Date: 2005-03-17
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. it is a pleasure to be here on the floor once again. this time as a member of the Committee on the Budget. After being absent from this floor for 16 years. some things are comforting. such as the gentleman from Wisconsin still maintains his skepticism about the antimissile system. I appreciate that. I appreciate that in terms of his concern about us spending too much money this year in that regard. With respect to the comments made by some on the other side of the aisle that somehow the Republican budget is immoral. and I heard that during the oneminute speeches. and somehow it does not follow a standard of social justice or the social gospel. I tried to look at the numbers to see what we are talking about. and if one looks at any graph that looks at the mandatory spending. we see the difference between the baseline and what we have placed in this budget is almost indistinguishable. So then I looked at some of the other areas that the gentleman has spoken to. and one is the National Institutes of Health. I thought since I have been gone and since the Republicans have taken over the House of Representatives that reflecting the comments about the Republican attitude toward NIH. that somehow we had denuded NIH in the time since Republicans had taken over. So I went back and checked it out. and under Republican Congresses. NIH spending has doubled between 1999 and the year 2003. rising from $13.6 billiofn in 1999 to $27.2 billion in the year 2003. U 1045 Again I heafd a comment about veterans. that somehow Republicans are not concerned about veterans. I went back and checked the numbers since I was last here. Since 1995. total spending on veterans. that is. 1995 since the Republicans took over. total spending on veterans has increased from $38.2 -billion to $67.6 billion. That is a 77 percent increase. I wanted to see how that compared with the previous 10 years. again. most of which I was gone. but during which the Democrats were in control of the House. and I found out that there was a 40 percent increase during the previous 10 years. I would not on this floor suggest that the Democrats were immoral in their approach to the veterans in their previous 10 years even though their increase for veterans was substantially lower than Republicans. It is not a question of morality. it is not a question of social justice. it is not a ques7 tion of social gospel. the words that I heard expressed just a moment ago. but. rather. it is a question as to where we are now. After we have had significant. hefty increases in these par7 ticuiar areas during the time that Republicans have been in control. is it a time for us to slow down that increased rate of growth during a time in which we finally are confronting the fiscal re�sponsibility that is visited uiion this House as our obligation and our authority? During the time I was gone. I was able to observe this House from a distance. and I realized there is a real disconnect. People back home seem to think that we are spending too much. They are not arguing for increased taxes. I understand the gentleman believes that an increase in taxes on some people is not a general increase in taxes. We can always follow that old slogan. Dont tax you. dont tax me. tax that guy behind the tree. It is always that game. I will not call it a game. it is always that approach that can be relevant in debates such as this. But the fact of the matter is that the gentleman from Wisconsin has with sincerity presented us an amendment that. increases taxes and increases spending. That is the .long and short of it. The suggestion is that somehow we have been unfaithful to our charge to be concerned about the education of the people of America and the veterans. That charge is just patently false. The fact of the matter is we now have established priorities overall for our spending. We believe we have done this in a responsible way. We believe we have done this in a way that most Americans would support. We believe we have made sure that we are not going to cut defense. The gentleman hassuggested $1 billion less spending. in defense. I think most Members would not support that. We can suggest to the appropriators and the authorizing committees where they ought to cut. but we cannot demand that. So the gentlemans desire that they take the $1 billion out of a particular place is not necessarily where it is going to come out of. The only thing we know if we adopt the gentlemans amendment is that we will be spending $1 billion less on national defense at a time when very few Americans would support that. With all due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin. I appreciate his approach. It is a consistent approach that he has used. but it is an approach that. yes. increases spending and increases taxes.