Yesterday the U.S. House approved a bill to require additional Congressional Budget Office analysis on legislation with a large price tag. The concept is intended to reduce the apparent cost of tax cuts to the federal budget. Iowa’s representatives split on party lines over this bill and proposed amendments, including one offered by Democrat Leonard Boswell (IA-03).

Pete Kasperowicz explained the key point of H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act:

The bill requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide economic analyses of bills with major budgetary impacts – those that have an effect of 0.25 percent of GDP or more, or about $38 billion last year. The analysis would describe the economic impact of the bill, including on GDP, business investment, employment and other economic variables.

Republicans cast the bill as way that Congress can get more information about how the bills they pass would affect these variables.

During yesterday’s floor debate, House Democrats described the bill’s goal differently:

Democrats said Republicans are hoping to write into law this requirement in a bid to make it easier to justify tax cuts because the CBO would presumably find that tax cuts would help the economy.

“Their only interest, almost to the point of a fetish, is to … favor tax cuts as the only ways and means of growing our economy,” Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) said. “This legislation would allow Republicans to really, really understate the effect of tax cuts on the deficit, hiding their impact, masking their real cost, and paving the way for extensions and new tax policies that favor tax cuts only.”

Moore argued further that Republicans only seem interested in the effect of tax cuts on the economy, and said Democrats could argue that CBO should run dynamic scoring on government programs that help the economy – “Investments like early childhood education,” she said as an example.

“Why don’t we dynamic scoring on that? Healthcare. What about scoring the impact of what providing healthcare would do in terms of decreasing the costs to our companies?” […]

“This bill is designed to make it easier to pass large tax cuts without having to find real savings in our current budget,” Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) said. “It relies on the thoroughly discredited notion that tax cuts do not add to the deficit, that they magically pay for themselves.”

Most Republican-backed legislation gets at least a dozen or two votes from House Democrats, but this bill passed by 242 to 179 with only four Democrats in favor. Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) were among the 179 Democrats who voted no. Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) were part of the united GOP caucus supporting the bill.

Before the final vote on passage, the House rejected five Democratic amendments to the bill, as well as a motion to recommit authored by Boswell. All three Iowa Democrats voted for every amendment, while Latham and King opposed them all. Kasperowicz summarized the amendments:

Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), to add language criticizing estimates that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would raise federal revenues. Rejected 174-244.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), to require macroeconomic analysis of bills reported by the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate. Rejected 177-237.

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), to require analysis of income inequality. Rejected 171-243.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), to require analysis on how small business “HUB” zones. Rejected 173-243.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), to require CBO to also estimate how many jobs would be created. Rejected 174-245.

Then Boswell offered his motion to recommit with instructions, which went down on a similar 183 to 237 party-line vote. A press release from Boswell’s office included his floor statement in support of the amendment.

Later this year, I expect Boswell’s re-election campaign to let voters in Iowa’s third Congressional district know about this proposal and Latham’s vote against it.

Boswell Offers Amendment to Protect Seniors

Motion to Recommit would require CBO analysis on major legislation’s impact on Social Security, Medicare and the Medicare Trust Fund

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Leonard Boswell (IA-3) today submitted an amendment to H.R. 3582, a bill that requires the Congressional Budget Office to prepare a macroeconomic impact analysis on major legislation.

Boswell’s amendment, offered as a Motion to Recommit, would require the CBO to prepare for each bill or resolution reported by any committee of either Chamber an impact analysis of the budgetary effects major legislation would have on Medicare benefits, Beneficiaries and the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

“To date, we have seen nothing from the Republican Party that would encourage job growth, stabilize the American family, or help seniors pay for their medicine. Instead, the policies we have seen attempt to take from hard working American’s the assistance they have been promised, and that they have paid into their entire working careers,” Boswell said.

“Seniors have a right to know when their benefits are being cut, or when the Social Security Trust Funds are being drained. They should not have to fear each day what this chamber’s leadership is going to do to their benefits. American seniors have a right to know,” continued Boswell.

“That is why I am offering this amendment today.  To ensure that Iowa’s 450,000+ seniors know when legislation could tamper with their hard-earned benefits.”

The full text of Boswell’s floor statement is below the break.

—

Thank you Mr./Madam Speaker.

Let me be clear. The passage of this amendment will add protections for America’s seniors to this bill.

It will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If it’s adopted, my amendment will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon.

My motion to recommit will protect Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries, and repair the trust between seniors and this body.

The republican leadership has – for more than a year – promised that slash-and-burn legislation would revitalize this nation and empower employers.

However, we are still waiting on millionaire-job-creators to show us the jobs.

To date, we have seen nothing from the Republican Party that would encourage job growth, stabilize the American family, or help seniors pay for their medicine.

Instead, the policies we have seen attempt to take from hard working American’s the assistance they have been promised, and that they have paid into their entire working careers.

Last year we were promised legislation that would fuel job growth.  We ended up with a budget that would pay for a tax break for the wealthy by dismantling Medicare.

Instead of providing the benefits these workers had earned, their budget attempted to charge seniors higher premium costs for fewer benefits.

Seniors were let down when this plan is that it had enough republican support to pass this chamber.

Like me, seniors will be disheartened once more when the Republican Budget on the floor next month again attempts to end Medicare.

Seniors have a right to know when their benefits are being cut, or when the Social Security Trust Funds are being drained.

They should not have to fear each day what this chamber’s leadership is going to do to their benefits.

American seniors have a RIGHT to KNOW.

That is why I am offering this amendment today.  To ensure that Iowa’s four hundred and fifty thousand-plus seniors know when legislation could tamper with their hard-earned benefits.

My amendment will side with our seniors by requiring an assessment of each bill to show how it will affect the programs our seniors rely on.

Voting for this amendment will prove to America’s seniors that you are on their side and that you care about the programs that make this country great.

The greatest success of Medicare and Social Security is that – in a time of need – these programs brought American’s over the age of 60 out of poverty, and ensured their access to care.

These programs honor America’s work ethic, and the communities that we build together.

My amendment would provide peace of mind by ensuring that any attempt to change Social Security, Medicare, and the Medicare Trust Fund will be reported to Congress and the public.

Should a bill harm the solvency of the trust fund, lessen the benefits owed to American workers, or command that seniors to pay more in premium costs, our seniors will know.

Americans who are enrolled in Social Security and Medicare have paid into these programs throughout their entire careers, and they have helped to make this country what it is today.

It is our responsibility to work together and preserve the structure of Medicare.  We must provide America’s seniors with a viable safety net and insurance plan for their future.

I will continue to fight for proposals that strengthen Medicare and the benefits that American retirees have worked for throughout their lives.  I hope you will join me.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote Yes on my amendment.

Also on February 2, the House rejected a Democratic motion to instruct members of a conference committee negotiating a payroll tax cut extension. The payroll tax cut will expire at the end of February if the House and Senate cannot agree on a longer-term deal. Yesterday’s motion would have told House negotiators “to recede from the House position which allows some funds from state unemployment funds to be used for re-employment demonstration projects.” Braley, Loebsack and Boswell all voted for that motion, while Latham and King voted against it.