund and allow for better benefits for vulnerable populations. (Source: National Academy of Social Insurance, Strengthening Social Security for the Long Run, 2010) 

• Reduce domestic discretionary programs through selective combinations of funding reductions to some programs and block granting of other programs that go to 
134 

state and local governments, based on program objectives and effectiveness measures. Programs that were not judged to be effective would be reduced or eliminated. 

In the case of block granting, states would be responsible for program administration and could choose to supplement the block grants with their own funds. (Source: 

National Academy of Sciences, Choosing the Nation’s Fiscal Future, 2010) 

SECTION 2: SURVIVING THE RECESSION AND ACCELERATING THE RECOVERY

Today many Americans confront a tenuous economic recovery, enduring weakness 

in the housing market and persistently high unemployment. This context demands 

that lawmakers sharpen their focus on strong economic growth, enhanced competitiveness and increased job creation. In January, according to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, overall unemployment fell 0.4% and rests at 9%. Even with this decline, 

the January unemployment represents the twenty-first consecutive month with 

rates this high since the Great Depression. 

The January decline in African American unemployment was even more modest. 

African American unemployment fell 0.1%, from 15.8% in December 2010 to 15.7% 

in January 2011. While African Americans make up only 12% of the population, 

they represent 20% of the unemployed. Innovative and carefully conceived policy 

measures are needed to improve the employment prospects of over 2.8 million unemployed African Americans and more than 14 million unemployed Americans from all 

walks of life. 

Obviously in this economic landscape, lawmakers dedicated to addressing the core 

interests of their constituents must make rapid job creation a top priority. This objective cannot be pursued effectively if the United States loses its standing as a 

leader in the global economy. A vibrant and dynamic marketplace is the bedrock of 

long term declines in unemployment. As such, the US must make significant investments in education, infrastructure, and research and development. Recent decades 

have seen a marked decline in US competitiveness in these sectors. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers recently issued a grade of ‘‘D’’ to the 

country’s roadways. America’s higher education system, once the envy of the world, 

was recently ranked 18th out of 36 industrialized nations by the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development. Math, science and reading proficiency levels among US elementary students received similarly average rankings. Dr. 

Algernon Austin of the Economic Policy Institute foregrounds a range of sobering 

statistics that place these deficiencies in context: 

• The U.S. ranked 20th out of 24 countries in providing early childhood education 

• The U.S. ranked 12th out of 36 countries in college completion rates 

• U.S. Schools need nearly $300 billion of required maintenance 

• 29% of all U.S. transit assets are in poor or marginal condition 

• The U.S. ranked 15th out of 30 nations in broadband penetration 

In the immediate wake of ‘‘The Great Recession’’ lawmakers must intensify efforts 

to confront these challenges and to counter the attendant prospects of long term 

poverty and unemployment. Targeted investments in clean energy, highway infrastructure, biomedical research and information technology can stimulate growth in 

the short term and expand economic capacity in the long term. 

If carefully instituted, these types of targeted investments can operate in conjunction with much needed attempts to cut the deficit. As President Obama remarked 

in the State of the Union Address, ‘‘Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments 

in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing 

its engine.’’ The ill-conceived approach to deficit reduction captured by the President’s analogy should be particularly worrisome for lawmakers who seek to directly 

address the daily needs of African Americans. As is widely known, even in good economic times the unemployment rate for African Americans has hovered at approximately twice that of the overall American population. Moreover, the lending and 

hiring practices of much of the private sector have done little to inspire broad confidence among African Americans. As a result, legislation must be crafted that 

incentivizes the creation and development of minority-owned and woman-owned 

businesses and hiring of the chronically unemployed. 

Recently, competing policy and budget priorities have left early childhood education grossly underfunded. According to the National Head Start Association, less 

than 40% of children eligible for Head Start and less than 2% of toddlers eligible 

for Early Head Start have been able to fully access the services offered by these programs. Investing in these programs not only prepares a new generation of Americans for academic excellence, but also expands the range of employment alternatives 

that can be pursued by low-income parents desperately in need of quality childcare. 

Investments in the formative years of childhood development have proven essential as a means of inculcating strong cognitive and social skills in all children. Since 
135 

the program’s inception in 1965 nearly 25 million low-income children and families 

have benefited from Head Start’s comprehensive approach to childhood education. 

And from a fiscal standpoint, the return on investment is extremely encouraging. 

According to a recent study, the US receives $9 in benefits for every $1 dollar invested in Head Start. Children who have reaped the rewards of Head Start are less 

likely to engage in criminal behavior later in life, less likely to become a drain on 

America’s social safety net and more likely to graduate from high school and college. 

These higher graduation rates greatly increase the earning potential of former Head 

Start participants so that they can substantively contribute to the tax base of economically marginalized communities. 

Even when fully prepared for prevailing employment opportunities, African American youth confront discrimination in labor markets. Field experiments have demonstrated that white employees generally are preferred over black employees, regardless of the relative qualifications of the latter versus the former. For example, 

a field experiment in Milwaukee demonstrated that among males of similar age and 

educational attainment, whites with criminal records have greater odds of landing 

employment than blacks with no criminal record. Among young adults, 18-25 years 

of age, the unemployment rate consistently is 10-12 points lower for whites who 

have not finished high school than blacks who have had some college education. 

Therefore, mechanisms need to be put in place to insure that there is greater equity 

in the opportunity to work after young people successfully have navigated the 

schooling experience. 

In addition to molding healthier and more academically proficient children, early 

childhood education often provides mothers the opportunity to effectively enter the 

labor force. Numerous studies indicate that in many low-income households, African 

American households in particular, the mother is the sole breadwinner. According 

to the Department of Labor roughly 3 out of every 5 single mothers with children 

under age 6 are employed and often face an economically debilitating ‘‘time crunch.’’ 

These women need access to affordable and quality child care, not only to help improve their children’s lives, but even more critically to improve the prospect of social 

mobility for the entire family. 

In sum, investments in early childhood education are more necessary than ever. 

Short-sighted deficit reduction will hamstring opportunities for all disadvantaged 

children to attend high-quality schools in general, especially pre-kindergarten and 

will compromise ongoing efforts to increase the number of teachers dedicated to 

serving impoverished communities. Substantive educational investments now will 

create durable job growth in the field over the long term—while at same time helping to ensure that all children in the United States receive a 21st century education. 

Nothing is more pivotal as America seeks to maintain its economic competitiveness 

and dynamism. 

Likewise, increased economic productivity hinges upon progress in revitalizing our 

nation’s infrastructure. As a string of recent tragedies suggests, vital sectors of the 

US infrastructure are crumbling. Investing in roads, dams, sewers, bridges and 

ports—the lifeblood of daily commerce—is one of the most efficient means to rapidly 

boost economic growth. For example, investments in transportation infrastructure 

have produced demonstrable economic ripple effects. It is estimated that for each 

billion dollars spent on transportation infrastructure, 47,000 jobs are created. Mark 

Zandi, a leading economist, determined that every one dollar invested in infrastructure yields $1.57 of additional economic benefit. 

Improvements in transit systems are also critical in order to secure gains in the 

quality of life of millions of working Americans. Public transit is obviously cheaper 

than owning and operating a vehicle. The rising cost of maintaining a vehicle—fuel 

and parking, for instance—make public transit an even more vital resource for lowincome populations. Modernizing and expanding transit systems could help these 

populations to save money and provide them access to employment opportunities 

across greater distances. The President’s commitment in the State of the Union Address to provide 80% of Americans access to high speed rail within the next 25 years 

is a pioneering step in the right direction. 

Advances in transportation infrastructure make the United States economy as a 

whole more competitive. To illustrate, if roads are deteriorating and transit systems 

are unreliable, the flow of American goods and services is hampered. Poorly maintained highways and railways cripple shipping routes, deliveries run late or products are never received. In order to ensure that myriad opportunities for economic 

innovation are not squandered, investment in transportation infrastructure is of singular import. 

This investment will also help to sustain one of the industries most impacted by 

the recent economic downturn: construction. While employment in manufacturing, 

retail and healthcare is growing, the construction industry remains in decline. Ac-
136 

cording to The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the month of January alone, 22,000 

construction jobs were lost. Investments in infrastructure today will fuel enduring 

job growth in construction, transportation and technology tomorrow. Facilitating the 

expansion of these industries will ensure that United States remains a dominant 

economic force for years to come. 

This vast array of needs in the maintenance and expansion of our nation’s human 

and physical infrastructure motivate the establishment of a major public sector jobs 

program. Such a program would afford all citizens guaranteed employment. In many 

instances—including the current economic crisis—the private sector has not been 

able to take care of the public need in the realm of job creation. Furthermore, it 

has been shown that it always more difficult for the private sector to end the disparity in unemployment and wages between African Americans and the overall population, particularly given the presence of discrimination in hiring. 

A proposal similar to that jobs programs created in the 1930s and 1970s, but one 

that would be permanent and universal, would address America’s employment crisis 

in a direct fashion. The scale and funding of the program would change countercyclically in response to increases and decreases in private sector hiring nationwide. 

For example, if all of the 15 million persons unemployed during the Great Recession 

were put to work in the public sector jobs program at a mean expense of about 

$50,000 per person (salary, materials and equipment, benefits including health insurance), the program would cost $750 billion. 

The net expense would be considerably lower because the existence of program 

of this type would facilitate substantial savings in other social insurance programs, 

including unemployment compensation, food stamps, free and reduced lunch benefits in public schools, TANF, EITC, and so forth. Indeed, the federal job guarantee 

could function as a mechanism to eliminate poverty among both the unemployed 

and the working poor by providing a guarantee of the opportunity to work at a decent wage. Incomes received by employees in the public sector jobs program also 

would alleviate the home foreclosure crisis, which now is increasingly driven by the 

lost wages associated with high unemployment. 

Run by local elected officials who are closest to our communities and best understand their needs, this jobs program would collaborate with community organizations, labor and other community leaders to identify the projects that would be most 

beneficial. 

Predicated on the discussion above, projects that newly employed people might 

undertake include: • Paint and repair schools, community centers, and libraries; • Clean up abandoned and vacant properties to alleviate blight in distressed and 

foreclosure-affected neighborhoods; • Expand emergency food programs to reduce hunger and promote family stability; 

• Augment staffing in Head Start, child care and other early childhood education 

programs to promote school readiness and early literacy; and 

• Renovate and enhance maintenance of parks, playgrounds and other public 

spaces. 

The program envisioned would place special emphasis on delivering job opportunities and needed services to low-income communities and communities of color suffering depression level unemployment and distress. If acted upon quickly a jobs program like this could put hundreds of thousands of people to work during this calendar year and would continue to provide a quality job option for all citizens on a 

permanent basis. 

Finally, investments in workforce also are essential, particularly for minorities 

and women in the financial services industry. According to the Securities Industry 

and Financial Markets Association, the financial services industry accounts for 6 

percent of total private non-farm employment in the United States or about 10 million jobs, and represents 6 percent, or $828 billion, of the nation’s Gross Domestic 

Product. Employment opportunities in certain sectors of the industry, like securities, 

are expected to increase by 12 percent over the next 7 years. Jobs in the financial 

services industry are highly profitable. For example, according to the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, in 2009 financial analysts earned an average hourly wage of $40.98 

an hour, $25.03 more than the national average hourly wage for all occupations of 

$15.95. It is clear that the financial services industry offers jobs and opportunities 

that can lift families and individuals from poverty, can improve their living situations, and can assist in building strong, vibrant communities. 

However, opportunities for minorities and women in this industry remain limited. 

According to a 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) from 

1993 to 2006, the level of minority participation in the financial services profession 

only increased marginally from 11 percent in 1993 to 15.5 percent in 2004. Partici-
137 

pation rates among African-Americans rose slightly from 5.6 percent to 6.6 percent. 

Asian participation rates rose from 2.5 percent to 4.5 percent and the participation 

rate of Hispanics only rose from 2.8 percent to 4 percent. In addition, the GAO 

found that only 12.4 percent of management level positions at holdings and trusts 

are held by minorities and that the securities industry is the least diverse of all financial services industries with minority men and minority women making up 8.7 

percent and 6.4 percent of management positions in this sector. 

The employment of minorities and women by the government’s financial services 

agencies is limited also. According to the Office of Personnel Management, minorities comprise only 17.4 percent of Federal economists; 18.1 percent of Federal financial management positions; and 18.7 percent of financial institutions examiners. At 

the Treasury Department, for example, minorities only make up 17.2 percent of employees at senior pay levels. Meanwhile, nationally, minorities comprise 30.5 percent 

of the civilian labor force. The level of minorities at senior pay levels in the government’s financial services agencies is also problematic. Still using Treasury as an example, the average pay grade for African-American employees is 8.8. The average 

grade for Hispanic employees is 8.3. Compared to the average grade for White employees, which is 9.6, it becomes clear that there’s a clear disparity in, not only 

earnings, but seniority at Treasury in particular. 

Minority- and women-owned businesses face significant challenges in participating in the financial services industry, including starting up their businesses, 

raising capital, and contracting with the Federal government, including contracts related to the economic recovery. Only 2.4 percent of all minority-owned firms and 2.6 

percent of women-owned firms are in the finance and insurance industries. According to data from the Minority Business Development Agency, minority-owned businesses were more likely to rely on credit cards as a source of start-up capital than 

non-minority firms and were less likely to rely on savings or loans from banks. In 

addition, only 5.7 percent of African American firms and 5.6 percent of Hispanic 

firms obtained bank loans to start their business, compared to 12 percent of nonminority firms. According to a 2006 GAO report, minority-owned business have a 

higher rate of having their loans denied or of paying higher interest rates, even 

after controlling for creditworthiness and other factors. 

Due to these challenges and lack of participation of minorities and women, Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 

2010 (Public Law 111-203) directed each financial services agency to establish an 

Office of Minority and Women Inclusion to develop standards to ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity of the agency’s 

workforce and senior management; increase the participation of minority-owned and 

women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts of the agency, including the 

coordination of technical assistance; and assess the diversity policies and practices 

of entities regulated by the agency. The legislation required the Offices to be established by January 21, 2011. These Offices will increase the participation of minorities, women, and minority-and women-owned businesses in the financial services industry and should be supported. The model presented by the Offices could provide 

a template for other industries and agencies where minority participation is lacking. 

SECTION 3: USING THE 2012 BUDGET TO ADDRESS DEFICIT REDUCTION

The FY 2012 budget should encourage programs that help to the economy to recover and to spur additional growth, and eliminate programs that while popular 

with powerful interests, do little to grow the economy overall. Our economic recovery is too fragile right now and draconian spending cuts to vital programs could 

jeopardize our recovery. 
138 

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has already recovered to pre-crisis levels. Corporations are sitting on hundreds of billions of capital in relatively comfortable positions. The interventions taken by the government to bolster the financial industry 

were successful, but the government has not had the same success addressing the 

root of the crisis and the one that still impacts the lives of the most Americans— 

the foreclosure crisis. 

A key place the FY 2012 budget could address the continued economic hardships 

of Americans and the deficit problem would be to re-program funds for the Home 

Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and develop successful solutions to help 

millions of families keep their homes. By investing in programs that promote and 

assist asset building in minority and low income communities, the FY2012 budget 

can begin to lift millions of Americans, of all races and backgrounds out of poverty 

and placed on the path towards the middle class. 

Extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts, especially those for the wealthiest Americans, for two years is not the best way to begin addressing the deficit. In the forum 

I proposed an analogous statement ‘‘I plan to start my diet by eating cake and ice 

cream’’ to illustrate the hypocrisy. We need to get serious about our deficit but we 

must also maintain focused investments to accelerate our recovery. 

The FY2012 budget should adopt many of the President’s proposals outlined in 

his 2011 State of the Union address—continued and sustained investments in education, advanced research and development, clean energy, and our nation’s crumbling infrastructure. The United States will not be able to compete in the global 

economy if we can’t ensure a quality education for every American child, if we can’t 

effectively address our energy needs, and if we can’t manage to efficiently transport 

goods and services. 

The U.S. has a long structural racial inequality problem, particularly in the realm 

of wealth, which is a paramount indicator of well-being, and the only way to address 

this problem is with public actions. Ironically, the nation’s wealthiest households 

and corporations have and continue to receive the disproportionate share of public 

subsidies. 

Getting the economy moving is the prime way to reduce the deficit. Recognizing 

this it is vital we bolster economic opportunity for all American’s through both 

short- and long-term investment—investment that not only improves individual 

American citizen’s economic opportunity, but expands the productive capacity of the 

broader American economy. The current focus on deficit reduction focuses on further 

limiting government’s spending on programs that generally aid families that need 

that help the most and that have received the lest support during the current economic downturn. 

Efforts to increase savings among the general public through tax reform and policy programs will increase the national saving rate, even while the government invests more to encourage growth. Stabilizing the mortgage crisis and promoting asset 
139 

development will have the most impact on helping lower and middle class Americans recover from the recession, and in turn help the overall budget deficit picture. 

One of the most direct programs to increase savings and create wealth through 

asset development across all income brackets would be the development of some 

type of mandatory savings or endowment program instituted at birth. 

There is no silver bullet to addressing the federal budget deficit. However, we 

must have an honest discussion on how we can get our fiscal house in order. President Clinton left President Bush with a ten year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion 

in 2001 but President Bush on January 20, 2009 left President Obama with a $ 1.2 

trillion deficit. Additionally, that this was the deficit on day one of the Obama Administration, weeks before the President enacted a single piece of legislation and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

The failed economic policies of the Bush Administration led to this enormous deficit—— • the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts totaled $1.3 trillion over ten years, in which most 

of the tax relief went to the top 1% of income earners; • a Medicare Prescription Drug benefit with a ten year cost of nearly $1 trillion 

that was not offset; • Two overseas wars that are nearing a cost of $1 trillion; • A $700 billion bailout of Wall Street banks; and • All these unpaid for policies were compounded by the worst economic recession 

in 70 years that began in 2007 which led to huge shortfalls in federal tax revenue 

and increased reliance on unemployment insurance and other federal social safety 

net programs. 

America is in need of a long-term economic competitive strategy that ensures 

more than just positive GDP but provides full employment, economic mobility, and 

shared prosperity for all. To that end, American needs a savings and investment 

system for the 21st century. America should strive for refitted tax policy that operates through robust tax credits to promote new savings amongst low- and moderateincome Americans in an effort to foster new investment and financial stability to 

help grow our economy. The federal government should take a long hard look at 

their asset promoting policies in general given that the most affluent benefit far 

more from the programs than the less affluent. 

While the personal savings rate is only one component of overall national savings, 

an analysis of 2005 data found that increasing the personal savings rate among the 

bottom 40% of households by only about $10 per week ($500/year) would increase 

the overall net national savings rate by 26% (Johnson, Mensah, Steuerle, 2006). A 

substantial transformative policy like the ‘‘baby bonds’’ is such a policy. The ‘‘baby 

bond’’ plan would progressively rise to $50,000 or $60,000 for children in families 

in the lowest wealth quartile and accessible once the child turns 18 years of age. 

Eligibility for such a program would be based upon the net-worth position, rather 
140 

than the income, of the child’s family. Although this seems large, it costs much less 

than what we currently spend on policies like the home mortgage deduction tax 

credit which is far less progressive and in general benefits the most affluent Americans. 

As efforts go forward to improve American adults retirement savings and preparedness, policymakers should ‘‘Add the Kids’’ to our nation’s savings system. Child 

Accounts are a long-term investment in children and their financial futures. At a 

time when the outlook for our Nation’s youth is fraught with mounting concerns, 

it is vital we make a significant investment in our children that helps build a secure 

financial future. By giving every American child a head start on saving, Child Accounts would help every American child build a financial asset for their future, expanding educational, entrepreneurial, and job training opportunities. 

It is also imperative to address meaningfully and immediately, the foreclosure crisis that is stripping families of their homes and wealth and weighing heavily on the 

economic recovery. Failure to move aggressively and tackle the major economic challenges facing the nation, with urgency and commitment, will be detrimental to 

America’s economic leadership and will foster greater economic inequality and further erode public trust and confidence in government. 

In order to get these large deficits under control, we have some tough choices to 

make. How much longer can we afford to extend the Bush-era tax cuts? The President and Congress extended all of them through 2012 at a two year cost of $800 

billion and ten year extension of all these tax cuts will cost $3.8 trillion—$3 trillion 

of which are the popular middle-class tax cuts. 

In late January, the Congressional Budget Office released its latest projections of 

the Social Security Trust Fund. Although Social Security does not contribute to the 

budget deficit, the treasury has borrowed It was previously projected to go into a 

cash deficit in 2017, but now CBO has projected that the trust fund is now running 

a deficit. The trust fund is expected to be exhausted in 2037 and will only take in 

enough money to fund 75% of promised benefits. 

Simply ‘‘cutting’’ our way out of the deficit is not possible. We have to remember 

that what we do with Federal budget touches everyone. Our fiscal problems are very 

complex and they need to be addressed, but there is no simple, one-size-fits-all solution. Building off the recommendations made by this panel, the Congressional Black 

Caucus will propose a FY2012 budget alternative that will put the budget on a path 

towards fiscal stability but not on the backs of the Americans that can least afford 

it. 
141 

CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS COMMISSION ON THE BUDGET DEFICIT, ECONOMIC

CRISIS AND WEALTH CREATION

Balancing Demand for Resources and Fiscal Constraints 

Darrell J. Gaskin is Associate Professor of Health Economics at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Deputy Director of the Hopkins Center 

for Health Disparities Solutions. He has also served on the faculties of the University of Maryland—College Park and Georgetown University. His primary research 

interests are healthcare disparities, safety net providers, and access to care and 

quality of healthcare for Medicaid, minority, uninsured, and other vulnerable populations. Dr. Gaskin earned his Ph.D. in health economics at The Johns Hopkins University, a MS degree in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

and a BA degree in economics from Brandeis University. 

Dr. Maya Rockeymoore is an American policy scholar, noted speaker, author, and 

media commentator. She is best known as an advocate and analyst in the areas of 

health, income security, education and civic engagement having appeared as a frequent contributor in print, television, and radio. Prior to her current position as 

President and CEO of Global Policy Solutions in Washington, DC, she served as 

Vice President for Research and Programs at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, as Chief of Staff to Congressman Charles Rangel and as a professional staffer on the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee. She received her BA from Prairie 

View A&M University and both her MA and Ph.D. from Purdue University. 

Margaret C. Simms is an Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute in Washington, 

D.C., where she directs the Low Income Working Families project. Prior to joining 

the Urban Institute in July 2007, she was Vice President for Governance and Economic Analysis at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. She began 

working at the Joint Center in 1986 as Deputy Director of Research and held positions of increasing responsibility during her 20 year tenure. Prior to joining the staff 

of the Joint Center, she was a program director at the Urban Institute. Before coming to Washington, DC, Dr. Simms served on the faculties of Atlanta University and 

the University of California at Santa Cruz. In 1977 and 1978, she was a Brookings 

Economic Policy Fellow at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

William Spriggs was nominated by President Barack Obama as Assistant Secretary for Policy. He was confirmed by the Senate on October 21, 2009.Dr. Spriggs 

is a recognized expert in labor policy and research. For over 25 years, he has worked 

as an educator, researcher and advocate for working families and low-income communities. Born in Washington, DC, Dr. Spriggs attended the public elementary 

schools of the District in the midst of the Civil Rights era, spurring his commitment 

to public service. After graduating cum laude from Williams College in 1977, he attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison—where he earned a Ph.D. in Economics and served as co-president of American Federation of Teachers Local #3220. 

Surviving the Recession and Accelerating the Recovery 

Algernon Austin directs the Economic Policy Institute’s Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy (PREE). PREE works to advance policies that enable people 

of color to participate fully in the American economy and benefit equally from gains 

in prosperity. As director of PREE, Austin oversees reports and policy analyses on 

the economic condition of America’s people of color. Prior to joining the Economic 

Policy Institute, Austin was a Senior Fellow at the Demos think tank and assistant 

director of research at the Foundation Center. From 2001 to 2005, he served on the 

faculty of Wesleyan University. He received his Ph.D. in sociology from Northwestern University. 

William A. (‘‘Sandy’’) Darity Jr. is Arts & Sciences Professor of Public Policy Studies and Professor of African and African American Studies and Economics at Duke 

University. Previously he served as director of the Institute of African American Research, director of the Moore Undergraduate Research Apprenticeship Program, director of the Undergraduate Honors Program in economics, and director of Graduate 

Studies at the University of North Carolina. Darity’s research focuses on inequality 

by race, class and ethnicity, stratification economics, schooling and the racial 

achievement gap, North-South theories of trade and development, skin shade and 

labor market outcomes, the economics of reparations, the Atlantic slave trade and 

the Industrial Revolution, doctrinal history and the social psychological effects of 

unemployment exposure. 

Donna Sims Wilson is the new Executive Vice President of Castle Oak Securities. 

Ms. Sims Wilson, formerly President of M.R. Beal & Company, a leading investment 

bank specializing in municipal and corporate finance, will be responsible for helping 

to drive revenue growth and for overseeing new business generation across the 

firm’s various business lines. Ms. Sims Wilson joins CastleOak Securities with over 
142 

25 years of experience in equity sales and corporate and mortgage finance. Donna 

Sims Wilson serves as Chair of the Legislative Committee of the National Association of Securities Professionals, and is Vice Chairman of the Kohl Children’s Museum of Greater Chicago and a Board Member of the John G. Shedd Aquarium. She 

is a graduate of Yale University where she studied political science. 

Using the 2012 Budget to Address Deficit Reduction 

Jim Carr is Chief Business Officer for the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, an Executive Committee member of Americans for Financial Reform, and a 

Braintruster (blogger) for the Roosevelt Institute’s New Deal 2.0 initiative. Jim is 

also a former Visiting Professor at Columbia University in New York. Prior to his 

appointment to NCRC, Jim was Senior Vice President for Financial Innovation, 

Planning, and Research for the Fannie Mae Foundation, Assistant Director for Tax 

Policy with the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and Research Associate at the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University. Jim testifies frequently before 

the United States Congress and has appeared on various news outlets. Jim holds 

graduate degrees in urban and regional planning from Columbia University and 

University of Pennsylvania and an architecture degree from Hampton University. 

Darrick Hamilton is an Associate Professor at Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy, an affiliated faculty member in the Department of Economics at The New School for Social Research, a faculty research fellow at the 

Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, an affiliate scholar at the Center for 

American Progress, and a former Associate Director of the American Economic Association Summer Research and Minority Training Program. He earned a Ph.D. from 

the Department of Economics at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in 

1999. Professor Hamilton was a Ford Foundation Fellow on Poverty, the Underclass 

and Public Policy at the Poverty Research and Training Center. 

Lisa Mensah is an expert in using financial tools to improve the economic security 

of the working poor. At Aspen IFS, Ms. Mensah leads a team of financial security 

experts who study the financial products and public policy solutions that help build 

wealth from birth to retirement for America’s working families. Ms. Mensah began 

her career in commercial banking at Citibank prior to working 13 years with the 

Ford Foundation. Serving as Deputy Director of Economic Development for the organization, Ms. Mensah led the Foundation’s work in microfinance and women’s economic development. She became the leading national funder of individual development accounts (IDAs)—an innovative savings account structured with matching incentives and personal financial training used to finance homeownership, entrepreneurship and education. Under Ms. Mensah’s leadership, IDAs grew from an experiment at a handful of sites to become a tool used by hundreds of community organizations in all 50 states. Ms. Mensah holds an M.A. from the Paul H. Nitze School 

of Advanced International Studies of The Johns Hopkins University and a B.A. from 

Harvard University. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA

I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the budget resolution for 

FY 2012. I appreciate the difficult task facing the committee especially in light of 

the current fiscal environment. It is my hope to make a small contribution by way 

of this statement to be made part of the record. 

Mr. Chairman, controlling the national debt is one of the goals you described eloquently in your roadmap for America in the next five years. While I appreciate the 

goal to cut spending and reduce the deficit, which is projected to hit $1.6 trillion 

this year, getting there appears to me the real issue for debate. In this respect, I 

am pleased with the overall approach taken by President Obama. In his budget proposal for FY 2012 and beyond the President makes the case for selectively cutting 

spending while increasing resources in areas like education and clean-energy initiatives that hold the potential for long-term payoffs in economic growth. This common 

sense approach will help rein in spending to within reasonable levels without undermining programs that are vital to job creation and economic development. 

Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention, however, to such programs that are especially critical to Americans living in the territories, but face cuts under the President’s proposed budget for FY 2012. 

In particular, the budget proposal for the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of 

Insular Affairs (OIA) includes $84.1 million for the Assistance to Territories program, a net reduction of $1.1 million based on the FY 2010 enacted level. The proposed reduction will significantly impair OIA’s ability to provide technical support 

critical to economic growth and meaningful changes in the territories. 
143 

I am pleased to highlight two recent developments in the territories funded 

through OIA technical assistance. First, the OIA in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy implemented two initiatives—the Energy Development in Island 

Nations (EDIN) pilot project in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI); and a partnership 

with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the Pacific for energy 

options analysis and strategic plan support. These initiatives are in accordance with 

federal policy that was first established by Congress in 1980, and most recently revised in 2005, to direct the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary 

of Interior, to prepare and submit to Congress a comprehensive energy plan with 

emphasis on indigenous renewable sources of energy for the territories and insular 

areas. The overall goal is to create energy strategic plans to transition to renewable 

energy and help bring down disproportionate energy costs in the territories. 

Moreover, in 2010, the first official set of gross domestic product (GDP) data for 

the territories was made available through an OIA partnership with the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and funded by OIA’s 

technical assistance grant. Prior to 2010, BEA economic data was only available for 

the 50 States and DC, but not the territories, which made it very difficult to gauge 

the impact of federal policies on the economies of the territories and insular areas. 

Mr. Chairman, as illustrated above, it would be a major setback for economic development in the territories if the President’s proposed funding levels for FY 2012 

are enacted. Reductions in the OIA budget will seriously have an impact on the effective delivery of services to Americans living in the territories and insular areas. 

I urge you to restore OIA funding to FY 2010 levels. 

I am also concerned with the President’s proposed cuts to the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration 

(HRSA), budget for FY 2012. In particular, the proposed budget of $2 billion for 

HRSA’s Health Center program is a net reduction of about $120 million from the 

FY 2010 level of $2.1 billion. Reduction in the Health Center budget will only increase health care costs and add to the national debt. 

For over 40 years, HRSA-funded health centers have provided comprehensive, affordable, high-quality primary and preventative health care services to low income 

and medically underserved communities. These include communities with limited 

English proficiency, migrant and seasonal farm workers, homeless individuals and 

families, and those living in public housing. Currently, 1,200 health centers deliver 

care through over 8,000 service delivery sites in every state and territory. 

These health centers are critical to improving the overall health of the American 

people. Overall, they reduce health disparities, increase access to high quality and 

regular care, and boost local economies. Furthermore, continuing funding for the 

Health Centers Program ensures that fewer Americans would have to rely on costly 

sources of care such as the emergency room, thereby saving tax payers money and 

making the overall health care system more efficient. Funding health centers is a 

win-win situation and I urge that funding for the Health Centers program is restored to FY 2010 levels. 

Finally, I object to cuts requested in the President’s FY 2012 budget for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (ILMS), which includes $20.3 million cuts for 

Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) from FY 2010. Through LSTA grants 

to states, libraries can better provide training on resume development, help on web 

searches of job banks, workshops on career information, links to essential educational and community services, assistive devices for people with disabilities, family literacy classes, homework help and mentoring programs, and much more helping America get back to work. 

For my district of American Samoa, the loss of these critical LSTA funds would 

force the interruption of services essential to American Samoa’s residents of all 

ages, including but not limited to: annual summer reading programs; weekly reading programs for pre-school aged children; free monthly introductory computer 

courses; and the Polynesian Photo Archives, an IMLS funded program which now 

consists of over 700,000 historic Samoan images digitally preserved, catalogued, and 

archived in the Feleti Barstow Public Library’s Pacific Collection Room. As the only 

source of free access to the Internet on the Island, public libraries in American 

Samoa are also active in assisting the public with online job searches, e-government 

services, and lifelong learning. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge you to fully fund LSTA at $232 million, the level authorized 

in FY 2010. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tough task before you and the committee members. My hope is to provide justification to stave off proposed cuts to the 

programs that are critical to Americans living in the territories and for my district 

of American Samoa. I thank you again for this opportunity. 
144 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Thank you Mister Chairman and Members of the House Budget Committee for 

providing me with the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding the federal budget. 

I am working to find solutions to get the economy back on track and fuel job 

growth. This means making investments in local infrastructure that creates private 

sector jobs, supporting research that promotes innovation and building our manufacturing base to grow jobs through exports-all in order to maintain U.S. economic 

leadership in the world. 

But the majority’s budget proposals in the 112th Congress take the first steps to 

undermine these efforts to grow our economy and create jobs. These cuts are putting 

local jobs, law enforcement and help for hardworking families on the chopping block. 

That is why; as Congress continues to move forward making reckless cuts that 

we stand together to protect those programs that help our long-term economic recovery. 

If we cut these programs, we harm our ability to grow the economy and create 

jobs and make it more difficult—if not impossible—to cut the debt and deficit. 

I agree that the Federal government must get its fiscal house in order and bring 

down the $1.5 trillion deficit. 

However, these budget proposals make reckless cuts into the investments necessary for economic growth. 

We need a responsible budget that protects the economic progress we have made 

and lays a foundation for future economic growth. 

I will continue to work with colleagues to identify areas we can responsibility cut. 

In fact, during this Congress I have supported nearly $50 billion in responsible 

budget cuts. 

However, we cannot have credibility on reducing the deficit or controlling the debt 

unless our economy is growing. 

And, unfortunately, the cuts proposed by the Majority would have a devastating 

effect on local programs and our economy. 

Among the programs slashed by the majority’s budget are Pell Grants-need based 

student aid that helps many low-income families send their children to college. 

We should be telling young adults ‘‘America will invest in you,’’ but the Republican budget cuts delay and may end the dream of higher education for many. In 

my district, over 8,000 students received Pell Grants that helped them attain the 

higher education and career training they need to secure good jobs after graduation. 

Unfortunately, Pell Grant funding is facing a funding shortfall. The recent spending bill passed by the House—that I opposed—would cut this year’s maximum Pell 

grant by $845. 

Again, I strongly support efforts to reduce the deficit and cut the debt. 

However, we will not be able to reduce our deficit unless we continue to grow our 

economy and the proposed cuts are aimed at precisely the programs we are going 

to need for future economic growth. 

I have also made a commitment not to support efforts to balance the budget on 

the backs of those most in need in our communities. 

As a Member of Congress, and one who is committed to growing the economy and 

cutting the deficit, I have hard choices to make. 

The Majority continues to bring proposals to the floor that cut programs that are 

critical to our communities and our economic recovery. 

I will continue to partner with my Congressional colleagues to identify cuts we 

can make. 

But, my first priority is to support those programs that help small businesses create jobs and unless we in Congress do that first we will not be able to form a longterm plan to cut the deficit. 

Another area of the budget where we must put the necessary resources is the 

global non-proliferation program. 

Under the National Nuclear Security Administration, our efforts to secure and 

dispose of loose nuclear materials and nuclear weapons is a paramount national security priority. 

Ensuring that our efforts toward the President’s goal of securing loose materials 

by 2012 is critical. 

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative—which is already seeing delays due to the 

current fiscal year’s uncertain funding levels—identifies and supports efforts by foreign governments to secure material. 

GTRI faces delayed shipments of highly enriched uranium from nations like 

Belarus, Poland, Uzbekistan and Hungary. 
145 

The longer we allow these materials to stay out there, the more we put our allies, 

our troops and our nation at risk. 

I greatly hope that this national security priority is one that the committee acts 

on judiciously as it decides where to decrease funding. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Van Hollen and the members of the 

Budget Committee for giving me the opportunity to testify today. 

As a founding co-chair of the Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus, a member of 

the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the 

Congressional Asian and Pacific American Caucus, my colleagues and I have been 

working to diligently to put together our budget priorities and ensure that the needs 

of the poor and the most vulnerable are addressed in the FY 2012 Budget. 

Mr. Chairman, let me remind this committee that a budget is a moral document. 

It shines a light on what the priorities of our government are. It also defines what 

we as a community, as a society and as a nation hold dear. 

Do we believe that our nation has a responsibility to help poor children get an 

education, proper nutrition, and have access to quality health care? Do we believe 

that its right to take away critical funding for small business innovation, and job 

training programs when a company that turns a $14.2 billion profit with over 

130,000 employees in the United States pays no federal taxes? 

While it is true that our deficit is high, we must not allow a false sense of panic 

to force us into making shortsighted choices. Such a course will only hurt our economic recovery, result in more job losses, and lead to the elimination of critical safety net programs that millions of Americans around the country, both in my district 

and in your districts, have come to rely on. 

In short, we cannot and we must not balance the budget on the backs of our most 

vulnerable; we must instead build up the budget and reduce the deficit through the 

success of the working class. 

We must take a hard look at our priorities and make some smart choices about 

how to get our fiscal house in order. 

To begin with, we must bring the war in Afghanistan to a responsible end. Each 

year America’s longest war costs the American people $107 billion a year. 

And what have we gotten for it? 

Have we captured Osama bin Laden? No. 

Do we have an efficient, effective and democratic ally within the government in 

Kabul? No. 

Is our continued military engagement in Afghanistan the most effective strategy 

for reducing the threat of global terrorism, when we know Al Qaeda is no longer 

in the country? As many experts have said the answer is, no. 

It’s clear that we must end the war in Afghanistan and instead make smart security investments to safeguard our nation’s interests and improve our long term security. That means significantly reducing the bloated $700 billion plus, Pentagon 

budget which consumes over half of all federal discretionary spending. 

And it means being realistic about our obligations to our nation’s seniors who rely 

on Medicare and Social Security. 

First of all, let’s be clear—if you support the repeal of health reform—you are contributing to the destabilization of Medicare. As study after study has shown, the 

only way to truly bring down health care costs is to broaden the number of people 

who are utilizing health insurance and services so that risks and costs are shared 

among more people. 

Providing tax credits to expand access in health reform was a good start, adding 

a public option would have been better. The fact is however, that the best approach 

to broadening the risk pool and bringing down costs is to extend Medicare for all 

individuals and establish a single payer system. 

Secondly: Social Security does not affect the deficit. The trust fund ensures that 

we will have funding available to pay out benefits for many future generations. Instead of jeopardizing the retirement security of millions of Americans through privatization, we must ensure that the wealthiest among us pay their fair share by 

raising the cap on the social security payroll tax. 

At the same time that we address these issues—we’ve also got make the kinds 

of investments that will stimulate the economy, spark business innovation, and create jobs. 

It’s clear that the economy is along way from a full recovery, and that many families are still struggling to get back on their feet. Today 43.6 million Americans are 

living in poverty, including 1 in 5 children. 
146 

With rising costs for gas, food, and rent—proposing drastic cuts to education, 

housing, and healthcare will place additional burdens on the most vulnerable among 

us—jeopardizing the lives of millions of Americans. 

Instead we must embrace a budget that provides a proven pathway out of poverty 

to prosperity for all Americans. 

We must, increase funding for job training by increasing funding for the Workforce Investment Act to $4.5 billion. Green jobs innovation should be a priority of 

this Congress, and we should provide $1.5 billion to reauthorize 21st Century Community Learning Centers. 

We must address the chronically unemployed who have grown by 441% since 2008 

by providing $16 billion in emergency funding to extend Unemployment Insurance 

to those who have exhausted their benefits. 

We must increase support for our States, whose budgets have been drastically cut 

due to the recession. We must increase, not cut, funding for Community Service 

Block Grants, Community Development Block Grants, and Social Services Black 

Grants. 

We must ensure that every American has a roof over their head by funding $2 

billion in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, that children have access to early education via Head Start, and that every community has access to a health center. 

Further we must commit to increasing support for federal nutrition programs to 

address the stunning growth in enrollment in the SNAP and WIC programs so that 

we lift the specter of hunger from the shoulders of the American family. 

Ex-offender re-entry programs in the Departments of Justice, Labor, Education, 

and Health and Human Services must be fully funded so that states can develop 

and maintain comprehensive programs to support the safe and productive re-entry 

of the formerly incarcerated. 

We must also make sure that our communities are safe by restoring funding for 

COPS hiring and COPS programs. 

Finally, we must make sure that our commitment to the fight against HIV/AIDS 

at home and abroad is strengthened. 

In order to carry out the Administration’s new National AIDS Strategy we must 

provide a minimum of $610 million to support the Minority AIDS Initiative, and an 

additional $1.95 billion for the CDC’s prevention programs, while ensuring that we 

fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act and eliminate waiting lists for lifesaving AIDS 

treatment through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. 

We must meet the bipartisan commitments to fight global AIDS that Congress 

and President Bush made in 2008 by providing $7.25 billion for the President’s 

Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and $2 billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS 

Tuberculosis and Malaria. 

These small investments pay huge dividends in terms of the number of lives 

saved, the economic and health benefits that accrue to countries we help, and the 

goodwill that these programs generate. 

We can do all these things and more, but first we must have a serious discussion 

about our priorities and how we can pay for them. 

Mr. Chairman, I support reducing the deficit. But cutting non-defense discretionary spending alone will not solve the problem. We need to talk about raising 

revenues, about repealing tax cuts to the most wealthy, and ending the longest war 

this country has ever faced. 

Americans want a land that is rich with opportunity for all and not just the privileged few. 

We cannot and should not judge the success of our country by the size or health 

of the stock portfolios of the super rich or how easily multinational corporations 

avoid paying taxes by sheltering their profits in offshore havens. 

The only way we can measure the success of our country is by looking at the success of the middle class, and at the effectiveness of our efforts to reduce and eliminate poverty in America. 

Instead of a government by lobbyists dedicated to the wellbeing of the rich and 

the privileged, we must recommit our nation to a government by the people that 

is committed to investing in the future and wellbeing of all Americans. 

My colleagues and I in the Democratic Party stand ready to present our ideas to 

balance the budget and invest in our country again. 

I urge all my colleagues to join with me and stand together for future of our nation and for all our people. 

I thank the Committee once again for the opportunity to share my testimony and 

I respectfully request that my full statement and a detailed list of the budget priorities I have outlined be included in the record. 
147 

COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (450 AND 550)

I urge an increase to full funding of the Community Development Block Grant to 

$4.4 billion and funding of $700 million for Community Services Block Grants. I also 

urge support for the President’s request of $75 million for new Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing vouchers. Additionally, I recommend in function 550 an increase in 

the HOME Investment Partnerships Program to $1,825,000, a funding of the Low 

Income Home Energy Assistance Program at $5.1 billion, and providing $2 billion 

for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Furthermore, I advise increases of $250 million to the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative and $150 million to the Sustainable 

Communities Initiative. 

HEALTHCARE (550) AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (150)

I recommend the Division of Viral Hepatitis be funded at $50 million, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief received an additional $1.651 billion to $7.25 

billion total. I also urge an additional $700 million for the Global Fund to Fight 

AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, providing and additional $200 million to the Minority AIDS Initiative for a total of $610 million, and fully funding Community 

Health Centers at FY 2010 levels. 

EDUCATION, TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES (500)

The Green Jobs Innovation Fund should receive $120 million, 21st Century Community Learning Centers merit $1.5 billion, and I recommend $1.2 billion for Career 

and Technical Education. Pell Grants should also be funded at $180 billion, TRIO 

at $950 billion, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities at $95 million. 

INCOME SECURITY (600)

Given the continuing economic crisis, I urge providing $16 billion for Emergency 

Unemployment Initiatives through Emergency Funding and restoring Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program to the President’s proposed levels. Additionally, I recommend $4.5 billion for the Workforce Investment Act, $1.8 billion for Job Corps 

funding, and $8.1 billion for Head Start. 

COMMUNITY SAFETY AND JUSTICE (750)

Within function 750, I recommend $298 million for the COPS hiring initiative, 

$203 million for other programs within COPS as well as providing $5.2 million to 

the Legal Services Corporation. 

GENERAL GOVERNMENT (800)

I recommend providing $1 billion to the Internal Revenue Service to fund closing 

the tax gap, $500 million to completely close off shoring of corporate profits. Additionally, I urge $100 million in funding for Way of Small Business Tax Compliance 

and $400 million for its general enforcement. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Dear Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen: As our uncertain economic times continue, it is as important as ever that this Congress craft a fiscally 

responsible budget that invests in our most urgent priorities and the vision we all 

share for the direction of our country. As we confront the realities of our federal 

budget, we cannot undermine the nascent recovery by making arbitrary cuts to programs that drive economic growth or support our struggling middle class. Our fiscal 

2012 budget must honor the commitments we have made to our seniors and to those 

seeking work, but must also continue laying a foundation for a stable, secure, and 

prosperous future. 

As the interest payments on our national debt continue to increase, it is clear that 

immediate action is needed to address the sustainability of our federal budget deficit. Our approach to the deficit must be effective, but also cognizant of the fragile 

state of our economy and the middle class. I strongly opposed the extension of the 

2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires last year because I 

believe it is inappropriate to extend extra tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent 

of taxpayers at a time when extreme budget cuts are being considered for many 

vital safety net programs. The House budget for the next year should put an immediate end to these expensive and unnecessary tax cuts. Further, the House should 

return to the responsible pay-as-you-go budgetary practices that were enforced in 
148 

the 111th Congress and prevented new government spending or revenue reductions 

from jeopardizing our nation’s future economic stability. We must get our deficit 

under control before debt payments increase to the point of being insurmountable. 

With so many Americans seeking additional work, we need innovation, courage, 

and a commitment to develop new technologies more now than ever before. Our ability to get our country’s economy back on track relies on our ability to change the 

way our country brings new ideas and businesses from the drawing board to the 

showroom floor. We must harness the incredible innovation of the great National 

Laboratories in my home state of New Mexico. By directing investments towards the 

research and development projects done by the labs at Los Alamos and Sandia, we 

will reap enormous benefits down the line. The labs are working on new technologies that will make America safer, more energy-efficient, and environmentally 

sustainable. The technologies under development at the labs include new ways to 

transport and store renewable electricity more efficiently as well as the next generation of airport screening technology. We must invest in their research capabilities 

as a source of jobs today and of innovation for the future. In order to reap the full 

rewards of these investments in research and development, we should fund technology maturation programs that encourage promising new technologies, often in 

partnership with private entities. Without this important step many promising technologies are left undeveloped. 

If our goal is a stronger, better economy—education is how we get there. As global 

competition in the development of advanced technologies increases, our country 

risks losing its preeminence in the global community for innovation in the sciences, 

mathematics, and engineering. As a Congressman from a minority-majority state, 

I know firsthand of the severe shortage of Hispanic and Native American students 

in science, mathematics and engineering fields. The continuing under-representation 

of Hispanic and Native American students and the growing shortage of scientists, 

mathematicians and engineers require serious investment in the development of 

STEM education pipelines for minority communities. The higher education needs of 

our Native American and Hispanic students are often unique, and Tribal Colleges 

and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions provide vital educational opportunities for these under-represented communities. As you draft the FY12 Budget, 

I urge you to resist weakening our edge in technological innovation and support 

strong investments in our nation’s STEM education programs and in our Tribal Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions. 

In the difficult economy it is more important than ever to train workers for careers in emerging industries—especially clean energy. With investments in clean energy, we can create new jobs in a variety of industries and get our economy back 

on track. I ask that you consider targeting funding toward investments in renewable 

energy production as well as energy efficiency initiatives that can grow the domestic 

clean energy industry. I urge you to consider providing funding to community college clean energy training programs in wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy 

sectors; energy-efficient construction and retrofitting. 

As our economy continues its recovery, I am concerned with the effects of rising 

oil prices on transportation and production costs. While the global stock of petroleum has remained stable, recent unrest in the Middle East has spurred a dramatic 

increase in fuel prices. Last year, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to provide regulators at the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission and the Securities Exchange Commission with necessary oversight capabilities over the oil and natural gas markets. We must ensure that these 

vital regulatory agencies are adequately funded and staffed to monitor the markets 

and prevent speculative practices that result in higher prices and instability. Additionally, as the United States diversifies its energy supply toward new sources of 

domestic energy, clean burning natural gas will play a critical role in providing a 

safe and reliable fuel source to generate electricity and to power our vehicles. With 

sufficient investment, natural gas can be used directly in vehicles and produce significantly less emissions than traditional gasoline. Our nation will benefit from 

cleaner modes of transportation, which will reduce pollution and improve overall air 

quality in our communities. Production and use of natural gas vehicles has the potential to create thousands of American jobs and spur regional economic development. To support accelerated deployment of natural gas vehicles, we must support 

the build-out of natural gas refueling infrastructure. Making natural gas refueling 

stations available and accessible to all drivers encourages the use of natural gas vehicles and underscores our commitment to reducing harmful emissions. 

An additional threat to our economic recovery is the troubling financial state of 

our local and municipal governments. Many of the leaders of small towns and rural 

counties in my district have been forced to cut their budgets for basic services and 

longstanding infrastructure needs. These local governments are facing a number of 
149 

threats to their budgets simultaneously—the weak economy has decreased tax revenue while state governments have cut back on local support and the municipal 

bond market has frozen. For our economy to thrive, we must support these local 

governments as they provide our constituents with good jobs supporting our communities. I urge you to increase funding for programs such as Community Development 

Block Grants and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. These programs provide 

the seed money that spur local economic development and provide the services that 

support healthy and prosperous communities. Additionally, we must continue to 

support the workforce needs of our local police forces, firefighters, school districts, 

and health departments so that they can continue to keep our neighborhoods safe, 

clean, healthy, and educated. 

We must remember the unique needs of our returning veterans. About a third of 

Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are estimated to have a serious mental-health problem such as depression or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. As many as 7,000 New 

Mexico veterans are homeless. Many have lost their jobs after extended deployments 

and are forced to start over once they return home. They not only need the health 

care they are entitled to, but we need to provide them with access to higher education and job training and offer the resources to help them successfully reintegrate 

into their families and communities. In recognition of the service provided by our 

veterans, this Congress must generously support the Veterans’ Health Administration and the Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success. 

In New Mexico, my constituents continue to address the aftermath of severe winter weather in early February. During the storm, the effects of historic cold temperatures were exacerbated by a statewide shortage of natural gas to residential 

and commercial gas customers. To this day, many New Mexicans are struggling to 

pay for the expenses of broken pipes, flooded homes, and degraded natural gas 

transmission infrastructure. The lingering effects of this disaster, which President 

Obama recently declared to be a national emergency, are a reminder of the need 

for more sophisticated natural gas and electrical infrastructure as well as for adequate support to those affected by the occasional failures of those networks. Programs designed to provide support during natural disasters, such as the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, and resources to help low income communities 

provide heat during the winter, such as the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance 

Program, are life-saving necessities and should be exempted from larger efforts to 

cut government spending. 

Millions of Americans rely on Social Security and Medicare to make ends meet 

and to get the health care they need. Seniors in my district are concerned about 

the future of these programs and their ability to meet future obligations. The concerns of my constituents have been exacerbated by rhetoric from some in Congress 

suggesting that Social Security should be ‘‘reformed’’ by privatizing individual accounts. This proposal has been rejected by the American people and would do nothing to provide additional income security for seniors. These proposals would put Social Security in the hands of the same Wall Street banks that plunged our economy 

into a recession by taking excessive risks and engaging in unscrupulous lending 

practices. My constituents are opposed to these efforts, and I believe that our budget 

should reflect the need to keep our promise to New Mexico’s seniors. Instead of endangering these programs and threatening benefit cuts, we must work in a bipartisan way to make common sense adjustments that will strengthen Social Security 

and Medicare for future generations. I urge you to reject efforts to endanger the capability of Social Security and Medicare to provide for our seniors into the future. 

Thank you for your attention to these important issues as you craft the Fiscal 

Year 2012 budget. Investing in priorities that will create jobs and strengthen the 

middle class are critical to our efforts to build a sustainable economic recovery that 

benefits people in New Mexico while also reducing our budget deficit. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Van Hollen, for the opportunity 

to testify today. 

Our nation is on the brink of an overspending-induced disaster. Our national debt 

is at an all-time high—over $14 trillion. We are now in our third straight year of 

trillion dollar deficits and will see four straight in fiscal year 2012. Over the next 

decade this overspending will cause us to spend over $900 billion per year in interest payments; in essence the minimum payment on our national credit card. Before 

the economic crisis, our highest national deficit had been $458 billion, or one-third 

the estimated deficit for our current fiscal year. 
150 

As a CPA and former small business owner, I understand what it means to balance a budget and meet payroll. It requires discipline and it is not easy. As the father of three children I know what it means to make tough choices when times are 

tough. Our nation must show similar discipline. While it may not be easy, cutting 

spending to lower our deficit, and eventually balance our budget, must be our primary goal. 

It is not right for us to saddle our children and grandchildren with these enormous amounts of debt. For years previous Congresses have spent too much. Just 

like a family or small business cannot continue to spend beyond its means forever, 

a nation cannot survive when it fails to be fiscally responsible. 

Let me be clear: Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. 

Higher taxes are certainly not the solution. They would lead to negative economic 

effects that will stifle future economic growth and make it harder to balance the 

budget. Moreover, the solution that some propose—to increase taxes to fix our budget problems—reflects a fundamental confusion of the proper role of government. It 

is the duty of government to defend liberty for its citizens. Our founders devised 

our government on the principles that it serves its citizens, not the reverse. 

Washington has lost touch with the American people—that was the lesson in November and yet some still refuse to listen. We need to alter our mindset when considering how much to spend. There are opportunity costs to all federal spending. Instead of considering how we can spend every last dime the government can borrow, 

we should be asking what Americans could be doing with that money if it stayed 

in the economy instead of being spent by the government. 

To force Congress out of a mentality that assumes spending increases are inevitable from year to year, we should also adopt a zero-based budget mentality. While 

the Appropriations Committee will allocate funding to specific programs, this Committee should find the lowest amount of spending possible that can adequately fund 

our total budgetary needs. 

First among these needs is our national defense, and I urge my colleagues to keep 

in mind that fact. If we keep overspending, our interest payments will become an 

increasingly larger part of our budget, which will severely hamper our ability to 

fund our own defense. That would be an astounding turn of events in our nation’s 

history. The reason our nation reached superpower status in the world is our preeminent military and the ability of Americans to earn a living and build strong communities, but decades of irresponsible federal spending could crumble our status as 

a superpower. 

I also urge the Committee to include mandatory spending reforms in the budget 

resolution. Programs like Medicare and Social Security provide an important service 

for Americans, a service that has been paid for through taxes during one’s working 

years. However, due to demographic trends, those programs will not be available for 

younger generations. In 2012, Medicare Part A will begin to run annual deficits. 

Just two years after that, in 2014, Social Security will begin running annual deficits. 

We need to ensure future generations can enjoy these programs. If we want to 

preserve these programs for the children and grandchildren of today’s retirees, these 

programs must be reformed now. Otherwise they will go bankrupt and leave all 

Americans out in the cold. I urge the Committee to strengthen these programs by 

making them solvent, but without affecting retired Americans or those near retirement. 

I can certainly understand the fact that there are many different spending philosophies in Congress. However, deficit spending takes money out of the pockets of 

working families and small businesses at a time when we need more capital in the 

economy. We need to encourage private sector job creation, not grow bureaucracies 

inside the beltway. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, you have a very difficult job to do. I urge you and your 

colleagues on this Committee to take bold steps to reign in our deficit and curb our 

national debt. There are no easy choices when dealing with our long-term budget 

problems. But the time has come to make hard choices to ensure that our children 

are not sentenced to a lifetime of trillion dollar deficits. The American people expect 

us to make tough decisions and they deserve nothing less. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD M. PAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen, thank you for convening 

today’s hearing. 
151 

Our national debt recently reached $14 trillion and our deficit continues to rise 

annually. However, as you draft the FY 2012 budget, be reminded that in addition 

to our economic deficit, we have a job deficit which continues to worsen in part by 

an ever growing education deficit. Yes, we must work to rein in on spending. But, 

we must not, and cannot, indiscriminately cut funding in the areas of education, infrastructure, and employment, which will hamper our immediate and future economic growth. As we remain vigilant in cutting the debt and reducing the deficit, 

we must remember that the most powerful driver of both is a growing economy. 

During this recession, unemployment has impeded economic growth. One of the 

challenges in addressing unemployment has been the rapid decline in certain occupations and industries and our labor marker’s inability to meet the demands of new 

occupations and industries. More than two-thirds of workers in occupations and industries that are growing have at least some post secondary education, compared 

to one-third of workers in occupations and industries that are declining. The demand for post secondary education, coupled with the rapid increase in baby-boom 

retirements, is predicted to result in a shortage of more than 14 million college educated workers by 2020. This is the deficit that should garner our national attention. 

We can only address this through our continued focus on education, training, employment, and social services, which only accounts for 2 percent of our federal budget. For the sake of our progress as a nation and our global competitiveness and full 

recovery from this recession, I encourage an increase of funding to support these 

areas and strongly oppose any cuts to the already existing 2 percent. 

I strongly oppose the adaptation of ‘‘H.R. 1’’ style cuts to the FY2012 budget. Specifically, I oppose cuts to employment and training programs, which serve millions 

of Americans in diverse communities daily. I oppose proposed cuts to Title I programs, which provides supplemental support to help districts and schools meet the 

needs of low-income children. I oppose cuts to School Improvement Grants, which 

provide important resources for states to turn around their lowest performing 

schools. I oppose cuts to Head Start programs, a vital tool which levels the playing 

field for millions of low income preschoolers nationwide. I oppose cuts to Pell 

Grants, an investment which has historically provided access to higher education 

across the economic spectrum and continues to serve as a contributing factor to the 

creation of a more competitive workforce. I oppose cuts to TRiO programs, which 

send the largest amount of low income students to, and through college, resulting 

in productive, responsible, taxpaying citizens. All mentioned programs, in fact, do 

just that: create a foundation which ultimately results in added growth to our economy. 

I also oppose cuts to infrastructure projects, which have improved our communities and neighborhoods and created millions of jobs. Specifically, I oppose cuts to 

the Community Development Block Grant program, which creates over 100,000 jobs 

in construction, renovation, and community services each year and generates over 

$300 million annually in program income for cities and states. Such cuts also affect 

our commerce and transportation structures, which would further cripple our already challenged economy. 

Further, I am deeply concerned that many of the calls for cuts in international 

spending are based on the belief that the United States spends far more than it actually does. Annual polls by the University of Maryland show that Americans vastly 

overestimate the percentage of the federal budget allocated to foreign aid, with a 

median estimate of 25 percent. When asked how much they think would be an appropriate percentage, the median response is 10 percent—a response that has remained unchanged for the past fifteen years. In reality, of course, foreign assistance 

accounts for about 1 percent of the federal budget. 

Also of great concern are the negative consequences cutting the 150 budget would 

do to our job growth here in America. Since more than one in every five U.S. jobs 

is linked to exports and imports of goods and services, we must support the work 

of our export agencies in advocating for U.S. commercial interests overseas and creating new and stable markets for U.S. exports. As the U.S. Chamber of Congress 

wrote to House Members during consideration of H.R. 1, approximately half of all 

U.S. exports go to developing countries, and our contributions to international financial institutions play a vital role in helping developing countries become reliable 

trading partners. 

On an global-health level, it is troubling that the House budget bill includes deep 

cuts in critical funding for life-saving AIDS medication, childhood vaccines, malaria 

prevention and treatment, and agriculture programs that help teach people living 

in poor countries how to grow more food for their families and lift themselves out 

of extreme poverty. These programs, which have cut malaria deaths in half in many 

countries across Africa and saved the lives of millions of men, women and children 

infected with HIV, make up just a tiny fraction of the US budget—less than 1 per-
152 

cent—but they are literally the difference between life and death in some parts of 

the world. An 8% cut for PEPFAR would directly impact a program to prevent HIV 

from passing from mother to child, just as we are on our way to ensuring no child 

is born with HIV by 2015. Approximately 20,000 babies will be born with HIV as 

a result of budget cuts that will deny HIV positive mothers the simple, affordable 

treatment that can stop the virus from passing from mother to child. Half of those 

babies born infected with the virus will die before their second birthday. 

The House’s cuts to overall maternal and child health funding will mean that two 

brand new vaccines to fight pneumonia and diarrhea—the two biggest disease killers of kids in the developing world—won’t make it out to all the children who need 

them. Overall, millions of children won’t be vaccinated against diseases that are easily dealt with here, but are the biggest causes of childhood death and disability in 

Africa. Vaccines represent some of the best investments in global health because 

they are affordable and, once a child is vaccinated, he or she is protected for life. 

I strongly support President Obama’s decision to consider Function 150 as part 

of the national security budget, in recognition of overwhelming evidence that defense, diplomacy and development must go hand in hand. Whether in Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have been engaged in combat operations, or Haiti and 

Sudan, where complex humanitarian emergencies threatened to deteriorate into 

large-scale violence, USAID’s operations are every bit as important as the U.S. military’s to protecting the health and safety of American citizens. The State Department/USAID core budget request of $47 billion represents a 1 

percent increase over the comparable FY 2010 levels. The portion of that request 

for foreign assistance—$32.9 billion—limits growth to 0.5 percent over 2010 levels 

while making hard decisions about program funding in many critical areas. For example, the President’s budget cuts $115 million (15%) in assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia, eliminates six bilateral country programs ($4.5 million), cuts 

foreign military financing (FMF) to 16 countries by 50 percent or more ($39.5 million), and decreases development assistance to over 20 countries (saving $144 million). 

The President’s FY 2012 International Affairs budget request reflects tough 

choices and significant savings in a difficult economic climate. In a world characterized by great turmoil and uncertainty, the budget request represents the resources 

needed to protect Americans and American national security interests around the 

globe. I strongly urge support for the President’s FY 2012 budget request for the 

Department of State, USAID and related agencies. 

Again, I urge all to discuss cuts in a manner that sets us up for sustainable economic security, superior educational opportunities, and a stronger national presence 

through humanitarian efforts and solid alliance-building. To do the opposite would 

result in further devastation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEVAN PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. With the entire nation engaged 

in the spending debate, now is the time to strike when the iron is hot. Congress 

has a tremendous opportunity to fundamentally change the expenditure of taxpayer 

dollars so it is accountable, within the federal government’s means, and fairly distributed so as not to hamstring struggling, rural, western states. 

The reality of our nation’s spending is light-years past the point of talking about 

solutions, and we’ve now reached a critical mass. It’s time to put words into action 

and I think the chairman of this committee feels the same. I suspect his budget will 

reflect that sentiment. 

You would have to ask yourself exactly what the basis is of all of the discussions 

that we are having in committee and on the floor of the House, and of those discussion our constituents are having in their communities. I’d like to make things as 

simple as possible to understand, and much of this can be boiled down into simple 

subtraction. Annually, the federal government takes in $2.2 trillion dollars and 

spends $3.5 trillion dollars. Over time this deficit has snowballed into a massive 

debt. It’s that debt we must take head on and grow our revenue. By growing revenue, we move people out of the $3.5 trillion column. 

But, we must be smart about where we grow and where we cut. Western states, 

those that have the highest concentrations of federally owned lands suffer immensely when budgets are cut and local revenue cannot be tapped for local expenses. This is a considerable disadvantage compared to the rest of the nation and 

a situation not many states fully understand. In moving forward, the budget must 

reflect the hardships each region of the nation experiences to the appropriate scale. 

As long the federal government owns major tracks of land, as is the case in many 
153 

western states, I fear these states will receive a proportionally lower level of consideration from the federal government. 

There has been some evidence of this in our current discussion on appropriations 

running through the remainder of FY2011. One such example is, regarding an important program to the Navajo Technical College in Crownpiont, New Mexico, which 

receives funding through Perkins Section 117. Perkins Section 117 has been 

misidentified as an earmark and is now facing elimination through H.R. 1 and the 

two short-term continuing resolutions. Section 117 is not an earmark though in that 

it is authorized by Congress as a competitive discretionary grant program. It is open 

to applications for any accredited tribally-chartered postsecondary career and technical institution, and since the program’s inception in 1990, Congress has consistently appropriated funding each fiscal year pursuant to the existing authorization. 

Further, in the relevant section of the Perkins statute, attached, neither Navajo 

Technical College nor the United Tribes Technical College, the current recipients of 

Section 117 funding, is named in the legislation. 

Additionally, my concerns extend to treatment of the National Laboratories. 

Under the current funding process which will take us through the remainder of 

FY2011, the National Laboratories face significant budget cuts. Although much of 

their funding comes from the Department of Energy, the National Laboratories have 

a distinctly defense and national security mission. They maintain our weapons system. They work directly on projects for the Department of Defense. They perform 

in this manner in concurrence with their work through funding from and under the 

direction of the Department of Energy. 

I look forward to seeing the committee’s budget and it is my hope that it will reflect the smart budgeting levels that returns the federal government to sensible 

spending levels without harming our states to the west. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE QUIGLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. 

Our country is on an unsustainable fiscal path. 

The CBO projects that by 2030, the federal government will be spending 30 percent of GDP but collecting only 20 percent in tax revenue. 

By 2050, the government will be collecting that same 20 percent, but spending 

45 percent—our deficits will only get worse from there. 

Rising health care costs to blame—since 1970, health care spending has quintupled as a percent of our budget. 

Its growth closely correlates with the projected growth in deficit spending. 

Deficit spending will also generate its own costs—eventually, the accumulated 

costs of past deficits will be the drivers of new ones. 

The CBO projects that just 9 years from now, the interest we’ll pay on previous 

borrowing will cost $778 billion. 

This will account for all of 2020’s projected $685 billion deficit and then some, 

crowding out important programs. 

For a country with the proud history and vast resources of the United States, this 

is unacceptable—it is unacceptable because government’s mission matters. 

Strong national defense and accessible health care are among the priorities that 

will have to fall by the wayside if our fiscal path is not adjusted. 

Step one in righting our course is agreeing on what defines fiscal sustainability. 

Some would have us believe that any deficit whatsoever is a threat to government’s solvency. 

Others would prefer to ignore deficits altogether and continue spending vast sums 

of borrowed money. 

I disagree with both of these extreme positions. 

While deficits can help smooth dips in the economy and put unemployed Americans back to work, they can also exacerbate future deficits and slow economic 

growth. 

Either way, this should be a choice that future leaders can make if so needed, 

and not be one forced upon them by the reckless fiscal planning of previous generations. 

As it stands now, we are leaving them no choice at all. 

Step two must be fixing our broken budget process. 

Trillions of dollars in hidden spending persist with close to zero accountability. 

Huge organizations like the Department of Defense cannot keep track of their 

cash flows. 
154 

Right now we’re flying blind, and that’s making it tougher to find savings in the 

budget. 

Greater transparency and accountability can help us fix our budget and then help 

us keep it on a sustainable path. 

In November 2010, I released Part One of a multi-part series on reinventing the 

federal budget. 

I am submitting Part One, which discusses these reform proposals, as my written 

testimony for today’s hearing. 

[The report may be accessed at the following Internet address:] 

http://quigley.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/quigley_reinventing_government_the_federal_budget_part%201.pdf 

Step three in this process is making hard decisions on how to move forward with 

a responsible deficit and debt reduction package. 

Guiding these decisions must be a sense that pain will be felt on both sides. 

There can be no sacred cows—everything must be on the table—and both sides 

must negotiate in good faith. 

Many domestic spending programs are duplicative or just plain wasteful. 

Defense spending goes so far beyond what’s reasonable that the Defense Department doesn’t even want what we’re giving them. 

The tax code is full of hidden spending programs consume $1.2 trillion in taxpayer 

dollars each year. 

And entitlement programs should be reformed to reflect changing times and lifestyles. 

My point is this: each of these areas of the budget must be targeted in a deficit 

reduction plan—15 percent of the budget cannot account for 85 percent of the savings. 

Government’s mission matters, and we should keep that in mind as work to plan 

a sounder fiscal future. 

In the next month, I will release Part Two of my report series on reinventing the 

federal budget. 

Part Two will make specific recommendations for each area of the budget, all told 

amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I yield back. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present testimony to the Budget 

Committee today. 

I am very proud to have served on the Budget Committee in 2007, my first year 

in Congress, and I am pleased to speak about the budget issues of most importance 

to Ohio’s 13th Congressional District. 

The budget is a moral document that reflects the priorities and values of our nation. The proposed 2012 Budget makes considerable sacrifices, while continuing to 

make critical investments that create jobs and keep our economy growing. 

While we all appreciate that we need to address our fiscal challenges, we need 

to be smart; eliminating programs that create jobs is the last thing we need to do. 

We need to make smart cuts, but every cut is not the same. Every cut does not 

equate with efficiency, nor does every cut strengthen the overall health of our economy. And similarly, every dollar spent does not equate with waste. We need to make 

smart, efficient cuts and we need to make smart investments. 

For example, regarding some smart cuts we should make immediately, we need 

to end tax subsidies to big oil companies. This would save the taxpayers around $43 

billion over ten years. In a time where middle class families across our nation struggle to make ends meet, we can no long afford to give these tax breaks. 

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I look forward to the upcoming 

Defense Authorization process and advocating sensibly on behalf of our brave men 

and women and in support of the manufacturing and industrial base in my district. 

However, I have also already supported an amendment to H.R. 1 that would reduce 

funding by $18.75 million for operations and maintenance throughout the Department of Defense, and I look forward to working with members of the Committee to 

find other areas to make smart cuts where possible to save taxpayers money. 

I urge the Committee to support $810 million for the Staffing for Adequate Fire 

and Emergency Response grant program and the Assistance to Firefighters Act 

grants. This is flat and level funding as enacted in FY 2010. Now more than ever, 

these grant opportunities are important to prevent the layoffs of needed fire fighters 

and to ensure that our Fire Departments will have the necessary equipment and 

training to keep our families and communities safe. 
155 

I support the President’s request for an additional $302 million for the Community Oriented Policing Services, also known as COPS funding, which will bring total 

hiring program funding to $600 million. This will add an additional 4,500 police officers on our streets to prevent crime. Every day our first responders work in our 

communities and provide essential services we need to keep our communities safe. 

The federal budget must encourage job creation, provide funding for research and 

development, and support programs to ensure our workers have the education and 

skills necessary for the jobs of the future. I support the President’s request for $148 billion for research and development. 

To give an example of how important this is to our District and our future, The University of Akron, a global leader in polymer research, is now home to the first bachelor’s degree program in corrosion engineering in the nation. The cost of corrosion 

in the U.S. is an astounding $276 billion each year. Through research in corrosion 

mitigation, we can help curb drain on our economy. The Department of Defense has 

completed 160 corrosion demonstration projects showing a return on investment of 

50 to 1. Research investments in these areas lead to job creation, new marketable 

technologies, and in the case of corrosion mitigation, substantial savings for the federal government and taxpayers. I also support the President’s request for $200 million to support the Innovation 

Fund, which will offer funding for high-tech entrepreneurs in the gap—when personal assets are exhausted and before later-stage financing kicks in. This program 

was modeled after the successful Innovation Fund founded by the Lorain County 

Community College and its Foundation in Elyria, Ohio. Since 2007, the Innovation 

Fund, and its partners have provided $4.1 million to 60 companies that have attracted more than $41 million in subsequent investment and sales, and created 100 

new jobs. I also urge the Committee to support the President’s request of $143 million for 

the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This program has helped create or retain 

over 466 jobs in my district alone over the last four years. And it is the only national initiative to support, strengthen, and grow manufacturing. 

For decades, the Community Development Block Grant program has been an essential component to help local governments retain small businesses, make critical 

infrastructure improvements, and promote neighborhood development. I cannot 

stress enough the positive impact these grants have had on my congressional district and I urge the Committee to maintain the FY 2010 level of $3.9 billion in formula funding for the program. 

It is important that our men and women who serve our country receive the worldclass care and benefits they have earned. And I strongly support the President’s request for $939 million in funding to help end Veteran homelessness, an increase of 

17.5 percent over the 2011 level. 

No one, especially a veteran, should ever have to live without a roof over his or 

her head. 

There are 890,300 veterans in Ohio and 22.7 million nationwide, and they deserve 

nothing less than our full support. I support the President’s request of $6.2 billion 

for veterans’ mental health care. Far too many of our service members return from 

Iraq and Afghanistan with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic 

Brain Injury. The VA estimates that, in 2012, it will provide care to nearly 537,000 

veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Taking care of our service members, 

veterans, and their families, especially in times of war, is of the utmost importance. 

I will continue to support robust funding levels within NASA’s budget in areas 

such as Exploration Technology Development and Space Environmental Testing 

that take advantage of the unique roles and expertise of NASA Glenn Research Center and Plum Brook Station in Northeast Ohio. 

I also urge the Committee to fully fund the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 

Restoring, protecting, and conserving our Great Lakes, and Lake Erie in particular, 

is critical to maintaining public health, the conservation of endangered wetlands 

and coastal areas, and maintaining natural areas for sportsmen, anglers, and recreational users, and economic activity associated with these activities. 

As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, I support the President’s request of $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In the last decade, nearly $7.8 million in LCWF funding has been invested in land acquisition to 

expand the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, which is located in my district. Currently, the National Park Service is using the Fund to acquire 580 acres surrounding Blossom Music Center to aid in its expansion and protect its natural habitat. 

I also urge the Committee to save the Children’s Hospitals Graduate Medical 

Education Payment Program that was eliminated in the President’s proposed budget. The proposal to eliminate this program would be extremely detrimental to the 
156 

children’s hospitals in my district, and detrimental to our national goal to strengthen the primary care workforce and to ensure timely access to necessary, high quality 

specialty care. 

As one who has served on this esteemed Committee, I understand the challenge 

we face as we balance the competing priorities before you and make smart cuts to 

things we must live without. 

However, I urge you as to keep the needs of working families in mind as you 

make your decisions. We cannot afford to turn our backs on hard-working Americans and those who want to work during these difficult economic times. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Van Hollen, thank you for providing me 

with the opportunity to testify before this Committee about the need to craft a responsible budget, one that protects our fragile economic recovery, makes critical investments in our nation’s future, and returns our country to the fiscally responsibly 

path we charted during the 1990s. 

As a member of this Committee for three years, I recognize how challenging your 

task is and how critical it is to the well-being of every single American that we get 

it right. The choices that lie ahead of us are not easy. They require a more honest 

assessment of the challenges that face our country than the House has engaged in 

thus far this year. As you know, non-defense discretionary spending represents the 

smallest fraction of federal spending, far smaller than defense spending or entitlement spending, yet it has borne the full brunt of cuts thus far. These cuts will significantly impact our nation’s food and drug safety, community development and 

services, border security, criminal prosecutions, health, education, and global competitiveness-and put our fragile economic recovery at risk in the process, according 

to multiple independent economists-but will do little to address the very serious fiscal crisis we face. 

As conservative columnist David Brooks recently wrote, ‘‘In Washington, the Republicans who designed the cuts for this fiscal year seemed to have done no serious 

policy evaluation.’’ He wisely argues that to be effective, ‘‘the cuts have to be spread 

more or less equitably among as many groups as possible,’’ noting that the path the 

House has taken to deficit reduction is ‘‘as unsustainable as the current tide of red 

ink.’’ 

I was an early and strong supporter of the President’s bipartisan commission on 

the debt, which included several members of this Committee. While I did not agree 

with all of the commission’s recommendations, I recognized that their report to the 

President offered an important starting point for debate. Perhaps most importantly, 

the report made a serious effort to tackle all parts of the budget instead of allowing 

ideological lines drawn in the sand to handicap its recommendations. 

I believe the commission’s approach should serve as a model as the Committee 

crafts its budget: everything must be on the table. We must address all manner of 

spending, including the tax expenditures and loopholes that allow firms like ExxonMobil to pay less in taxes than small businesses in my district. But the Committee 

should be extremely careful that it not harm programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid under the guise of deficit reduction. 

During the last Congress, we proved that it is possible to undertake significant 

entitlement reform without undermining bedrock benefits upon which the American 

people rely, eliminating $500 billion in wasteful spending while shoring up the longterm sustainability of Medicare. In stark contrast, attempts to turn Medicare into 

a voucher system that provides less and less coverage for seniors each year or to 

privatize Social Security, leaving it vulnerable to financial crashes like those that 

rocked Wall Street during 2008 and 2009, will significantly increase costs for American taxpayers. 

In conclusion, I want to thank you for providing this opportunity. I look forward 

to working together to pass a budget that reflects a responsible path forward and 

that makes serious attempts at reform spread equitably across the entire federal 

budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today In my view the country faces 

two very serious problems as it relates to the federal budget, which are interrelated—the growing national debt, and weak economic recovery. 
157 

First, our current fiscal policy is unsustainable. The simple fact of the matter is 

that we are currently spending far more than we are bringing in. We are living on 

credit, and we need to start paying our bills before they overwhelm us. Real solutions to the national deficit must include three elements: we must make targeted 

cuts to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary programs; we must continue to reform the 

way government operates to make it more efficient and more accountable; and we 

need to overhaul the tax code to close loopholes and restore a sense of fairness to 

the system. 

I believe strongly that addressing the deficit requires us to make smart but sig- nificant cuts to spending. Over the last six months alone, I voted for more than $55 

Billion in cuts across the federal government and I am certain more can be done. 

This will have to include the Pentagon’s budget, the largest agency in the federal 

government. 

I am confident we can do that in a way that does not undermine national security. 

We have already taken the first steps in that direction with the elimination of 

the V-22 Osprey, and the Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle—but we need to 

keep looking. At the same time that we are making cuts, we also need to look for 

ways to consolidate and reform government to make it more efficient. That is why 

I support a five year discretionary spending freeze that will reduce the overall cost 

of government relative to the economy By putting a cap on government agencies 

overall budgets, we push them to make smarter use of the funds available for 

achieving their goals by canceling out unnecessary programs, and redirecting funding to where it does the most good. This includes things like VA’s Inspector General; 

last year, their office produced $26 in saving from waste, fraud and abuse for every 

$1 spent. Increasing funding for OIG actually frees up money to improve care for 

our veterans without increasing overall spending. 

Finally, if we want to be serious about tackling the deficit, we need to pass fundamental tax reform When America’s largest and most profitable corporations can 

game the system to the point where they don’t pay any taxes at all—or worse yet, 

are getting Billion dollar rebates—something has to change. And continuing to extend these massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires leaves America’s 

small businesses and middle class families shouldering more and more of the burden. It’s time to restore a sense of fairness to our tax system in a way that encourages growth and investment, and ensures that when the tide rises, it raises all 

boats By following this commonsense approach, we can get back to primary balance 

by 2015—the first step to eliminating the deficit—without jeopardizing the economic 

recovery. 

But H.R. 1 takes the wrong approach. The House Continuing Resolution seeks to 

reduce the deficit by making indiscriminate cuts to a small part of the federal budget. These cuts would hobble the recovery and weaken our ability to compete in the 

global economy without actually solving the problem. If enacted, the cuts included 

in H.R. 1 would destroy about 700,000 jobs, worsening the unemployment crisis and 

imperiling our still-fragile economic recovery. At the same time, H.R. 1 turns its 

back on those still struggling with the economy, including young mothers and homeless veterans Worse yet, the bill makes us less competitive as a country going forward For generations, America has led the world in innovation, especially in the 

health sector. 

In southern Minnesota, we’re proud of our own tradition of medical innovation 

with Mayo Clinic. 

But H.R. 1 includes billions in cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH); 

it also makes significant cuts to research and development programs, from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) programs such as Soybean Genomics 

research at U of M. H.R. 1 also cuts investment in our children by kicking over 

200,000 kids out of the highly successful Head Start program. 

While there can be no doubt that we need to make major changes to our fiscal 

policy to bring our books back in order, the most important thing we can do to improve the budget outlook is to grow the economy and create jobs. There is no doubt 

that increasing unemployment now will only make the deficit problem worse. We 

need to promote policies that support economic growth and investment. This includes promoting stability in the regulatory environment so that businesses have 

confidence in their models and will invest. It also includes encouraging credit markets to lend and make resources available to our small businesses—the real engine 

of our economy. 

Finally, businesses are looking to Congress for certainty in the budget as well. We 

need to put the partisan gamesmanship aside and pass a budget to get us through 

FY11, and start talking seriously about what to do for FY12 and beyond. 

The current budget deficit is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. No 

matter how daunting it may seem, I firmly believe that American political system 
158 

is up to the challenge. Remember, we’ve done it before—and we can do it again. We 

have to come together for the good of the counry to pass a budget that makes smart 

cuts, improves efficiency, reforms the tax system and grows the economy. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FREDERICA S. WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Dear Chairman Ryan and Ranking Minority Member Van Hollen: On behalf of 

the citizens of the 17th Congressional District of Florida, I am honored to present 

my testimony to you today regarding our nation’s budget for the 2012 fiscal year. 

I know that you have many, many difficult decisions to make as we face both a 

record deficit and debt. Within those limitations, we still have the ability to have 

care, compassion and courage in our deliberations. We must care for those who cannot care for themselves. We must have compassion for individuals and families who, 

despite their hard work and determination, find themselves staring at record unemployment, home foreclosures, and business failures. We must have courage to make 

the right decisions that may be politically unpopular but necessary to save our country for our children, grand children and great grand children. I remain ready and 

willing to work with you and all of the Members of this august committee in that 

regard. 

As you make your deliberations, I respectfully and humbly request the following 

recommendations. 

We must protect our investment in education. 

Before I became an elected official, I was a school teacher and principal. Two of 

my children are principals. My parents emphasized the importance of education. 

Education is the great equalizer for many Americans, especially minorities. The 

greatness of our country is the fact that you don’t have to be wealthy, well connected or come from privilege in order to be great. If you are willing to hustle, work 

hard, and go to school, you can do great things. 

The organization that I founded, the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Foundation, 

is committed to guiding minority boys, through education, to the success that college 

gives us. If not for the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Foundation, thousands of little African American boys would not be in college. Too many would be, instead, in 

prison, in trouble, and unproductive citizens in America. I am proud of the history 

and success of this program, and there are many more similar organizations doing 

the same thing with little if any headlines in our nation. With the reductions to the 

budget as proposed, thousands of other after- and before-school programs will simply not be able to ensure that another generation or two of children will get the 

important guidance, mentoring, and organized leadership they so desperately need. 

Also, the House Budget’s proposed reductions to the Head Start program, the Pell 

Grant program, and to grant programs for worthwhile after-school organizations 

cannot be sustained. The Pell Grant, which has only been increased in funding in 

the last year after not being increased for more than five years, enables hundreds 

of thousands of low-income students to realize the more elusive dream of attending 

college. The Pell Grant is need-based, meaning that you get it because your financial situation warrants its use. The Head Start program has enabled hundreds of 

thousands of children to learn how to read, write, do arithmetic and be successful 

in elementary school. I served as the first Educational Coordinator of Head Start 

in Miami-Dade County. As a Head Start teacher, I wrote, produced, and starred in 

an educational TV show called 3.4 Knock On The Door for training pre-school teachers. I testified before the Committee on Education and Labor to save Head Start 

from being abolished. Today—I ask again—preserve Head Start. It is a precious 

jewel that helps our precious children. 

We must preserve our funding for international relief programs, specifically, programs supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

As you know, the U.S. Department of State received $49.9 billion for FY 2010; 

the President is requesting $52.7 billion for the next fiscal year. In a hearing before 

the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton illustrated 

the deep cuts and the elimination of redundant and outdated programs. This budget 

only contains what is necessary to accomplish America’s goals abroad and advance 

American security interests. 

H.R. 1, the Budget Resolution for the next fiscal year, would reduce funding for 

this budget by a whopping 41 percent. This reduction would, in particular, affect 

USAID’s work in Haiti. You might not know that USAID, along with other international organizations no longer conduct universal food distribution in Haiti. However, USAID is still working with the World Food Program to distribute to approximately 1.9 million Haitians who need food, including children under five, pregnant 
159 

and lactating women, school children, orphans and vulnerable people in institutions. 

More than 24,000 people per day on average participate in USAID’s cash-for-work 

program across Haiti, with most of the money that is distributed being used to purchase food, often for households of five or more people. In addition to providing a 

direct economic stimulus, these program help to prevent malnutrition for thousands 

of Haitians. I shudder to think what would happen to those 24,000 Haitians who 

receive USAID assistance, or the 1.9 million more that need food? 

Furthermore, the budget for the Western Hemisphere’s request is $477.6 million. 

Of that total, Haiti is expected to receive $146.3 million. This request funds longterm development in infrastructure and energy, food and economic security, 

health—and we know that cholera is a huge problem in Haiti, and is one that could 

be solved with clean, safe drinking water. The proposed reduction in this funding 

would leave a dire impact upon the ability of eliminating the problem of cholera in 

Haiti. 

We must preserve our funding to protect Israel and our allies. 

The State Department’s budget found, and I quote, ‘‘administrative savings and 

efficiencies that will streamline operations.’’ The State Department also found savings from reprioritizing its foreign assistance. The Secretary has clearly made many 

difficult decisions. For example, the State Department has eliminated entire bilateral programs in six countries. Foreign assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central 

Asia has been reduced by $115 million. These cuts will make way for higher priority 

funding—such as for Israel, Pakistan, and ‘‘programs that are critical to containing 

transnational threats including terrorism and trafficking in narcotics, weapons, and 

persons,’’ as the Secretary stated in her budget. During these calamitous times in 

the Middle East, with Egypt, Libya and Tunisia witnessing revolutionary change, 

our country cannot afford further cuts to the budget that may affect the safety and 

security of Israel. 

We must preserve funding for the Community Development Block Grant program. 

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program the flexible program 

that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. Started in 1974, the CDBG program is one of the longest 

continuously run programs at HUD. The State of Florida has received between $18 

million to $35 million in funds through the CDBG program, which has works to ensure decent affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our 

communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. 

CDBG is an important tool for helping local governments tackle serious challenges 

facing their communities. The CDBG program has made a difference in the lives of 

millions of people and their communities across the Nation. Congress has approved 

a 61% reduction in this worthwhile program. This is simply unconscionable. Our nation’s local elected officials—mayors and county commissioners—cannot afford the 

cut in this program that provides local flexibility to help save communities. 

We must preserve funds for Planned Parenthood. 

The elimination of funds for Planned Parenthood would mean that hundreds of 

thousands of women no longer have access to the valuable information to prevent 

pregnancies and protect their health. Planned Parenthood has been a reliable source 

of information about contraception and reproductive health, at little or no cost, for 

more than three decades. During a time of heightened sexual awareness by our nation’s teenagers and young adults, we need Planned Parenthood more than ever. 

We must invest in jobs. 

The Comprehensive Employment Training Act, or CETA, worked wonders to reduce unemployment during the presidencies of both Jimmy Carter and Ronald 

Reagan. I believe that if our budget invested in a program, whatever we called it, 

that would direct funds to cities, counties and qualified non-profits like the CETA 

program once did, we could immediately reduce unemployment, get people back to 

work, and get vitally needed tax dollars to our local communities. We need to invest 

in a federal direct-hire program to get people back to work, like the CETA program, 

now. 

I know, again, that you have many difficult decisions that you have to make. I 

know that by working together we can make the correct and smart choices that will 

create jobs, defend our nation, protect the most vulnerable, grow the middle class, 

and reduce the deficit as we embark upon a fiscally responsible future. The American people demand and deserve no less. 

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ