[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 56 (Friday, April 15, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E738-E740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 14, 2011

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H. Con. Res. 34) 
     establishing the budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021:

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, as we debate the House budget resolution today, 
I ask my colleagues: are you here to make a point, or are you here to 
make a difference?
  We have reached a tipping point in our country's financial future. 
Our nation is pushed to the edge of a fiscal cliff. We are over $14 
trillion in debt. CBO projects that the President's budget request will 
cause net interest payments to skyrocket over the next 10 years--from 
$260 billion in 2012 to $931 billion in 2021. If we continue on our 
current path, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest 
payments to service the debt will consume all government revenues 
within 14 years. We're borrowing 41 cents on every dollar. And we're 
borrowing from nations such as China and Saudi Arabia that do not share 
our values or national priorities. Moody's has warned that our coveted 
AAA bond rating could be at risk in as little as a year. We've seen 
what a downgrade can do to foreign economies, and we must not let that 
happen here.
  Seeing the signs about our nation's financial future, I introduced 
legislation almost five years ago--during the last Republican House 
majority--to create an independent bipartisan commission to address 
unsustainable federal spending, putting everything on the table for 
discussion--entitlements, all other spending programs and tax policy--
and like the Department of Defense's Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission process, Congress would be required to vote up or down on 
the commission's recommendations. An iteration of this legislation 
became the blueprint for President's National Commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility and Reform, or the Bowles-Simpson Commission.
  The President appointed the Bowles-Simpson Commission. He established 
their working parameters in a manner that, quite frankly, I believed 
was designed to doom it to failure. Despite this, the report released 
last December by the commission was supported by a bipartisan majority 
of the commission's 18 members. It makes clear that addressing the debt 
and the deficit isn't just a simple exercise in rooting out waste, 
fraud and abuse, eliminating earmarks, and reining in discretionary 
spending. Those, to be sure, are important reforms, but alone don't 
come close to solving the debt and the deficit crisis. Reform must 
begin with entitlements and other mandatory spending and must also 
include all other sacred cows, including tax reform and defense 
spending.
  Until two days ago, the President barely acknowledged the work of his 
commission. He didn't help them assemble the necessary 14 votes to send 
their recommendations to Congress. Then, he walked away from his 
commission's recommendations, first by not expressing any views on 
their report, then silence during the State of the Union, and again 
silence in his FY 2012 budget request. On Wednesday, the President 
finally started to recognize the seriousness of this problem. His 
leadership is needed. But I was disappointed that he failed to offer 
specific solutions, and seemed more interested in staking out political 
positions than finding common ground. I hope his call for negotiations 
across the aisle to develop a legislative framework are successful, but 
this seems like yet another instance where the President is 
sidestepping the recommendations of his own fiscal commission.
  I believe that the Bowles-Simpson proposal offers the way forward for 
the most comprehensive and realistic solution to our nation's fiscal 
problems. I have repeatedly said that, while there are some changes I 
would make in the plan, if a version of the Bowles-Simpson plan were 
given a vote on the House floor, I would vote for it. But we don't have 
that choice in the House.
  My friend Jim Cooper, whom I have partnered with over the past four 
years to offer a bipartisan way forward to address the nation's 
financial crisis, initially planned to offer the principals of the 
Bowles-Simpson proposal as a substitute amendment to be considered 
today. Recognizing that the President's recent speech has inflamed 
partisan passions, he withdrew the amendment so as not to undercut 
efforts underway in the Senate by the so-called Gang of Six. Had the 
Cooper substitute been offered, I would have voted for it, even though 
I did not agree with every part of it, such as the reconciliation 
instructions Mr. Cooper had for the committee of jurisdiction over the 
federal workforce. I would have voted yes to indicate my continued 
support for the principals of the Bowles-Simpson commission. Mr. Cooper 
has engaged in the kind of bipartisan cooperation that we must have, 
the kind of forthright, realistic conversation about our nation's 
fiscal future in which we must engage across the aisle, across the 
Capitol and down Pennsylvania Avenue if we are to have any hope of 
coming up with a credible plan to protect the future of our children 
and grandchildren. 
  I see the Ryan proposal as an honest attempt to provide a blueprint 
to continue the conversation on our country's financial future and move 
forward so that a conference with the Senate can produce a budget plan 
that ensures our national security and protects the programs on which 
so many Americans rely. The Ryan bill may not pass the Senate, but I 
commend the chairman of the House Budget Committee for his courage in 
putting forth a bold proposal to address our nation's skyrocketing and 
unfunded financial obligations. While his focus is not the ``everything 
on the table'' approach I prefer, I believe Mr. Ryan could provide an 
opening to force both chambers and the President to deal with 
entitlement spending that is consuming the federal budget. He deserves 
credit for taking on an issue so many in Congress would rather continue 
to kick down the road.
  It's easy to stand in the well of the House and criticize any 
legislation. As I look at Chairman Ryan's measure, I don't agree with 
every provision. I believe there are some critical issues that are 
missing and things that must be changed, and there are several things 
that I do not support and will not support if authorizing legislation 
is offered to implement his budget blueprint.
  As I have stated, I believe everything must be on the table for 
discussion, starting with all entitlement spending, discretionary 
program spending, and tax policy. But we have reached the moment of 
truth for the kind of country we will leave to our children and 
grandchildren. Therefore, I will vote for the Ryan budget so that we 
can continue to move this process forward and continue the discussion.
  This proposal would put our nation on course to reduce all of the 
publicly held debt by 2060, a feat not reached since Andrew Jackson's 
presidency. Relative to the President's proposal, it cuts $6.2 
trillion. Under this plan, within four years, we would reach primary 
balance on our debt, which the President's proposal never attains.
  Reaching primary balance, which is when revenue is greater than 
spending less interest

[[Page E739]]

payments, is an important milestone that reduces a grave national 
security threat. This budget blueprint calls for significant reductions 
in discretionary spending, for reduced tax rates, and for repeal of the 
health care reform law. Significantly, Mr. Ryan's plan says we can no 
longer ignore the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that 
consume our budget. There may be disagreement on the significant 
changes in Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs that he proposes, 
and while his plan is silent on changes needed to reform Social 
Security entitlements, it does recognize that need. Mr. Ryan has pulled 
the curtain back on the mandatory spending elephant in the room that we 
can no longer ignore.
  As I have stated, I will vote for the Ryan budget so that we can move 
forward to fulfill our responsibility to come up with a budget for this 
fiscal year. We must avoid the recent fiasco we endured which brought 
us to the brink of a government shutdown because of the failure by the 
majority in the last Congress to produce a budget.
  That being said, I believe the Ryan budget comes up short in a number 
of areas. I will mention just a few.
  First, it misses an opportunity by not fully addressing the Social 
Security program's growing deficit. For the first time this year, with 
the Baby Boom generation starting to retire, more is being paid out in 
benefits than is coming in. I always ask students whether or not they 
expect to receive Social Security benefits upon retirement. Three years 
ago, one or two students would answer in the affirmative. Now, no one 
does. In calling for Social Security to be on the table, my sole 
motivation is to protect all those in or near retirement and to ensure 
that the Social Security program remains strong for future generations. 
The Ryan budget is lacking here.
  Second, the Ryan plan, I believe, unfairly targets the federal 
workforce. I believe that federal employees know that spending must be 
reduced to ensure that our country's financial future remains strong, 
and I believe that public servants would be the first in line to make 
the sacrifices needed. But the massive budget situation we face, I 
believe, calls for shared sacrifice that does not single out any one 
area of the federal budget.
  I regret that the Ryan proposal seeks to make government service an 
unattractive career choice by freezing pay levels, which the President 
has already frozen for two years, for an additional three years; by 
imposing drastic hiring restrictions, and by changing retirement plans. 
Unlike their counterparts in state government, federal employees pay 
Social Security taxes and contribute to their pensions. The Civil 
Service Retirement and Disability Fund is not facing insolvency.
  Federal employees are on the front lines working to ensure that our 
government is running as efficiently and effectively as possible to 
provide the services taxpayers expect. We must be careful in budget 
plans that we first do no harm in our vital efforts to attract, recruit 
and retain the best and brightest for public service. Day in and day 
out, federal employees make our nation a safer and better place.
  The FBI agent working to find a kidnapped child, the DEA agent 
keeping drugs out of schools, the DOJ attorney prosecuting a child 
molester, other law enforcement and intelligence agents risking their 
lives every day on the front lines side by side with our armed forces 
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the Global War on Terror--all 
are federal employees. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike 
Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional 
district. Imagine how a CIA employee or an FBI agent working side by 
side in Afghanistan with the U.S. military would feel knowing that his 
or her pay would be frozen for five years. A year ago January, I 
attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a 
Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operative Base Chapman near the 
Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The Washington Post has reported on ``the 
post 9/11 brain drain at the CIA.''
  The Border Patrol agent shot and killed in Arizona this past December 
who was working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our 
southern border, the Immigration and Custom Enforcement agent who was 
killed and the two who were shot this past February outside of Mexico 
City, doctors who tend to our veterans and wounded warriors in veterans 
hospitals and who are developing new prosthetic devices to help them 
recover, medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for 
cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and autism--all are dedicated federal 
employees who I'm sure could find more lucrative jobs in the private 
sector, but who are committed to public service. Dr. Francis Collins, 
the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the 
National Institutes of Health, is a federal employee. The National 
Weather Service meteorologist who tracks hurricanes, the SBA staffer 
who helps a new business start up, the FDA inspector working to stop a 
salmonella outbreak--all are federal employees. As we consider ways to 
find budget savings, it is important to remember the jobs federal 
employees perform.
  The third area in which I believe the Ryan budget could be improved 
is providing for the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. As 
the Congress deals with the budget, we must always do it in a way that 
does not neglect the needs of the poor. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) 
tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord.'' And in the 
New Testament Jesus talks a lot about the poor. In Matthew 25 he says 
that if we ignore the poor and hungry it is the same as ignoring him.
  Are we giving false hope to the neediest of our society by refusing 
to acknowledge that society's safety nets have such gaping holes in 
their finances that they will collapse within 20 years? We must 
carefully consider proposals that impact the most vulnerable. The 
budget before us assumes that program cuts can be absorbed by 
projecting that unemployment levels will drop to an unheard of 2.8 
percent in 10 years. This would be the lowest levels since 1953. I 
believe this is unrealistic when considering the unemployment rate has 
historically been 5 percent.
  The fourth area of concern with the Ryan budget is its lack of a 
reform plan to make the tax code fairer and simpler. This budget takes 
some steps forward, but it could be improved by forcefully calling for 
a closer examination of tax expenditures, as was detailed by the 
Bowles-Simpson Commission.
  Our colleagues across the Capitol may have the comprehensive Bowles-
Simpson plan as a budget choice, and I applaud the efforts of six 
senators who are working across the aisle to translate this proposal 
into legislative text. I wholeheartedly support the work of Saxby 
Chambliss, Republican of Georgia; Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia; 
Mike Crapo, Republican of Idaho; Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois; 
Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, and Kent Conrad, Democrat of North 
Dakota.
  It is disappointing that some have attacked these senators for daring 
to engage in a discussion putting everything on the table. Regretfully, 
this seems to be a tried and true technique whenever an attempt to 
reform the tax code is made.
  Senator Tom Coburn is an honest, ethical, decent, member of Congress 
with whom I served when he was in the House. One of our nation's 
leading conservative budget hawks, who may have as good, if not a 
better record than most members of the House and Senate on tax policy, 
he is currently leading an effort to eliminate one of the more 
recognizable tax expenditures, the credit given to the producers of 
ethanol. This is a tax credit that many, such as the editorial board of 
the Wall Street Journal, think should be eliminated. Ethanol, through 
tax credits, tariffs, and friendly regulations, is one of the most 
subsidized industries in the United States. The government has created 
a perverse policy in which farmers are incentivized to grow corn to 
produce a ``dirty fuel.'' Food prices rise because this domestic crop 
does not enter our food supply.

  Yet Americans for Tax Reform, led by Grover Norquist, has been 
engaging in bullying tactics designed to stop Senator Coburn's effort 
and exert undue influence on this process. This is the same Grover 
Norquist who, according to Senate Report 109-325, ``Gimmie Five--An 
Investigation of Tribal Lobbying Matters, allowed disgraced and 
convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff to use ATR as a conduit to finance 
grassroots lobbying campaigns. When this occurred, ATR kept a cut for 
itself. Watch the documentary Casino Jack It's all there.
  We will never be able to reform the tax code if any attempt to 
eliminate a tax expenditure--spending through the tax code--is equated 
to a tax increase. Senator Coburn has called out ATR and Mr. Norquist, 
pointing out that by this logic, ``reducing provisions in the code such 
as the Earned Income Tax Credit would constitute a violation of your 
pledge [to oppose tax increases] unless it was `offset' by another so-
called `tax cut,' such as an expansion of the ethanol subsidy. That is 
hardly sound conservative economics.''
  On March 24, the New York Times reported that General Electric, which 
posted a profit of $14.2 billion, of which $5.1 billion came from 
operations within the United States, did not pay any taxes to the 
federal government. Not only did they owe nothing to the federal 
government, they claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. Many provisions 
used by their accountants were initially designed as short-term tax 
breaks to spur economic growth. But as frequently happens, such as with 
the ethanol subsidy, once a tax cut is enacted, it is nearly impossible 
to eliminate. If this is not an example of the need to fully reexamine 
our tax code, I don't know what is. That's why everything in our budget 
discussion must be on the table.
  There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, but the 
longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be 
and greater the number of Americans will be hurt.
  America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. As a nation 
we are moving

[[Page E740]]

closer and closer to the edge of the financial cliff. A few steps 
forward and we will start a free fall into a canyon of debt which could 
be the economic death of America as we know it.
  Is that what we want for our children and grandchildren?
  Have we lost the national will to make tough decisions that may 
require sacrifice?
  Have we lost the political courage to reject the partisan and special 
interest demands and do what is right for our country?
  This is an American issue; not a Republican issue or a Democrat 
issue. I will continue to work to try to achieve balance in our budget 
plan. Our goal must be a bipartisan document that can pass the House 
and the Senate. Is the Ryan plan perfect? No. But it at least 
recognizes the road that we must take. How we get there is the 
conversation we must continue to have because the financial future for 
our children and grandchildren is at stake.
  I urge my colleagues to heed the wisdom of the father of our country 
at his farewell address in 1796. President George Washington admonished 
his fellow countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon 
posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.''

                          ____________________