Date: 2011-02-16
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. were fortunate that the new Republican majority brought their proposal before this Congress the day after President Obama submitted his budget plan for next year. We are fortunate because it gives the American people the opportunity to compare very different approaches. The Presidents budget is tough but it is responsible. Its tough because it cuts nonsecurity discretionary spending by $400 billion over the next decade to the lowest share of the economy since the Eisenhower administration. Its responsible because it steadily reduces the deficit while making targeted investments in areas like education. clean energy. infrastructure. and scientific innovationinvestments that will strengthen our economy and make sure America wins the future in a competitive global marketplace. One of those key areas of investment the President has proposed is infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineershardly a leftwing groupissued a report card on the state of Americas deteriorating infrastructure. They gave us practically failing gradesmostly Ds and Dminusesfor the state of our roads. schools. transit. and drinking waternot grades that we would want our kids to bring home from school. So Im very pleased that the President has announced that he wants to make critical investments in this area. As reported yesterday in USA Today. using the analysis of the Associated General Contractorsagain. not a liberal grouphis plan could create about 5.4 million construction jobs and 10 million more jobs in related industries in the broader economy. At a time when the construction industry is facing over 20 percent unemployment. those are exactly the kinds of smart investments that will help grow our economy. This proposal and this investment is supported by a diverse range of groups. from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the AFLCIO. The Presidents tough and balanced approach stands in stark contrast to the proposal were seeing on the floor today. The proposal that were talking about today. with very immediate and deep cuts. is a reckless approach when too many families are struggling to make ends meet. and it will do virtually nothing to address our longterm structural deficit. The Economic Policy Institute found that the proposal before this House today would likely put 800.000 Americans out of work. Indeed. thats why the bipartisan commission charged with reducing our deficits and debt. along with the bipartisan DomeniciRivlin Commission. recommended against taking deep. immediate cuts. Yes. theyre coming together now to put together a plan to reduce the deficit in a stable way. No. to immediate deep cuts that could hurt a very fragile economy. Let me read you exactly what the bipartisan commission on deficit and debts reduction said. "In order to avoid shocking the fragile economy. the Commission recommends waiting until 2012 to begin enacting programmatic spending cuts." In other words. below the CR level. And thats exactly what the Presidents budget does. Why should we cut essential investments in Head Start and in education rather than eliminate huge taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry? In fact. just today. the GAO came out with a report talking about the huge bonanza oil companies are getting for lack of royalty payments on many of their lands. Just yesterday. in the Budget Committee. we had the OMB director. Jack Lew. testify. Mr. Lew reminded us that the last time he had testified before the Budget Committee was when he had served as the OMB Director for President Clinton. When he left office. he left the country with a $45.6 trillion surplus and an economy that during that 8year period added 20.8 million private sector jobs. Unfortunately. we know the end of the movie. Those huge surpluses were squandered. The previous administration to this one. the Bush administration. cut taxes for the very wealthy. And. through a number of other policy actions. turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into a sea of deficits. By the end of that 8year period. 653.000 private sector jobs were eliminated. Mr. Chairman. I hope we will oppose this approach and accept the approach the President has presented. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.