Providing For Consideration Of House Resolution 38, Reducing Non-Security Spending To Fiscal Year 2008 Levels of Less
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
Here we go again. As my colleague said, if this were a serious proposal on the budget, you would have a budget number in this document. There is no number in this document.
Look, on opening day our Republican colleagues passed a measure that immediately gutted the pay-as-you-go rule that we have in this body and did an end run around the pay-as-you-go law. A few days later, we figured out why they did that, because they added $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over 20 years. Those aren't my numbers, those are the numbers of the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office with respect to the impact of their effort to repeal health care reform instead of doing what we should be doing, which is focusing on jobs.
That measure on opening day also did another thing. It gave the chairman of the Budget Committee unprecedented power to unilaterally pick the budget ceilings, the spending ceilings for this entire Congress. No input from anybody else, no debate, no vote. So all of us thought when this new measure was coming up maybe now we're going to have some accountability. Maybe this body will have an opportunity to vote on the very important spending ceilings for the United States Congress and for the government. But lo and behold hold, when you look at the resolution, there's no number. Where's the beef?
And I have to say to my colleagues that, if you want transparency, why are you hiding the ball? Is the number going to be 100 billion? Is it going to be 80 billion? Is it going to be 60 billion? We hear all different numbers in the press out there, and they haven't put it in the measure. Instead, they've said once again, we're going to allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to decide.
Now, I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee, but none of us should be contracting out our votes and our responsibilities to another Member of Congress. We shouldn't ever do that. Certainly we shouldn't be doing that on something as important as setting the overall budget and spending ceilings for the United States Government. That's irresponsible. And yet that's what this rule will ask every Member to do--contract out his or her vote to one person.
So why are we doing this? Why are we bringing a budget resolution to the floor with no number? As my colleague said, timing is everything here. This is an opportunity to have a press release tomorrow, the day the President's going to deliver the State of the Union address, to create the illusion that they're making progress on the budget number, without a number.
Now, we heard from our colleagues on the Republican side, Well, you know what? We have to wait for the Congressional Budget Office to tell us what their projections are so we can figure out the magnitude of the reductions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We asked them, Why don't we have the number? They said, Well, we've got to wait for CBO.
We are pleased to hear the newfound respect for the CBO numbers, but here's my point. That's going to happen within 24 hours of tomorrow. Twenty-four hours. We could have a budget resolution with the beef, with the number, so everyone could decide what the ceilings are going to be. No, we've got to do it tomorrow. Why? State of the Union address. Great press release.
Now, I've heard my colleagues say they've got to do this because there was nothing in place in the House from a budget perspective. Well, in fact, the House last year passed a budget enforcement act. I've got it right here. It's got a number in it. It's got a number in it like these budget documents have.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I would like to ask my friend what was the vote in the House on that budget that my friend was just talking about?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I don't remember the exact vote, but it passed, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DREIER. It was deemed. There was never a vote in this institution on it, Mr. Speaker.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There was a vote on a resolution in the House.
If you want to talk about deeming----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Listen, what we are doing today is the ultimate example of deeming. We are passing a resolution that deems, in advance, the passage of a number that we don't even know, and it's going to be decided by one person. We are deeming that individual all the authority. And the shame of it is that that's a process that I think we all recognize is flawed. And yet this is deeming on steroids.
So I would suggest that we come up with a real number, put some beef on this, have a real argument, and let every Member vote and take responsibility.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, as those of us on this side of the aisle have said, we need to focus our efforts on job creation and getting the economy going. I know that the chairman said that is what this bill is all about, but let's look at what the Bipartisan Commission on Deficit and Debt Reduction said. They said two things: one, absolutely we need to put our country on a sustainable path toward deficit reduction, and we should work together to get that done.
But they also said another thing. They said draconian cuts right now would, in fact, reverse the economic progress that we are making, and that it would threaten the fragile economic recovery and it would hurt job creation in this country, which is one reason we would like to know what the number is, and I would yield immediately if you can tell me whether it is going to be $100 billion this year, $80 billion, $60 billion, whatever it will be, because there is no number. And if you've got it, it should have been in here.
Let me get to the other issue the gentleman raised. We have pointed out that if you do the $100 billion cut, which is what you all talked about in the fall, right now in the immediate moment, it results in approximately 20 percent across-the-board cuts. Now, all of you say, whenever we raise specifics like cutting research for treatment and cures at NIH, no, no, no, we're not going to cut that. Then we say, okay, you're going to cut the FBI budget because that is not a part of the protected budget. No, no, no, you say, we're not going to cut that. You keep moving stuff off the table.
You know what that does to the rest of the budget? It means it goes from a 20 percent cut to 30 percent to 40. Who knows what it is.
But the point we are making is you haven't given us the starting point number; so you don't have a clue, and of course we don't either. But you don't have a clue because you haven't come up with a number. And we know there has been a lot of discussion on your side of the aisle--it's no secret--about what that number will be, you amended this rules provision, but if you've got the number, put it in here now, and if you're going to get it the day after tomorrow, on Wednesday, wait 24 hours, and let this body vote on it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his very useful guidance, but let me just tell you this: The fact of the matter is, in the spring, we will begin the budget process in the Budget Committee. We are now dealing with fiscal year 2011.
As the chairman knows, there was a budget resolution in effect at the end of the last Congress that had a number in it. You chose not to extend it. Now, for the first time ever, you have asked this House--every Member--to surrender his or her responsibility on the number to one person. That is budget malpractice, and it also cedes our responsibility as Members on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman's dramatically raising the level of a simple two-paragraph House resolution that is the first step in a process that will allow the Budget Committee to do its work, to allow the appropriators and, through the appropriators, the full House--Democrats and Republicans alike--to establish those priorities.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I will yield in just a second.
So I would say to my friend that we do very much want, Mr. Speaker, to have a chance for this institution--and I hope Democrats will join in support of H. Res. 38 when it's voted on tomorrow--to go on record, demonstrating the institution's commitment to having heard the message from the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Out of respect for my friend, I yield myself 15 seconds and I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My question, Mr. Chairman, is simple: Do you think it makes a difference to the process whether the number that ends up being here is $120 billion, which may mean a 30 percent across-the-board cut, or do you think it matters that it's $100 billion or $80 billion?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source