Providing for Consideration of H. Con. Res. 312, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1036.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1036 provides for consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 312, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2009, under a structured rule.
The rule provides a total of 4 hours of general debate, 3 hours to be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies to be controlled by Representative Maloney of New York and Representative Saxton of New Jersey.
The rule makes in order the three substitute amendments: one by Representative Kilpatrick of Michigan; one by Representative Lee of California; and a final substitute by Representative Ryan of Wisconsin. Each amendment is debatable for 60 minutes. The rule also permits the chairman of the Budget Committee to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency. Finally, the rule provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, this is the traditional rule for consideration of the budget resolution, and I welcome today's debate on the alternative budgets that will be presented by the Republican leadership, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation to Budget Committee Chairman Spratt and Ranking Member Ryan for their leadership and hard work on the House Budget Committee. Although they hold very different points of view, the committee always operates in a cordial and collegial manner. I have served on the Budget Committee for 2 years, and it has been a privilege to learn from two such distinguished Members how to work in a bipartisan way despite sharp philosophical differences. And all of us are supported, Mr. Speaker, by a superb and dedicated committee staff.
Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents. They reflect our priorities. And for too long, this Congress passed budgets with the wrong priorities. For too long, our budgets put the desires of the powerful before the needs of the poor. For too long, our budgets pretended that people who were struggling didn't even exist, let alone matter. That has begun to change. The Democratic budget before us today is a budget with a conscience.
Today, we continue the new direction set last year to bring the Federal budget back to fiscal health and responsibility. As we begin this debate, our country faces major challenges: a looming recession, a crisis in the credit markets, a plunging housing market, rising unemployment, declining family income, skyrocketing costs in health care, aging infrastructure, and a safety net struggling to keep up with the growing number of Americans unable to meet their basic needs.
Faced with these challenges, President Bush proposed the same tired, worn-out, failed fiscal and economic policies. After 7 years, the Bush legacy is the highest deficits in our Nation's history. Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, when the Republicans had total control over the White House, the Senate and this House, they were welcomed with a $5.6 trillion projected 10-year budget surplus, the financial gift of the last Democrat to sit in the White House. That has been completely squandered, resulting in the largest fiscal deterioration in American history. And the President's FY 2009 budget proposed only more of the same.
The national debt exploded under President Bush and his Republican rubber-stamp Congress. At the end of 2008, CBO projects a $9.6 trillion debt, an increase of nearly $4 trillion, brought to you courtesy of George Bush. Future generations, our children and our grandchildren, will be forced to pay the price for this unprecedented rise in debt thanks to the Republicans' fiscally reckless and irresponsible policies.
And to top it off, the President's budget continues the Bush legacy of deep cuts in many of the most important programs and services for the American people:
$500 billion in cuts to Medicare.
$100 billion in cuts to Medicaid, which serves the poorest Americans, including families with children.
The elimination of the Community Services Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant, and deep cuts in the Community Development Block Grant, which provides nearly every city and town in America with Federal support for basic services.
Elimination of the Community Oriented Policing grants, the COPS grants, and deep cuts for State and local law enforcement at a time when States and local communities are finding it hard to meet the needs of their first responders.
And deep cuts in many other vital programs that provide health care, infrastructure, environmental protection, and other services to our States and to our neighborhoods.
Let me give but one example, Mr. Speaker, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.
Last week, the worst snow storm in a century hit the people of Ohio and the Midwest. Two weeks ago, the people of central Massachusetts were facing over three feet of snow. Across the country, people are suffering in the cold. Home heating costs have gone up by 80 percent under George Bush. A barrel of oil now costs $108. But President Bush decided to cut $570 million out of the LIHEAP program. The President decided to turn off the heat for 1.2 million households, forcing families to choose either to heat or to eat. And why? So we could continue tax cuts for the wealthiest, most fortunate billionaires in America.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic budget rejects the President's priorities. It rejects the callous view of the Republican Party that tens of millions of American families are expendable, that our communities can manage without basic services, that our roads, bridges and water systems should be allowed to crumble and fail, and that we can run up America's credit card without costs or consequences.
Instead, the Democratic budget restores fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget, returning it to balance in the year 2012. It rejects the President's harmful cuts to basic services, and invests in proven programs that boost economic growth, create jobs, and make America safer.
The Democratic budget helps families struggling to make ends meet in this economic downturn, and provides fiscally responsible tax relief to millions and millions of households.
Finally, the Democratic budget remembers those who serve at home and abroad. It provides strong and substantial funding for national defense, including quality of life for our troops and our families.
It provides more funding for homeland security programs, including first responders, than the President would. And finally, it takes care of our veterans and rejects President Bush's cynical new fees for veterans health care. Instead, the Democratic budget increases health care funding for our veterans well above current services, enough to allow the VA to treat 5.8 million patients in 2009, including over 333,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, House Concurrent Resolution 312, the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, is a budget all Americans who believe in fiscal responsibility and the common good can support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will insert into the Record letters from The Hamilton Project and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which state clearly and unequivocally that the Democratic budget resolution does not raise taxes.
THE HAMILTON PROJECT,
Washington, DC, March 7, 2008.
Congressman JOHN SPRATT,
Longworth Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN SPRATT:
Per your request, I have analyzed the House Budget Committee's budget resolution. The budget would not raise taxes. The revenue levels in the budget are, in net total, the same as the baseline revenue levels projected by the Congressional Budget Office. These revenue levels are consistent with continuing current law, not with changes to the law that would raise or lower taxes.
The purpose of a budget baseline is to establish a neutral starting point to debate and evaluate alternative priorities for spending, taxes, and the debt. The budget resolution adopts the baseline recommended by several respected, non-partisan groups including the Concord Coalition, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Committee for Economic Development.
But the choice of a baseline does not commit policymakers to any specific tax or spending policy. Instead a baseline, in conjunction with the restoration of the pay-as-you-go rules, would provide a framework for making tradeoffs between different priorities. Indeed, your budget indicates that one of your priorities is making up-front cuts in taxes for alternative minimum tax relief that would ultimately be paid for without increasing the budget deficit.
The founding strategy paper of The Hamilton Project states that one of the greatest economic risks our nation faces today is our country's large fiscal imbalance. The papers notes that ``the decisions necessary to restore fiscal balance might be easier to enact and to enforce if policymakers reinstated credible budget rules governing both spending and taxes.'' The pay-as-you-go proposal in the budget resolution will hopefully help policymakers make the tough choices required to put America on a path to a balanced budget.
I hope this analysis is helpful and please do not hesitate if you have any follow-up questions.
Thank you,
JASON FURMAN.
--
CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES,
Washington, DC, March 7, 2008.
Claim That Congressional Budget Plans Call for ``Largest Tax Increase in History'' Is Inaccurate
Some are claiming that the budget plans adopted this week by the House and Senate Budget Committees--the full House and Senate are scheduled to consider their respective committee's plan next week--would constitute ``the largest tax increase in history.'' This claim is inaccurate, just as the same claim was inaccurate with regard to the budget resolution the Congress adopted last year. Neither of the plans recommended this week by the budget committees include a tax increase. The House plan simply assumes the same level of revenues over the 2008-2013 period as projected by the Congressional Budget Office under its current policy baseline, which essentially assumes no change in current laws governing taxes. The Senate plan actually calls for a small reduction in revenues, reflecting its assumption that Alternative Minimum Tax relief will be extended for one year without any offset of the revenues that will be lost as a result of that extension and that a second stimulus bill this year may include a small tax cut.
The charge that the budget plans proposed by the House and Senate Budget Committees include a large tax increase arises not from any policy changes proposed in those plans, but instead from policies enacted in 2001 and 2003. Legislation enacted in those years put in place tax cuts proposed by President Bush but provided for those tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010, unless current law is changed. Both the House and Senate Budget Committee plans assume that current law will be amended to extend some of the expiring tax cuts (especially those affecting middle-class families) and make other changes in tax policy, but they assume (except in the case of temporary AMT relief and stimulus legislation in the Senate plan) that the cost of such changes will he offset by other changes in policy. They do not assume that total revenues will be increased above what is expected to be collected under current policies.
It should be recalled that the President's tax cuts expire in 2010 because their supporters deliberately designed them that way, in order to fit the tax cuts within the cost constraints imposed by the Congressional budget resolutions adopted in 2001 and 2003. While acknowledging that their real goal was to make the tax cuts permanent, supporters of those measures opted to ``sunset'' the tax cuts before the end of the ten-year budget window, partly in order to avoid recognizing the cost of permanent tax cuts. Now, a few years from the tax cuts' expiration, some of these same supporters are trying to act as though the tax cuts are already permanent and any proposal to offset the cost of extending them is a ``tax increase.''
To extend the tax cuts without paying for them--and to attack those who simply seek to require that any extension of the tax cuts be paid for--further heightens the irresponsible fiscal nature of the original actions.
Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to point out to the gentleman that in the budget resolution it is specifically mentioned that we endorse the extension of the middle class tax cuts, including things like the marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, and the 10 percent tax bracket. Our budget also provides paid-for relief from the alternative minimum tax.
I think the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is we believe in paying for these tax cuts so that we don't add to the debt and further burden our kids and our grandkids.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Budget Committee, (Mr. Doggett).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman asked the right question: What are American families facing? What are American families facing after 7 years of Bush budgets and Republican budgets? What they're facing are challenges like never before.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the real income of a typical family has fallen by almost $1,000 since George Bush became President. The Democratic budget provides funds to keep up with rising food, housing, and heating and transportation costs.
In the area of education, the Democratic budget provides $7.1 billion more for education and job training than the Bush budget. It increases funding for Head Start, special education, No Child Left Behind, and title I. Under George Bush, only four out of 10 children eligible for Head Start received services. The Democratic budget increases funding for Head Start so that more children will enter school ready to learn.
And, again, let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. The Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Concord Coalition have all sent Members of Congress letters stating emphatically that the Democratic budget does not increase taxes.
Let me say one thing the Democratic budget does do, and that is it relieves the burden of debt that has been thrust upon our kids and our grandkids. The Republicans, during these last several years, have increased the debt to historic highs, and in doing so, they have created a debt tax on our kids and our grandkids. We want to remove that tax burden from future generations.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Budget Committee (Mr. Scott).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues that security also means the economic well-being of our citizens. And because of Republican priorities over the last 7 years, record numbers of our citizens are struggling like never before. The very rich have done very well. And the rest have not. Those are the facts.
The Democratic budget that has been put forward restores fiscal responsibility. It rejects the President's harmful cuts in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. It rejects the President's proposal to impose new fees for our veterans and our military retirees. It strengthens our economy. It invests more in innovation. It invests more in energy, renewable and clean energy. It invests more in education and in our infrastructure. It also provides tax relief to help struggling families. It accommodates the tax relief from the alternative minimum tax for more than 20 million households, as well as middle income tax cuts and other tax relief so long as they comply with the pay-as-you-go rule.
It invests more in children's health. It provides more funding for safety net programs. Record numbers of our citizens are literally falling through the cracks in our country. It invests in defense, in veterans, and in homeland security.
The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that for years we have been forced to accept the priorities of George Bush and his Republican colleagues who have controlled the Congress. That is now changing. For nearly 7 years, we have watched as they have accumulated huge debt, historical debt. We have watched as they have chipped away at some of the most important programs that help some of the most desperate people in our country. The American people have had enough. That is what the last election was about. They have had their chance. They have shown us their priorities. And the American people have rejected them. It is now time to create a budget that has a conscience that responds to the needs of the struggling middle class in this country. The Democratic budget that will be offered today will do that and change the course of this country.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source