Rules of the House

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on this opening day of the new Congress I know that we all hope to work together to tackle the major problems that face our country. We heard that sentiment expressed by the outgoing Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and by the incoming Speaker, John Boehner. That is why the rules package, the plan put forth by the Republican majority not less than 2 hours after those comments were made, is so disappointing, because after months on the campaign trail telling the American people that they want to reduce deficits and the debt, this rule opens the door to larger deficits and a bigger national debt. It is a fiscally reckless blueprint, and the American people deserve better.

Why do I say that?

Because this plan guts the existing pay-as-you-go rule that limits mandatory spending and tax breaks that add to our deficits.

It also creates a mechanism to do an end run against the pay-as-you-go law recently signed by President Obama that will limit increases in our national debt.

How does this proposal do that?

The rule and the laws we've been operating on say you can't add to the deficit by adding new spending entitlements. This rule, properly, keeps that restraint, as it should.

But the rule being proposed, the plan being proposed, also eliminates provisions that says you can't add to the deficit by creating special interest tax breaks. The proposal before us eliminates that limitation. It says that the Congress will ignore the deficit impact of tax breaks whether they're for hedge funds or for other special interests.

Now, Mr. Speaker, every small business knows that there are two sides to balancing the books: the costs incurred by the business and the revenue the business brings in.

This one-sided rule ignores half of that equation. No small business could operate and survive that way in the United States and neither can the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I plan to offer an amendment to the Republican plan that is very simple. It says that a measure may only qualify for an exemption under this subsection if it does not increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2011 through 2021 beyond the exemptions permitted under the current law of the land, under statutory PAYGO. And, at the appropriate moment, we will offer that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the American people did not bargain for a plan in the first 24 hours of the new Congress that would blow a hole in the deficit and expand the debt.

The chairman of the Rules Committee mentioned the recent bipartisan tax agreement. We also recently had a bipartisan commission on the deficit and debt reduction. It looked at both sides of the equation--spending and the fact that we have created lots of tax loopholes that have lost revenue to special interests. What this plan does, what the rule does, is say that that doesn't matter, that it doesn't count against the deficit.

In fact, the existing rules under the House say that you cannot use the budget reconciliation process to add to the deficit. Your rule specifically eliminates that restriction. Your rule says go ahead and use the budget reconciliation process to add to the deficit and debt. You strike it. You give a green light. This rule also contains, on page 28, a little noticed provision that opens the door to politically motivated, Enron-style accounting as a means to do an end run around the pay-as-you-go law signed by President Obama.

The current practice of this Congress has been that we will use the budget estimates of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to determine the deficit impact on the laws that we pass here in this body for the purpose of pay-as-you-go. That is because, while we should have a vigorous debate over policy, we don't want politicians inventing self-serving budget numbers.

Now, the Congressional Budget Office serves as our umpire. They call the balls and the strikes, as you know. Sometimes we don't like the calls they make. Sometimes we do. Yet what this rule says is we are going to take the umpire off the field when it comes to statutory PAYGO. We are going to substitute our accounting for the folks whose professional job it is to determine the deficit impact of different legislation that we pass.

I think when the American people find out that this opens the door to this kind of fun and games, they are going to ask themselves: Is this something I really bargained for?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source