Reducing Non-Security Spending to Fiscal Year 2008 Levels Or Less

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Dreier has put additional pressure on me with his thoughtful remarks.

Let me say that there is nobody on this floor who doesn't believe that the deficit is a very, very substantial problem that confronts us; and I would hope that there is nobody on the floor who believes that it's going to be accomplished in a simple fashion to bring this deficit under control. But I fear that there is too much simplistic--not simple--simplistic rhetoric with reference to this deficit.

After borrowing trillions of dollars to finance tax cuts, a new entitlement, and two wars, our friends on the Republican side tell us they are now taking the deficit seriously. All of you have heard my comments about how under the Clinton administration the budget was balanced and how under the Reagan and Bush I and Bush II administrations it was not.

If our Republican friends mean it, if they were interested in the deficit as anything other than a political issue, if they actually use their House majority to back up their words with action, then no one, in my opinion, would be happier than me and our party, the Democratic Party.

Our deficit I think all of us should agree is too big for partisan politics. It cripples our children's opportunities. It makes it harder for them to pay for college education, buy a home, start a business, or plan a future.

I want my Republican friends to take the deficit seriously. I want my Democratic friends to take the budget deficit seriously--to join President Obama in making the hard choices it will take to get out of debt.

But, frankly, so far the opportunity to finally back up their words of fiscal discipline have been a record of disappointment.

A rules package, and I tell my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the rules package provides for $5 trillion in additional deficit spending over the next 10 years--$5 trillion; a vote to repeal health care reform is another $230 billion of deficit; a pledge to cut spending by a hundred billion, which it has taken them less than a month to break; and, today, a one-page resolution with no numbers and no specifics.

I think this resolution is unprecedented, certainly in the 30 years that I've been here, which gives to one person out of the 435 the opportunity and the authority to set a number that we will consider in this House. I don't think that's precedented. I don't think it's democratic. It's not transparent. And it's not an open process.

Colin Powell has already been quoted, but we're still waiting for the answer of what is going to be cut. At a time when getting out of debt, growing the economy, and creating jobs are our country's defining bipartisan challenges, we need hard choices--not more political theater.

Now, we passed a budget enforcement resolution which was criticized by the other side because we didn't pass a full budget. I think that's, perhaps, correct.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the additional 1 minute.

We were criticized; but in that budget enforcement resolution, we had a number, and when you voted on the rule, you knew the number you were voting on as a House of Representatives. Here you have no idea what you're voting on. You could be voting for 2008 numbers or anything less than that under this resolution.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? And I will yield my friend additional time.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

But let me say to the gentleman, it may be unprecedented times; but it does not warrant this unprecedented abdication of democracy in this House in setting what is probably the most critical question that confronts government: How much are you going to pay for it? I think we all agree on that. That's what is at issue here.

And this resolution does not allow Members of Congress to engage on that. It simply gives to one person the ability to set that number. It's not only unprecedented; it, in my opinion, is undemocratic--with a small ``d.'' It does not provide the transparency and the openness of which the gentleman has correctly spoken and I hope we pursue.

And I hope that we oppose this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source