As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I will continue to do all that I can to direct our nation’s resources to an agenda that meets America’s domestic needs and our international moral obligations.

Below is my statement during a Feburary 2006 Budget Committee Hearing on the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget proposal:

As every American family knows, budgets are about priorities, and unfortunately, the President’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget is a replay of last year’s budget. I’m disappointed this budget shortchanges so many programs that are vitally important to so many Americans. As we move through the budget process, I will continue to highlight these deficiencies and work to ensure our budget meets these needs in a fiscally responsible manner that more properly reflects the priorities and the values of American families.

Rural Water System
I do want to take a moment to express my appreciation to Director Bolten for listening to the South Dakota delegation earlier this winter as we explained to you why the Administration must increase the budget for the Bureau of Reclamation’s rural water construction account. In South Dakota, we are constructing two of the largest drinking water projects in the country and each year the project sponsors, surrounding communities, and Indian Tribes served by these projects play a guessing game waiting for release of the President’s budget. I appreciate that the President’s budget has increased funds for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, as well as the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System. My concern remains that the increases in federal resources are failing to keep pace with the increased construction costs and capabilities of each project. In the end, as long as the Administration balks at significantly ramping-up resources in the Bureau of Reclamation’s rural water construction account, projects, such as the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, could face construction delays that only serve to drive up the final cost to the federal government.

Agriculture
While there are many areas of concern for me in this budget, I will highlight a handful of those concerns this afternoon. Just like last year, the Administration is again proposing a 5 percent across-the-board cut to crop and dairy payments for producers in its Fiscal Year 2007 Budget proposal. Commodity program payments, including marketing loan gains, direct and counter-cyclical payments, would take a significant hit under this proposal. I simply believe that you can’t, and shouldn’t, balance such a tremendous deficit on the backs of our nation’s producers. Producers have saved roughly $15 billion since the Farm Bill was enacted, and these across the board cuts are simply outrageous. Reductions to agriculture spending are unfair to rural America.

However, the budget would reduce the payment limit cap for individuals to $250,000 for crop payments. Additionally, it removes the three-entity rule. I have long supported common-sense payment limitations that would save serious money and reduce program abuse. I am pleased to see that the Administration has recommended reasonable payment limits.

There are several funding proposals in the agriculture arena which are cause for significant concern. The Resource, Conservation and Development program, for example, is once again slated for substantial reductions. Under the Bush Administration’s proposal, RC&D funding would be scaled back to $25.9 million for Fiscal Year 2007. I worked with my colleagues on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to fund this vital rural economic development program at $51.3 million in the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations bill.

The President has also proposed scrapping the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) entirely. I helped secure $108.3 million in the most recent agriculture spending bill for this program. I am incredibly concerned for impacts of this proposal on the nation’s elderly, many of whom rely on the CSFP and have already been subjected to funding reductions in other areas. I find it unconscionable to eliminate funding for a program that provides crucial nutrition and outreach to an already underserved population.

Indian Country
In regard to the President’s budget request for Indian Country, it is apparent that this budget doesn’t fully reflect the treaty and trust responsibilities the federal government has with the tribes. The President has requested the elimination of 141 programs. Unfortunately, some of those programs directly affect Indians and Indian tribes.

For instance, the Urban Indian Health Program within the Indian Health Service budget was completely slashed. This program provides care to American Indians that live off reservations in urban areas where approximately 60 percent of all Indians reside. In my home state of South Dakota this funding deficiency will affect Indian populations in three urban communities. Another program that faces elimination is the Johnson O’Malley program with in the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget. This is a program that provides assistance to native students in public schools. While this program was modestly funded at $16 million dollars in FY06, it provides assistance to many native students throughout the country.

Essential programs, such as health care and education, are being slashed - hurting the people that need it most. Budgets are about priorities, and it is obvious to me that the president's budget priorities for Indian Country are backwards.

Education
In addition to the cuts to programs that serve native students, the President’s budget request again shortchanges educational opportunities for all school children. It’s unfortunate that this budget builds upon the education cuts enacted last year. The No Child Left Behind Act would be underfunded by $15.4 billion for FY07, brining the cumulative shortfall for NCLB programs since enactment to $55.7 billion. Additionally, the President’s budget would leave behind 3.7 million students, including an estimated 12,252 in my state of South Dakota, who could be fully served by Title I if it were fully funded.

The Administration’s funding request for special education is no better. The federal government has never lived up to the promise to provide 40 percent of the cost of special education. We all know how tight state and local education budgets are, and if we fully funded IDEA, local school districts could use local revenue for a host of local priorities like smaller class sizes, increased teacher pay, technology upgrades, or school construction. Under this request, the federal government would provide only 17 percent of the average per-pupil cost of special education. We were making limited progress in IDEA funding when we provided 19 percent in FY05, but we’ve moved backwards and provided 18 percent last year. It’s time for the federal government to live up to its education promises made when NCLB and IDEA were enacted.

Even with the modest funding increases in NCLB and IDEA, the President’s request eliminates 42 programs within the Department of Education for a total of about $3.5 billion. These programs range from career and technical education programs to Safe and Drug Free Schools programs to the Even Start program.

Veterans
Once again, President Bush has proposed shifting the burden of providing VA health care on to our nation’s veterans. Increasing co-payments and mandating enrollment fees is not the solution. Instead, the Bush Administration should submit a budget with adequate funding to address the needs of our veterans. The Bush Administration has proposed once again a $250 annual enrollment fee for Category 7 and 8 veterans. Further, the budget also would increase pharmacy copayments for Category 7 and 8 Veterans from $8 for a 30-day supply of drugs to $15. Providing for the health care of our nation’s veterans is a moral issue, and the brave men and women who fought for our country should not be told their health care needs come last.

Health Care
This budget proposal cuts Medicare by about $35 billion over five years. Savings would be achieved by reducing payments to hospitals and other providers including nursing home and home health, which will be particularly detrimental to rural providers who are already struggling to meet community needs with current reimbursement. The budget request also would add additional cost sharing for some higher income beneficiaries through higher premiums for doctor visits. Currently, Medicare charges $88.50 a month for this coverage.

Rural Health programs are allocated a total of $27 million, which represents a cut of $94 million or 73 percent. Title VIII Nursing programs are flat funded at $150 million, and the Title VII Health Professions Training programs are proposed for elimination. At least 15 other programs are completely eliminated, including Emergency Medical Services for Children, Newborn Hearing Screening, and Trauma Care. Other programs cut or eliminated include the Rural Health Outreach grant program, the Rural Health Flexibility grant program, and the Rural and Community Access to Emergency Devices program.

Economic Development
Community development funding is another area of disappointment. Last year, the President offered us an Orwellian proposal called the “Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative.” Its basic strategy is to eliminate effective government tools for investing in disadvantaged communities, abandoning them to sink or swim on their own. In response to a huge outpouring of public criticism, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to reject nearly all of the initiative.

Unfortunately, the President disregarded public sentiment and the Congress, which is led by members of his own party, and offered a recycled version of the same bad proposal. For example, he proposes to cut three quarters of a billion dollars from the popular and effective Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program, which facilitates infrastructure and housing investments in disadvantaged communities.

I fully recognize the need to get our record-breaking budget deficits under control, and I support efforts to eliminate wasteful government spending. But these cuts are proposed for a different purpose – to partially offset additional tax cuts that benefit a tiny slice of society. Our rejection of last year’s Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative showed the members of Congress from both sides of the aisle felt it was wrong to take money from low- and middle-income people to give to upper-income people. It was wrong then, and it’s still wrong today.