Rep. Peters to introduce amendments to expose the true staggering cost of Republicans' budget plan and  protect essential NIH grant funding 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Representative Scott Peters (CA-50) excoriated Republicans for advancing a budget resolution that would saddle future generations with trillions of dollars in debt, contribute to inflation, and deliver the greatest benefits to top tax brackets instead of the middle class.   

 

In his remarks, Rep. Peters stated, "Billy Graham said, 'Give me five minutes with a person's checkbook and I will tell you where their heart is.' Well, if we look at the Republicans' proposed budget resolution, unfortunately we can see where their heart is, and it's not with the middle class, because budgets are about choices. This budget chooses to drastically cut revenues and increase the national debt at a time when the nation is already borrowing money just to pay our expenses, just to keep the lights on." 

 

He continued, "We spend more on interest on our $36 trillion national debt than we devote to Medicaid, schools or childcare, or the national defense. This budget cuts revenues at a time when the economy has low unemployment and high interest rates and does not need more stimulus for more deficit spending. What it means is higher interest rates and more inflation. Homeownership will get more expensive, and the cost of gas and groceries will continue to rise. Just yesterday, the Department of Labor announced that inflation went up another half percent." 

  

He concluded, "I'm really concerned that from the speaker of the House on down, the people are not standing up for this institution as a co-equal branch of government, as the government with the power of the purse. And we are not here to work for the president. We work with the president. We're not here to work for interest groups. We work with them, but we don't report to them. We report to our own people independently, as independently elected people. And I hope you all consider that it's not wrong to do your job. It's our duty to do our job."  

 

 

In addition to his opening remarks, Representative Peters plans to introduce two amendments to the Republican bill.  

The first would give an honest accounting of what the Republican plan would actually cost. Just as Republicans said the 2017 tax cuts would pay for themselves, they are claiming these tax cuts will pay for themselves. We know in hindsight, as many predicted in 2017, that those tax cuts did not pay for themselves. Yet, Republicans assume extending those very same tax cuts would spur 3% annual growth in the economy for 10 straight years, something that has only happened in four out of the last 25 years. This accounting gimmick accounts for $3 trillion in fake deficit reduction in their plan. According to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Budget, the Republican plan would increase the debt to nearly 126% the size of the economy. Rep. Peters' amendment would make clear that Republican bill would actually add $2.6 trillion to the national debt over 10 years.  

 

Rep. Peters' second amendment would protect the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from illegal cuts, like the one the Trump Administration is attempting to institute. In 2023, San Diego drew in nearly $2.2 billion dollars in funding from the NIH and the National Science Foundation. In turn, the public-private life sciences ecosystem in San Diego turned that $2.2 billion into $56.6 billion in economic output. Earlier this week, Rep. Peters led a demand to the Administration to reverse course.  

 

 

Read Rep. Peters' full opening remarks as delivered below.  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Billy Graham said, "Give me five minutes with a person's checkbook and I will tell you where their heart is." 

  

Well, if we look at the Republicans' proposed budget resolution, unfortunately we can see 

where their heart is, and it's not with the middle class, because budgets are about choices. 

  

This budget chooses to drastically cut revenues and increase the national debt at a time 

when the nation is already borrowing money just to pay our expenses, just to keep the lights on. 

  

The US borrows nearly $2 trillion a year just to pay our operating expenses. This budget cuts revenues at a time when interest from past investments is poised to become 

the biggest item in our current budgets. 

  

We spend more on interest on our $36 trillion national debt than we devote to Medicaid, schools or childcare, or the national defense. 

  

This budget cuts revenues at a time when the economy has low unemployment and high interest rates, and does not need more stimulus for more deficit spending. 

  

What it means is higher interest rates and more inflation. 

  

Homeownership will get more expensive, and the cost of gas and groceries will continue to rise. Just yesterday, the Department of Labor announced that inflation went up another half percent. 

  

Mr. Moore, I consider one of my really good friends in this Congress. But I would just remind us all that the growth projections for the TCJA were wildly optimistic. 

  

I think Senator McConnell said something like 4%, and they actually ended up being, under half of that. 

  

These tax cuts don't pay for themselves, and they don't induce growth in an economy 

that's already as hot as this one, with low unemployment and high interest rates. 

  

This budget would cut revenue by extending tax cuts not primarily for the middle class, 

although there are some parts of it, certainly that benefit the middle class. 

  

The bulk of this goes to people at the high, the highest top tax rates. And those are the very people who are best positioned to help us close this gap. 

  

Let's talk about 17% and 26%. 

  

What we learned in the testimony in this very hearing is that, the problem is that things have gotten more expensive as our demographics have changed over time. 

  

So, it's not fair to say 17% was what we spent before, because things are more expensive now. 

  

Health care is more expensive because our population is older. We're going to have to have more money to pay those expenses, even if we kept general spending the same.  

  

My colleague, Mr. Norman, ticked off a bunch of outrageous items, and I can't really argue that some of those spending items that he identified were ridiculous - but all of them started with an M. 

  

They were all millions of dollars, like single digit millions of dollars. We're talking about billions of dollars and trillions of dollars here. 

  

I'm happy to work with my colleagues. They know I am - to come up with spending cuts. 

We proposed doing this in a bipartisan way through a commission that would force us to face facts. 

  

I'm afraid we're not facing facts today. 

  

And, I would just say to everyone, I know that President Trump got elected. 

  

I don't want to be an election denier. He got a majority of the votes, and that's great. 

  

And he got over 50% of the votes. But every one of us, every one of us was elected on the exact same day to do a job here. 

  

And I know personally how hard it is to buck your party in this context, because in the trifecta that the Democrats had, I voted no on the budget. 

  

And let me tell you, it rained down on me. It was very unpopular. 

  

People screamed at me, but I thought there was a part of our proposal, that would have done great damage to the private investment in drug discovery, which is a huge part of my economy. 

  

They called me all sorts of names from the left. But I held my ground, and people at home 

knew I was standing up for them.  And they sent me back. 

  

And I would just ask you, some of you, I think, see parts of this and you disagree with it. Please, just don't go along. Please do your job. The job. Let's all do our jobs. The jobs we were elected to do on the exact same day as President Trump was elected. 

 

I'm really concerned that from the speaker of the House on down, the people are not standing up for this institution as a co-equal branch of government, as the government with the power of the purse. 

  

And we are not here to work for the president. We work with the president. We're not here 

to work for interest groups. We work with them, but we don't report to them. 

  

We report to our own people independently, as independently elected people. 

  

And I hope you all consider that it's not wrong to do your job. It's our duty to do our job. I yield back. 

 

###