[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5155-5156]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET RESOLUTION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DAVID N. CICILLINE

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 18, 2012

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, on March 29, 2012, less than a year after 
a similar proposal was defeated, the House Republican leadership held a 
vote on H. Con. Res. 112--The Republican Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 
Resolution. This budget proposal sets the wrong priorities for my home 
state of Rhode Island and the nation as a whole--extending tax cuts for 
the wealthiest Americans, making deep cuts to programs that serve 
middle class families, and ending the Medicare guarantee for our 
seniors.
  As the Congressman representing Rhode Island's First District, I have 
listened to families across my district who are tired of the same old 
political games that got our country into this mess to begin with. They 
know that Washington should put politics aside and work on policies 
that will create jobs, support the middle class, and put the economy 
back on the right track. Yet, the budget proposed by Representative 
Paul Ryan (R-WI), and approved 228-191 by the House of Representatives, 
would not only fail to create jobs, it would also give the wealthiest 
Americans an average tax cut of $150,000, cut education and job 
training programs by a total of $166 billion over the next ten years, 
slash transportation and infrastructure investments by at least twenty-
five percent over 10 years, and reduce investments in science, 
research, and technology by more than $100 billion over a decade.
  With so many Americans out of work, it's hard to believe that the 
House Republican leadership would ask members to support a budget 
proposal that would seriously undermine key investments that are so 
important to creating jobs. Rather than trying to pass another tax 
giveaway for the richest among us, House Republicans should join with 
Democrats and enact public policies that will actually benefit our 
seniors, and middle class and working families. Instead the Republican 
budget proposal will undermine our economic recovery, and replace the 
current health care system for our seniors with a voucher program that 
could allow Medicare to wither on the vine, create higher costs, and 
reduce the overall quality of health care services.
  That is why I supported an alternative budget proposal introduced by 
Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) that would have preserved the 
Medicare guarantee, permanently extended middle class tax cuts, and 
maintained vital investments in transportation jobs, manufacturing, and 
education--while also reducing the deficit through polices that balance 
spending cuts and increased revenue. This proposal stood in stark 
contrast to the Republican plan--and closely aligned with the 
priorities shared by many Rhode Islanders.
  On March 28, 2012, I spoke out against the Republican proposal on the 
House floor, and the following day I joined all of my Democratic 
colleagues and 10 Republicans in voting against this bill. With 
virtually no chance that this radical legislation will ever pass in the 
Senate, it is unfortunate that some in Washington have once again 
chosen political posturing over pragmatism.
  All of us in Congress need to help reignite the American dream and 
build ladders of opportunity for anyone willing to work hard, take 
responsibility, and play by the rules. There were alternative budget 
proposals presented in the House of Representatives during debate, 
including options offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) 
and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Both initiatives were 
superior to Representative Ryan's Republican budget document, and 
included provisions that would preserve the Medicare guarantee, 
eliminate tax subsidies for big oil companies and loopholes that 
encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas, and maintain vital 
investments in education, job creating initiatives, manufacturing, and 
capital access for small businesses and entrepreneurs. Ultimately, 
while I support a number of the proposals offered in both the CPC and 
CBC budget alternatives, I believed the Van Hollen proposal aligned 
most closely with priorities shared by many Rhode Islanders--including 
a permanent extension of the 2001 2003 tax cuts for the middle class. 
In addition, unlike both the CPC and CBC proposal, Representative Van 
Hollen's Democratic alternative adhered to the discretionary spending 
levels set in the Budget Control Act of 2011--an agreement that 
represented a bipartisan, bicameral compromise. In order to prevent a 
first ever default on our nation's obligations, and to avoid the very 
real potential of an economic catastrophe, I voted in favor of the 
Budget Control Act on August 8, 2011. To be clear, there was a lot 
about this compromise legislation that I did not like, but my 
prerequisite for voting in favor of the bill was that we avoid a 
default and we protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid 
beneficiaries, which this bill did. Just as I could not support 
Representative Ryan's proposal to walk away from this compromise 
legislation and make further, dramatic reductions to discretionary 
spending below the caps set by the Budget Control Act, I also could not 
support alternatives that did not adhere to the bipartisan, bicameral 
compromise we agreed to less than one year ago.
  There were other proposals, including one offered by Congressmen Jim 
Cooper (D-TN) and Steven LaTourette (R-OH) purportedly modeled after 
recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission (so named after the 
co-chairs of President Obama's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and 
Reform--former White House Chief of Staff under President Clinton, 
Erskine Bowles, and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson). The 
Simpson-

[[Page 5156]]

Bowles Commission clearly depicted the unsustainable nature of our 
country's deficit and debt, and delineated a number of policies for 
serious debate in order to improve our nation's fiscal trajectory. 
However, the budget proposal offered by Representatives Cooper and 
LaTourette contained provisions that I believe set the wrong 
priorities. For example, the Cooper-LaTourette plan contained $1 
trillion less in revenue increases as compared to the Simpson-Bowles 
Commission recommendations--further eroding the balance between revenue 
increases and spending reductions needed to achieve deficit reduction 
that does not fall disproportionately on the backs of the middle class 
and working families. In addition, the Cooper-LaTourette plan includes 
$100 billion more in discretionary program reductions than recommended 
by the Simpson-Bowles report, further distorting the ratio between 
revenue raisers and spending cuts. Furthermore, the Cooper-LaTourette 
proposal calls for a shift in corporate tax policy that the Treasury 
Department has argued would increase incentives for corporations to 
shift investment and jobs overseas. Lastly, the proposal from 
Congressman Cooper and LaTourette, like the Simpson-Bowles plan, would 
undermine the benefits and guarantees of Social Security and Medicare.
  Ultimately, with so many Rhode Islanders struggling to find work, our 
fragile economic recovery in the balance, and our seniors in need a 
strong voice to protect the benefits they earned and deserve, I 
supported an alternative budget proposal that would have preserved the 
Medicare guarantee, permanently extended middle class tax cuts, and 
maintained vital investments in transportation jobs, manufacturing, and 
education--while also reducing the deficit through polices that balance 
spending cuts and increased revenue. My constituents in Rhode Island's 
First Congressional District, and the American people as a whole, 
deserve nothing less.

                          ____________________