[House Report 110-183]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
SBDV 2008-1
110th Congress
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
110-183
_______________________________________________________________________
Union Calendar No. 108
R E P O R T
on the
SUBALLOCATION OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
SUBMITTED BY MR. OBEY, CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
June 8, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JERRY LEWIS, California
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia RALPH REGULA, Ohio
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York JAMES T. WALSH, New York
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New
ED PASTOR, Arizona Jersey
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CHET EDWARDS, Texas TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
Alabama TOM LATHAM, Iowa
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KAY GRANGER, Texas
SAM FARR, California JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
ALLEN BOYD, Florida DAVE WELDON, Florida
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
MARION BERRY, Arkansas ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
BARBARA LEE, California DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
ADAM SCHIFF, California RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
MICHAEL HONDA, California KEN CALVERT, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TIM RYAN, Ohio
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
Maryland
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas
Rob Nabors, Clerk and Staff Director
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC, June 8, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
The Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: By direction of the Committee on
Appropriations, I submit herewith the Committee's report on the
suballocation of budget allocations for fiscal year 2008. As
required by section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, this report subdivides the allocation of fiscal year 2008
spending authority to the House Committee on Appropriations
contained in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee
of Conference on S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2008. That allocation has been
adjusted by Chairman Spratt pursuant to section 207(f) of S.
Con. Res. 21, and the attached suballocations are consistent
with that adjustment.
Sincerely,
David R. Obey,
Chairman.
Union Calendar No. 108
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 110-183
======================================================================
REPORT ON THE SUBALLOCATION OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
_______
June 8, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Obey, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
SUBALLOCATION OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report on the suballocation of budget allocations for fiscal
year 2008 pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. This report is consistent with the
``Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee on
Appropriations'' presented in the Joint Explanatory Statement
of the Committee of Conference on S. Con. Res. 21, the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. That
allocation has been adjusted by Chairman Spratt pursuant to
section 207(f) of S. Con. Res. 21, and the following
suballocations are consistent with that adjustment.
MINORITY VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES LEWIS, YOUNG, REGULA, ROGERS, WOLF,
WALSH, HOBSON, KNOLLENBERG, KINGSTON, FRELINGHUYSEN, WICKER, TIAHRT,
WAMP, LATHAM, ADERHOLT, EMERSON, GRANGER, PETERSON, GOODE, LaHOOD,
WELDON, SIMPSON, CULBERSON, KIRK, CRENSHAW, REHBERG, CARTER, ALEXANDER,
AND CALVERT
When the House Appropriations Committee met on June 5, 2007
to consider the proposed 302(b) Subcommittee allocations for
fiscal year 2008, we strongly considered offering an amendment,
such as that done in the past, which would offer a different
set of allocations based on the roughly $933 billion total
spending suggested in the President's budget submission. This
spending level already reflected a very generous increase of
$60 billion over the 2007 enacted spending level. Obviously,
such an increase was not enough to satiate the spending lust of
our new Democrat majority as they were determined to pile
another $20 billion on top of the $60 billion. And, in a
budgetary slight of hand not reflected in these allocations,
the majority is using gimmicks to add another $3 billion on top
of these already whopping increases for a total of $83 billion
in new discretionary spending--almost 10% over the FY 2007
level.
At the end of the day, we determined that offering such an
amendment was a pointless exercise and perhaps even a waste of
our Members' valuable time. However, it is instructive to paint
the broad picture of spending upon which our Democrat
colleagues are about to embark.
The Democrat majority likes to suggest that additional
dollars are constantly needed for our domestic programs because
they have been ``starved'' over the past several years. The
truth is, domestic discretionary spending has increased 40%--or
21% in real dollars--since 2001. Members and others can of
course advocate for more money for this program or that program
which might be favorites, but to do so using a generic
statement that domestic discretionary programs have been
starved is utter nonsense.
With regard to the majority's plan to spend $83 billion
over the 2007 enacted budget levels, we would submit that this
represents exactly the kind of unfettered spending that so
closely identifies the differences of philosophies between
Republicans and Democrats. It's pre-1995 all over again when,
for 40 years, the Democrat majority's mantra clearly was, ``If
you see a problem, throw money at it.'' Never mind trying to
fix the problems. Never mind making tough spending choices.
Just take more money out of the register and throw it at the
problem.
Does it matter that if this spending philosophy continues
and is adopted into the baseline, this country will see an
increase of $250 billion in new spending over the next ten
years? It should matter!
And who will pay for these massive increases in spending
and how will it be paid? The Democrat majority's agenda
requires tax increases of more than $720 billion over the next
five years and $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. The
Democrats have chosen to pay for this by increasing the tax
burden on every American household by more than $2,000 per
year.
Much has been said over which tax increases we will face to
pay for this massive expansion in government spending. This
year alone over 19 million more households will be captured by
the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and yet the majority now is
counting on the billions in additional taxes to pay for its
spending increases. The AMT is not for the wealthiest
households any longer. These funds come from the pockets of
middle income families.
Yet which taxes are increased is not the issue. That the
Democrat majority imposes new or increased direct taxes that
families pay every April 15th is not the issue. That the
majority would impose indirect taxes that we will all have to
pay for every day through higher prices, lower savings and
investment income, and fewer services is not the issue.
What truly matters is that the middle income households are
always paying the bill for expanded government, and these
302(b) allocations by the Democrat majority guarantee years of
payments.
What is at issue is that over $720 billion in new taxes are
required to keep pace with this spending addiction and that the
taxes will go from a historical 18.3% of GDP to a whopping
19.7% of GDP.
And what is also at issue is who, in reality is going to
pay. In 2004, 50% of the total Federal tax burden was paid for
by the 65 million households that earned between $24,000 and
$65,000 per year. The vast majority of those taxes are being
paid for by individuals between the ages of 45 and 54 with
incomes between $55,000 and $77,000 a year. This group pays
more than 20% of their income just to meet the federal tax
burden. This is the group of Americans which every year pay
over $500 billion dollars a year in taxes to support our parks,
conduct our research, and provide support and services for the
young and the elderly. These are the households and individuals
that will pay for the expanded government that the majority is
demanding and these are middle class groups that our lip
service suggests we want to protect.
The allocations before us also point to another key
difference in the spending priorities between the Democrat
majority and Republicans. We have heard countless arguments by
the majority party that they fully support funding for our
troops. But despite increasing spending by over $23 billion
above the President's request, the Democrat majority chose to
cut defense spending by over $3.5 billion below the President's
request.
We have heard changing arguments from our Democrat
counterparts as to why they chose to cut Defense. During debate
in Committee on the allocations, the Democratic majority stated
that defense was being cut to pay for veterans increases.
Unfortunately, the math just doesn't add up.
The budget resolution provided a $4 billion increase above
the President's level for veterans, roughly the level provided
by the Committee majority. And, the same budget fully funded
the President's request for defense. So it's fair to say that
the Committee did not cut defense to fund veterans.
Upon further questioning, the Democratic majority then
argued that defense was cut to pay for other homeland security
programs, but again the numbers just don't add up since the
budget resolution assumed spending for these programs well
above the President's request. This leaves only one explanation
for cutting defense--the Committee majority chose to divert
funds that benefit our troops to instead bolster spending for
other non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary programs
at levels over and above the generous funding levels assumed in
the budget resolution. We think it is important that the record
be set straight so that the American people can see the
priorities that are reflected in the Democrat majority's
decisions.
By moving forward with the allocations as adopted by the
Democrat majority, we are virtually guaranteeing a number of
vetoes from the White House. We are virtually guaranteeing that
most if not all of the spending bills we do this year will end
up in a huge omnibus bill sometime late in the session. We are
virtually inviting the Executive Branch to be equal partners in
the minutia of Congressional budget deliberations, something
that, we are proud to say, has not happened since President
Clinton left office. We are absolutely guaranteeing less real
income to America's middle class for their families as they pay
for the Democrats' spending spree.
Adoption of these 302(b) allocations approved by the
Democrat majority spells failure to do our job in a manner that
has long been part of the Committee's 142 year, bipartisan
heritage. We cannot and do not support them.
Jerry Lewis.
Bill Young.
Ralph Regula.
Harold Rogers.
Frank R. Wolf.
James T. Walsh.
Dave Hobson.
Joe Knollenberg.
Jack Kingston.
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen.
Roger Wicker.
Todd Tiahrt.
Zach Wamp.
Tom Latham.
Robert B. Aderholt.
Jo Ann Emerson.
Kay Granger.
John E. Peterson.
Virgil Goode.
Ray LaHood.
Dave Weldon.
Michael K. Simpson.
John Culberson.
Mark Steven Kirk.
Ander Crenshaw.
Denny Rehberg.
John R. Carter.
Rodney Alexander.
Ken Calvert.