or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Revising the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005 as it Applies in the House of Representatives

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC


REVISING THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AS IT APPLIES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -- (House of Representatives - June 24, 2004)

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of June 22, 2004, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 685) revising the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 as it applies in the House of Representatives, and ask for its immediate consideration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put in my comments on this very good debate here, and it is a debate that is good, because it shows clashing two philosophies: one of higher taxes for more spending, versus lower taxes for more private sector growth, more jobs through the private sector.

The proposal in front of us today is for a $270 billion tax increase over a 10-year period of time. So taxes would go up in a fashion like that, $270 billion; and the justification that we are hearing is so that we can spend more money.

But I want to say this as a fiscal conservative: if you look at what we have been doing since 1994, we have in fact been spending a lot of money, and, ironically, in the very areas where we are being accused of not spending enough.

But this is a Committee on the Budget chart, and it shows since 1994 how much our spending has in fact increased. We are being accused of not spending enough on education; but here is one education program alone, title I. Since 1999, it has gone up this much, nearly, I am going to guess, about $6 billion. The exact math is available, but I just want to show the chart to illustrate.

Pell grant funding, an important scholarship program, has increased in a similar fashion of about maybe $5 billion. The gentleman from Iowa can correct me if my quick, on-the-spot-math is wrong.

No Child Left Behind. The irony about No Child Left Behind, an important Bush initiative on education, is we hear a lot of critics say, you are not funding it. Yet look at No Child Left Behind. Growth in education under President Bush has increased 40 percent.

Special education, something that has a lot of bipartisan support, since 1999 we have gone from about $4 billion in spending to nearly $12 billion in spending. So where is the cut in education? There is not one to show.

Veterans programs. Often the liberals hide behind veterans programs and say, you are not spending enough. But here, again, since 1985 to 2004, budget authority has gone from $27 billion to $60 billion. The gentleman from New York (Chairman WALSH) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) have worked hard to champion that and done it on a good bipartisan basis. Spending per veteran during that period of time has gone from $950 to $2,400.
Veterans spending has in fact increased.

Another criticism we are getting is spending to combat terrorism has not increased. Here we are, from 2001, spending about $20 billion, to $87 billion today. So where are these cuts that we are suffering from? There are not any cuts.

Now, as I said, I am a fiscal conservative. I wish these charts did go in a different direction in many cases. I wish that I could honestly be accused of cutting a lot of government programs. Unfortunately, we failed in that. But the will of the House, the will of the Senate takes a long time for the process to go through. I am just saying that the spending cuts are not there.

But who do we propose to get the income from? We keep hearing about these big, bad, horrible people called millionaires in American society today. Let us examine who these millionaires are.

These millionaires, for the most part, are small business owners; people who are farmers, people who own bicycle shops, people who are contractors. They have $1 million in revenue, and therefore they are taxed in the 35 percent bracket. How many? Is that just a few? Hardly. It is 73 percent of them.

What about in the group that earns from $200,000 to $499,000? 68 percent. What about in the big bad group that grosses from $500,000 to $1 million? 76 percent. And $1 million in revenue and above, 82 percent of them are small business owners.

So what are we talking about doing? What we are talking about doing is beating up on the small employers out there, the folks who are turning this economy around.

Here we are looking at the job charts, what is happening in the economy. Right now we have nearly 140 million Americans working, the highest level in history. Yet we want to reverse that trend by killing the goose that is laying the golden egg, and that is the small business owner.

If you are for jobs, the correct vote on this is "no." If you want to kill economic prosperity, if you want to kill the small business employer, if you want to kill jobs, vote "yes," because that is exactly what will happen.

Back to top