Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
RESEARCH TO REHAB LOW INCOME
HOUSING.
THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.
WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH
REPRESENTATIVE GWEN MOORE, A
MEMBER OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE.
CHAPLAIN CONROY: LET US PRAY.
LOVING AND GRACIOUS GOD, WE
GIVE YOU THANKS FOR GIVING US
ANOTHER DAY.
HELP US ON THIS DAY TO DRAW
CLOSER TO YOU SO THAT WITH YOUR
SPIRIT AND YOUR PRESENCE AMONG
US WE MAY ALL FACE THE TASKS OF
THIS DAY.
BLESS THE MEMBERS OF THE
PEOPLE'S HOUSE.
HELP THEM TO THINK CLEARLY,
SPEAK CONFIDENTLY AND ACT
COURAGEOUSLY IN THE BELIEF THAT
ALL NOBLE SERVICE IS BASED UPON
PATIENCE, TRUTH AND LOVE.
DURING THIS WEEK, WE ASK YOUR
BLESSING ON AMERICA'S TEACHERS
WHO GIVE THEIR LIVES AND TALENT
TO EMPOWER YOUNG AMERICANS WITH
THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO CREATE,
MOLD PRODUCTIVE LIVES.
BLESS THE MILLIONS OF FOSTER
PARENTS WHO HAVE GENEROUSLY
PROVIDED HOMES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
IN NEED OF SAFE AND SECURE
SHELTER.
MAY THEY BE ENSURED OF THEIR
APPRECIATION OF A GRATEFUL
NATION AND MAY ALL THAT IS DONE
THIS DAY BE FOR YOUR GREATER
HONOR AND GLORY.
AMEN.
THE CHAIR HAS
EXAMINED THE JOURNAL OF THE
ANNOUNCES TO THE HOUSE HIS
LAST DAY'S PROCEEDINGS AND
APPROVAL THEREOF.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 1 OF RULE 1
THE JOURNAL STANDS APPROVED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM KANSAS RISE?
I DEMAND A VOTE ON
AGREEING TO THE SPEAKER'S
APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL.
THE QUESTION IS ON
AGREEING TO THE SPEAKER'S
APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE JOURNAL IS APPROVED.
THE GENTLELADY FROM KANSAS.
MR. SPEAKER, I
OBJECT TO THE VOTE ON THE
GROUNDS THAT A QUORUM IS NOT
PRESENT AND I MAKE A POINT OF
ORDER THAT A QUORUM IS NOT
PRESENT.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE
8 OF RULE 20, FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS ON THIS QUESTION
ARE POSTPONED.
TODAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
WILL BE LED BY THE GENTLEMAN
FROM COLORADO, MR. COFFMAN.
I PLEDGE
ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO
STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THE CHAIR WILL
ENTERTAIN UP TO FIVE REQUESTS
FOR ONE-MINUTE SPEECHES ON EACH
SIDE.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO RISE?
MR. SPEAKER, I
RISE TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR
ONE MINUTE.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
MINUTE?
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ADDRESS
THE HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION,
SO ORDERED.
MR. SPEAKER, TODAY
I'M ANNOUNCING MY INTENTION TO
OFFER AN AMENDMENT ON THE
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL TO
REDUCE OUR MILITARY FOOTPRINT
AND SPENDING IN EUROPE.
IN JANUARY, THE PENTAGON
ANNOUNCED THAT TWO U.S. ARMY
COMBAT BRIGADE TEAMS WOULD BE
WITHDRAWN FROM EUROPE.
I DON'T THINK THAT GOES FAR
ENOUGH.
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS ONLY A
STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
WE SHOULD RETAIN ONLY THE
THINGS NECESSARY FOR
CAPABILITIES AND WITHDRAW ALL
EUROPE.
FOUR COMBAT BRIGADES FROM
IN ORDER FOR THE U.S. MILITARY
TO MODERNIZE AND MOVE FORWARD
TOWARDS A MORE AGILE STRATEGY,
WE MUST CLOSE BASES UP IN
EUROPE.
THERE IS NO LONGER STRATEGIC
REASON TO MAINTAIN NEARLY
80,000 TROOPS IN EUROPE.
ADDITIONALLY, ONLY FOUR OF OUR
28 NATO ALLIES ARE SPENDING
MORE THAN 2% OF THEIR G.D.P. ON
DEFENSE.
THE REASON WHY THEY COULD GET
AWAY WITH SPENDING SO LITTLE ON
DEFENSE IS THAT THEY ARE
RELYING ON THE UNITED STATES TO
PROVIDE IT FOR THEM.
WE CURRENTLY SPEND 4.7% OF
G.D.P. ON DEFENSE BUT WE SHOULD
HAVE HIGHER PRIORITIES FOR OUR
DEFENSE DOLLARS THESE DAYS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM RHODE ISLAND SEEK RICK
ANYTHING?
-- SEEK RECOGNITION?
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
FOR ONE MINUTE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
I RISE TO HONOR
TIM ERNSHAW WHO WAS NAMED
INVESTIGATOR OF THE YEAR BY THE
INVESTIGATION SERVICES WHICH IS
THE LARGEST COMMERCIAL PROVIDER
OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
HE WAS CHOSEN OUT OF A GROUP OF
NEARLY 2,300 FULL-TIME
EMPLOYEES ALL ACROSS THE
COUNTRY BASED ON HIS
EXCEPTIONAL PERFORM ONS SHOWN
THROUGH PRODUCTION AND QUALITY
METRICS, MENTORING OTHERS,
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP.
HE HAS WORKED FOR THEM FOR THE
PAST 7 1/2 YEARS, LIVES WITH
HIS WIFE, COLLEEN, IN MY
DISTRICT IN NORTH PROVIDENCE,
RHODE ISLAND, WHERE THEY'RE
ACTIVE IN SEVERAL CHARITABLE
AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
I WAS HONORED TO WELCOME HIM TO
MY OFFICE RECENTLY AND
CONGRATULATE HIM ON WINNING
THIS AWARD.
WE ALL TAKE GREAT PRIDE IN HIS
ACCOMPLISHMENTS TODAY.
HIS PROFESSIONALISM AND WORK
ETHIC ARE A GREAT EXAMPLE OF
RHODE ISLAND'S FIRST
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM ARKANSAS RISE?
I SEEK PERMISSION TO ADDRESS
THE HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARKANSAS IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
I RISE TODAY TO REMEMBER THE
SERVICE OF JOE LANDERS, CHIEF
POLICE OF LOWELL, ARKANSAS, WHO
DIED FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 4, AS
A RESULT OF INJURIES SUFFERED
IN A HIT-AND-RUN DRUNK DRIVER
ACCIDENT WHILE ON VACATION IN
FLORIDA APRIL 27.
CHIEF LANDERS WAS A DEDICATED
PUBLIC SERVANT, EVERYTHING YOU
COULD WANT IN A LEADER.
WOMACK: HE LOVED HIS JOB,
HIS COMMUNITY, THOSE UNDER HIS
COMMAND AND THE PEOPLE HE
SERVED.
IT WAS EVIDENT IN THE WAY HE
CARRIED OUT HIS DUTIES.
HE BEGAN HIS CAREER IN 1995.
HE WAS PROMOTED TO CHIEF IN
1997 AND THE LAST 15 YEARS LED
HIS ORGANIZATION DURING A
PERIOD OF UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH.
HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOWELL
MOTORCYCLE PATROL, DISPATCH
CENTER, K-9 UNIT AND A SPECIAL
RESPONSE TEAM.
IN TWEEF CHIEF LANDERS WAS A
LAW ENFORCEMENT ADVISOR IN
IRAQ.
MR. SPEAKER, OUR STATE AND
NATION HAS LOST A VALUED MEMBER
OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMMUNITY.
TOMORROW WILL BE A SAD DAY WHEN
WE SAY OUR FINAL GOODBYES.
I SPEAK FOR ARKANSAS' THIRD
DISTRICT IN EXPRESSING OUR
DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY,
THE CITY OF LOWELL AND THE
GREAT STATE OF ARKANSAS AND I
YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
FOR ONE MINUTE AND TO REVISE
AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
MR. SPEAKER, WE HONOR
AMERICAN TEACHERS NATIONWIDE
THIS WEEK WHO DAY IN AND DAY
OUT WORK TO MAKE A FUTURE
BRIGHTER FOR AMERICA.
WE HAVE HAD AT LEAST
ONE OR MORE TEACHERS WHO SHAPED
OUR LIVES AND BELIEVED IN US.
MY WAS MRS. COLLINS WHO TAUGHT
ME IN THE FIRST AND SECOND
GRADE.
THIS NO-NONSENSE WOMAN WITH A
TEXAS DRAWL WAS DETERMINED THAT
DESPITE THE FACT THAT I COULD
BE A HANDFUL I WAS GOING TO
BEHAVE AND LEARN AND LEARN I
DID.
AFTER A FEW YEARS BACK I MADE
AN EFFORT TO HAVE LUNCH WITH
MRS. COLLINS AND SHE MADE THE
COMMENT I WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL
IF I ONLY APPLIED MYSELF AND
SHE WAS RIGHT.
HER GUIDANCE BACK THEN SHOWED
ME HOW MUCH I COULD ACCOMPLISH
WITH HARD WORK AND HE FOCUS.
IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AND
NATIONWIDE, TEACHERS MEET THE
CHALLENGES IN THE CLASSROOM
WITH GRACE AND GRIT EVERY DAY.
AS WE RECOGNIZE THESE TEACHERS
THROUGHOUT OUR COUNTRY, WE
THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO EVERY
WEEK OF THE SCHOOL YEAR.
GOD BLESS YOU, MRS. COLLINS,
FOR ALL THE STUDENTS WHOSE
LIVES YOU TOUCHED.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
GENTLELADY FROM MICHIGAN SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ADDRESS
REVISE AND EXTEND.
THE HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE AND TO
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLELADY FROM MICHIGAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
MR. SPEAKER, IT'S
MY GREAT HONOR TO CONGRATULATE
THE MICHIGAN RED DEVIL.
THE 107 FLY THE A-10 AND
RETURNED FROM A REDEPLOYMENT TO
AFGHANISTAN WHERE THEY
PERFORMED SO BRAVELY, MADE US
SO PROUD.
IT WAS ONE OF THE UNITS
SCHEDULED TO BE ELIMINATED
UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED
BUDGET BUT FORTUNATELY THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
WILL PREVENT A DEFENSE
RE-AUTHORIZATION BILL SCHEDULED
FOR A FLOOR VOTE HERE NEXT WEEK
WHICH REVERSES THAT AND SAVES
THE 107TH ALONG WITH PROTECTING
THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD ACROSS
OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY.
INSTEAD THE AIR FORCE WILL DO A
COST ANALYSIS OF THE AIR
NATIONAL GUARD WHICH IS GOOD
BECAUSE THEY PERFORM 35% OF THE
FLYING MISSIONS FOR JUST 6% OF
THE BUDGET.
THAT IS THE BEST *** FOR THE
TAXPAYERS' BUCK IN THESE VERY
RESTRAINED BUDGETARY TIMES.
THIS HOUSE, MR. SPEAKER, IS
GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR
THE GREAT AMERICAN PATRIOTS OF
THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD, AND I
URGE OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE
SENATE TO DO THE SAME.
I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MINUTE.
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
DOES
CONSENT?
I DO.
THE GENTLEMAN SEEK UNANIMOUS
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
MR. SPEAKER, IN CONGRESS IT'S
OUR JOB TO HELP PROTECT THE
AMERICAN DREAM.
WE HAVE TO REMAIN
THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY WHERE
ANYONE WILLING TO WORK HARD AND
STAY FOCUSED CAN SECURE A
BRIGHTER FUTURE.
YET, IF CONGRESS FAILS TO ACT,
SEVEN MILLION COLLEGE STUDENTS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY WILL SEE
THEIR STUDENT LOAN INTEREST
RATES DOUBLE TO 6.8%.
I MET SOME OF THESE STUDENTS
COLLEGE.
LAST WEEK AT PALM BEACH STATE
AND WHETHER IT'S THE YOUNG MAN
WHO WORKS 85 HOURS A WEEK WHILE
CARRYING 12 CREDIT HOURS, THE
FIRST IN HIS FAMILY TO GO TO
COLLEGE, OR THE YOUNG MAN WHO
DESCRIBED WITH PASSION THE
14-YEAR PATH HE'S EMBARKED UPON
TO SERVE OUT HIS DREAM BY
BECOMING A SURGEON.
THEY'RE PURSUING HIGHER
EDUCATION AS A PATH OF
OPPORTUNITY.
IF WE WANT TO PROTECT THE
AMERICAN DREAM HERE IN CONGRESS
, THEN WE SHOULD GIVE
LEGISLATION THAT KEEPS INTEREST
RATES LOW A FAIR SHOT.
AFTER ALL, THAT'S ALL AMERICA'S
STUDENTS ARE ASKING FOR, A FAIR
I YIELD BACK.
SHOT AT THE AMERICAN DREAM.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
AND EXTEND.
FOR ONE MINUTE AND TO REVISE
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
MR. SPEAKER, FOR ALMOST 40
MONTHS UNEMPLOYMENT HAS BEEN AT
ABOVE 8%.
THAT'S TOO HIGH FOR TOO LONG.
RIGHT NOW OVER 88
MILLION PEOPLE ARE NOT EVEN
CONSIDERED IN THE WORK FORCE.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GIVEN
UP ON SEARCHING FOR A JOB.
IT'S TIME TO RESTORE ECONOMIC
FREEDOM TO AMERICA AND PUT
AMERICANS BACK TO WORK.
THIS WILL HAPPEN WHEN
WASHINGTON STOPS BEING AN
OBSTACLE TO JOB CREATION
THROUGH ITS OVERTAXING,
OVERSPENDING, OVERREGULATING
PRACTICES.
AND STARTS PROMOTING AN
ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT WHERE OUR
JOB CREATORS CAN DO WHAT THEY
DO BEST, CREATE JOBS.
AMERICANS ARE READY TO GO TO
WORK.
I SPONSORED A JOB FAIR IN EAST
LIVERPOOL, OHIO, WHERE HUNDREDS
OF OHIOANS SHOWED UP FOR A
CHANCE TO GET IN THE WORK
FORCE.
MANY JOB SEEKERS ACTUALLY LEFT
THE JOB FAIR WITH A RENEWED
SENSE OF CONFIDENCE, A BELIEF
THAT THE AMERICAN DREAM STILL
MIGHT EXIST FOR THEM.
MR. SPEAKER.
OF THIS,
AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT SEEK
RECOGNITION?
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE AND TO REVISE AND EXTEND
MY REMARKS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CONNECTICUT IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
MR. SPEAKER, I HAVE WATCHED
SADDENED AS THIS HOUSE, LED BY
THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY, HAS
FOUGHT TO GUT THOSE THINGS THAT
MADE AND THAT WILL MAKE THIS
COUNTRY GREAT.
I'M READING A HISTORY OF THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
RIGHT NOW AND EARLY IN THAT
HISTORY THIS BODY WHEN THIS
NATION WAS BARELY YET BORN
PULLED TOGETHER THE RESOURCES
TO BUILD THE ERIE CANAL, COMING
TOGETHER TO DO GREAT THINGS
WHICH BENEFITED THE NATION.
THE LIST OF THOSE
THINGS GOES ON AND ON.
THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE, PUBLIC
EDUCATION, LAND GRANT COLLEGES,
G.I. BILL.
I COULD GO ON FOR A VERY LONG
TIME.
TODAY, THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY,
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS KEY TO
OUR BUSINESSES, THEY SAY KILL
IT.
TO MEDICAL RESEARCH, KILL IT.
TO EDUCATION, KILL IT.
MR. SPEAKER, THAT INSTINCT IS
UTTERLY INCONSISTENT WITH WHO
WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AS A
COUNTRY AND WHY WE ARE GREAT
AND POWERFUL AND ULTIMATELY
ECONOMICALLY PROSPEROUS.
IT IS NOT STEWARDSHIP.
IT IS NOT GOVERNANCE.
IT IS BARBARISM AND WITH THAT I
TIME.
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
THE
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
FOR ONE MINUTE AND TO REVISE
AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
MR. SPEAKER, TODAY I RISE TO
CALL ATTENTION TO THE NATO
SUMMIT THAT WILL TAKE PLACE
NEXT WEEK IN CHICAGO.
NATO WAS FOUNDED WITH
THE SIGNING OF THE WASHINGTON
TREATY IN 1949, TO SAFEGUARD
THE FREEDOM AND SECURITY OF ALL
OF ITS MEMBERS.
SINCE THEN THE ALIE ABC HAS
BEEN THE MAIN STAY OF THE --
ALLIANCE HAS BEEN THE MAIN STAY
OF THE TRANS-ATLANTIC TREATY.
NATO ALLIES,
INCLUDING 22 NONNATO PARTNERS,
HAVE SERVED SHOULDER TO
SHOULDER WITH OUR TROOPS IN
AFGHANISTAN HELPING TO MAKE
SURE THAT COUNTRY DOESN'T
BECOME A SAFE HAVEN FOR
TERRORISTS.
IN CHICAGO WE WILL CONTINUE
IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS ON THE
TRANSITION OF SECURITY
RESPONSIBILITY FROM ISAF TO THE
AFGHANS.
PARTICULARLY IN TODAY'S GLOBAL
ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT, MR.
SPEAKER, IT IS ESSENTIAL WE
RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF NATO AS
A PROVEN FORCE MULTIPLIER.
THE ALLIANCE IS WORKING SURE TO
MAKE SURE THAT NATO IS WELL
PREPARED FOR FUTURE CHALLENGES.
AS WE WELCOME OUR FRIENDS TO
CHICAGO ON MAY 20 AND 21, WE
AFFIRM THE VITALITY OF THIS
TRANS-ATLANTIC BOND AND OF OUR
CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO OUR
COMMON DEFENSE.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER AND WITH
.
THAT I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
BY DIRECTION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES, I CALL UP
HOUSE RESOLUTION 648 AN ASK FOR
ITS IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE
RESOLUTION.
HOUSE CALENDAR NUMBER
130, HOUSE RESOLUTION 648.
RESOLVED, THAT UPON THE ADOPTION
OF THIS RESOLUTION IT SHALL BE
IN ORDER TO CONSIDER IN THE
HOUSE THE BILL H.R. 5652, TO
PROVIDE FOR RECONCILIATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 201 OF THE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013.
ALL POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL ARE
WAIVED.
AN AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A
SUBSTITUTE CONSISTING OF THE
TEXT OF RULES COMMITTEE PRINT
112-21 SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS
ADOPTED.
THE BILL AS AMENDED SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS READ.
ALL POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL AS
AMENDED ARE WAIVED.
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS ORDERED ON THE
BILL AS AMENDED AND ON ANY
FURTHER AMENDMENT THERETO TO
FINAL PASSAGE WITHOUT
INTERVENING MOTION EXCEPT ONE,
TWO HOURS OF DEBATE EQUALLY
DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BY THE
CHAIR AND RANKING MINORITY
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
BUDGET.
AND TWO, ONE MOTION TO RECOMMIT
WITH OR WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE HOUR.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
IF I COULD I'D LIKE TO YIELD THE
CUSTOMARY 30 MINUTES TO MY GOOD
FRIEND FROM MASSACHUSETTS,
PENDING WHICH TIME I YIELD
CONSUME.
MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO
ASK FOR -- DURING CONSIDERATION
OF THIS RESOLUTION ALL TIME BE
YIELDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEBATE ONLY AND ALL MEMBERS HAVE
FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE
AND EXTEND THEIR REMARKS.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
I APPRECIATE YOU
COMING IN EARLY TO BE WITH US
THIS MORNING.
THIS IS A BIG DAY.
THIS IS THE RECONCILIATION BILL.
I SERVE ON BOTH THE RULES
COMMITTEE AND BUDGET COMMITTEE,
MR. SPEAKER, AND AS YOU KNOW WE
HAVE HAD SOME TREMENDOUS
SUCCESSES IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
PROCESS.
THIS WEEK WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
THROUGH THE COMMERCE, JUSTICE,
SCIENCE BILL.
IT'S A BILL THAT'S REDUCED
SPENDING TO THOSE LEVELS THAT WE
HAD IN 2008.
DOING THOSE THINGS THAT THE
VOTERS SENT US HERE TO DO.
AND WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THAT
BILL TODAY IN FINAL PASSAGE, BUT
AN APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS WE
HAVE CONTROL IN THIS HOUSE THAT
PROCESS WHERE WE REDUCED
SPENDING FROM 2010 LEVELS DOWN
TO 2011 LEVELS, THEY'LL GO DOWN
AGAIN FOR 2013 LEVELS TO BE
RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF TAXPAYER
DOLLARS, THOSE ARE OVERWHELM 1/3
OF THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
2/3 OF THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT
ARE SPENT IN THIS TOWN, I MEAN
BORROWED AND THEN SPENT, COME ON
WHAT THEY CALL MANDATORY
SPENDING PROGRAMS.
MR. SPEAKER, AS YOU KNOW
MANDATORY SPENDING PROGRAMS ARE
DOLLARS THAT GO OUT THE DOOR
WHETHER CONGRESS ACTS OR NOT.
APPROPRIATIONS BILLS REQUIRE
CONGRESS TO ACT AFFIRMATIVELY.
BUT MANDATORY SPENDING GOES
RIGHT OUT THE DOOR WITHOUT ANY
OVERSIGHT FROM THIS BODY.
UNTIL YOU GET TO RECONCILIATION.
RECONCILIATION IS THAT PROCESS
THAT DEMOCRATS PUT IN PLACE
YEARS AND YEARS AGO TO
ALLOW THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE
TO COME TOGETHER AND BEGIN TO
REDUCE, RESTRAIN, DO OVERSIGHT
ON THOSE MANDATORY SPENDING
DOLLARS.
THIS IS A RULE THAT BRINGS THAT
BILL TO THE FLOOR.
NOW, THAT BILL IS GOING TO BE
COMING UNDER A CLOSED RULE, MR.
SPEAKER.
TO ALLOW THE HOUSE AND THE
SENATE TO COME TOGETHER AND
BEGIN TO REDUCE, RESTRAIN, DO
OVERSIGHT ON THOSE MANDATORY
SPENDING DOLLARS.
THIS IS A RULE THAT BRINGS THAT
BILL TO THE FLOOR.
NOW, THAT BILL IS GOING TO BE
COMING UNDER A CLOSED RULE, MR.
SPEAKER.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BILL THAT
HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER BY ALMOST
EVERY COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION
HERE IN THIS HOUSE AND ASSEMBLED
BY THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, BROUGHT
HERE TO THE FLOOR.
COUNTLESS HEARINGS ALREADY.
IT'S BEEN THE SUBJECT OF
WE LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT WE
WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING A
SUBSTITUTE, DEMOCRATIC
SUBSTITUTE TO THE FLOOR.
NONE WAS SMITHED THAT FLY WITH
THE RULES OF THE HOUSE.
SO WE HAVE ONE BILL ON THE FLOOR
TODAY.
AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON WHETHER OR
NOT WE ARE WILLING TO ENGAGE IN
THE FIRST SERIOUS RECONCILIATION
PROCESS ON THIS FLOOR.
1991.
SOME FOLKS MIGHT SAY 2003, I SAY
IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO
ANYWAY AS RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS
OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
IN THIS CASE THESE AREN'T
REDUCTIONS FOR THE SAKE OF
REDUCTIONS.
THESE ARE REDUCTIONS FOR THE
SAKE OF COMPLYING WITH WHAT I
DEFICIT REDUCTION AGREEMENT
WOULD ARGUE WAS A VERY GOOD
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE
SENATE AND THE WHITE HOUSE LAST
AUGUST.
AND AS A PART OF THAT AGREEMENT
WE PUT IN SOME BLANKET CUTS TO
NATIONAL SECURITY, SOME BLANKET
CUTS THAT SOME COMMENTATORS HAVE
DESCRIBED THESE CUTS, MR.
SPEAKER, AS BEING INTENTIONALLY
SO CRAZY THAT THEY WOULD NEVER
HAPPEN BUT WOULD BE USED ONLY AS
A TOOL TO GET THE JOINT SELECT
COMMITTEE TO ACT.
AS YOU KNOW, MR. SPEAKER, THE
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE DID NOT
SUCCEED LAST FALL.
IT'S A SOURCE OF GREAT
FRUSTRATION FOR ME AND THE
MEMBERS WHO SERVED ON THAT
COMMITTEE, HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
BRING AN UP OR DOWN VOTE TO BOTH
THE HOUSE AND SENATE FLOOR ON
ANYTHING THEY CAME UP WITH, MR.
SPEAKER.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GET THE
WHOLE 1.2, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO
GET 1.5.
THEY COULD HAVE JUST GOTTEN ONE.
HALF OF ONE.
THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN QUARTER
OF ONE.
BUT THEY GOT NOTHING.
SO WHERE ARE WE?
WELL, IN THE WORDS EVER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON
PANETTA, HE SAID WE ARE AT A
PLACE WHERE IF THESE CUTS ARE
ALLOWED TO GO THE IMPACT OF
THESE CUTS WOULD BE DEVASTATING
TO THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
I HAPPEN TO SHARE HIS CONCERNS.
AGAIN, THESE WERE YOORD CUTS,
PUT IN PLACE TO BE SO
INTENTIONALLY CRAZY THAT
CONGRESS WOULD NEVER ALLOW THEM
TO OCCUR.
IT WOULD SPUR THE JOINT
COMMITTEE TO ACTION.
I HAPPEN TO HAVE SUPPORTED, MR.
SPEAKER, AN AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN OF MARYLAND,
THE RANKING MEMBER ON THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE WHEN WE WERE GOING
THROUGH THE PROCESS LAST YEAR,
HE OFFERED AN AMENDMENT THAT
SAID, EVERYTHING'S GOT TO BE ON
THE TABLE.
DEPARTMENT.
THAT INCLUDES THE DEFENSE
I AGREE WITH HIM.
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT DOES NEED
TO BE ON THE TABLE.
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IS
UNDERGOING $300 BILLION TOWARDS
THE REDUCTIONS TODAY.
THAT.
THIS BILL DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE
$300 BILLION BEING REDUCED FROM
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AS WELL
IT SHOULD, IT'S NOT EASY BUT IT
SHOULD HAPPEN AND IT IS
HAPPENING, THIS DOESN'T DEAL
WITH THAT.
CUTS.
THIS IS DEALING WITH ADDITIONAL
AGAIN THE WORDS OF SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, LEON PANETTA, FORMER
DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF THIS HOUSE,
IMPACT OF THESE CUTS WOULD BE
DEVASTATING FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, MR.
SPEAKER, TO DO WHAT I WOULD
ARGUE YOU AND I CAME HERE TO DO.
NOT JUST YOU AND I, MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE DO THOSE THINGS NOT
JUST THAT HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR
AFTER YEAR, THOSE THINGS THAT
HAVE 12 MONTHS OF EFFICACY AND
GO AWAY, BUT THINGS THAT CAN BE
SET IN PERMANENT LAW TO CHANGE
THE DIRECTION OF SPENDING AND
BORROWING IN THIS COUNTRY.
CANDIDLY, MR. SPEAKER, IT'S MORE
ABOUT THE BORROWING THAN IT IS
ABOUT THE SPENDING.
THERE ARE PRIORITIES IN THIS
COUNTRY.
I WOULD ARGUE WE DID A GREAT JOB
OF FOCUSING ON THE PLYORS.
WHEN YOU ARE BORROWING 40 CENTS
ON EVERY DOLLAR FROM YOUR
CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN, WE
HAVE TO REDEFINE WHAT
RESPONSIBILITY IS.
THAT IS IRRESPONSIBLE.
AND THIS BILL THEN TAKES THE
STEP IN TWO DIRECTIONS.
ONE, TURNING BACK THE SECOND
ROUND OF DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
CUTS, NOT THE FIRST ROUND, BUT
SECOND ROUND, THE ROUND THAT
LEON PANETTA DESCRIBED AS
DEVASTATING TO THE DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT, AND SETTING US ON A
PATH TO BEND THAT COST CURVE
GOING FORWARD BY TACKLING
MANDATORY SPENDING PROGRAMS FOR
THE FIRST TIME IN ALMOST A
DECADE.
WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I URGE
MY COLLEAGUES TO STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS RULE AND I RESERVE
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES.
IS RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I WANT TO THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FROM GEORGIA, MY FRIEND, MR.
WOODALL, FOR YIELDING ME THE
CUSTOMARY 30 MINUTES.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I
MAY CONSUME.
MR. SPEAKER --
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I RISE IN VERY
STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS RULE.
IS TOTALLY CLOSED.
AND IT DENIES DEMOCRATS LED BY
MR. VAN HOLLEN THE SUBSTITUTE.
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR DOZENS OF
AMENDMENTS OR SOMETHING THAT
HASN'T BEEN DONE IN THE PAST
BILLS.
WITH REGARDS TO RECONCILIATION
ALL WE ARE ASKING FOR IS ONE
VOTE ON A SUBSTITUTE.
ONE VOTE.
ON WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A BETTER
ALTERNATIVE TO THE REPUBLICAN
BILL.
LAST NIGHT IN THE RULES
COMMITTEE EVERY SINGLE
REPUBLICAN, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF
THEM VOTED TO DENY DEMOCRATS
THAT OPPORTUNITY.
MR. SPEAKER, AS ONE WHO DOES NOT
BELIEVE IN ARBITRARY AND THOUGHT
FEST ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUTS,
THERE IS A WAY TO BALANCE OUR
BUDGET, I WANT TO SUPPORT MR.
VAN HOLLEN'S SUBSTITUTE IN ORDER
TO AVOID THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT SEE
QUESTER.
-- SEQUESTER.
IN MY OPINION TO ALLOW THIS TO
FOR THE COUNTRY.
GO INTO FULL EFFECT WOULD BE BAD
WE ARE HERE IN THIS AWFUL MESS
BECAUSE THE SO CULLED
SUPERCOMMITTEE FAILED TO REACH
AGREEMENT LAST FALL ON A
COMPREHENSIVE AND BALANCED
DEFICIT REDUCTION PLAN.
DUE IN VERY LARGE PART TO THE
ABSOLUTE REFUSAL OF REPUBLICANS
TO PUT REVENUES ON THE TABLE.
BOWL SIMPSON, AND THE GANG OF
SIX ALL HAD DEFICIT REDUCTION
PROPOSALS THAT SOUGHT TO BE
CHALLENGED WITH BOTH SPENDING
CUTS AND REVENUES, SOUGHT TO BE
FAIR.
THEY REALIZED YOU CAN'T -- YOU
CANNOT SOLVE LONG-TERM FISCAL
PROBLEMS BY SLASHING AND BURNING
THE LAST CENTURY OF SOCIAL
PROGRESS IN AMERICA.
BUT TODAY MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS
HAVE BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR A
RECONCILIATION BILL THAT
ACTUALLY MAKES SEQUESTRATION
LOOK GOOD.
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IS VERY
SIMPLE, VERY TROUBLING BUT VERY
SIMPLE.
THEY ARE PROTECTING THE MASSIVE
PENTAGON BUDGET AND DEMANDING NO
ACCOUNTABILITY BY EXEMPTING IT
FROM SEQUESTRATION, AND FINDING
EVEN DEEPER CUTS IN PROGRAMS
COUNTRY.
THAT BENEFIT THE PEOPLE OF THIS
THE BILL BEFORE US WOULD CREATE
A GOVERNMENT WHERE THERE IS NO
CONSCIENCE.
WHERE THE WEALTHY AND WELL
CONNECTED ARE PROTECTED AND
ENRICHED AND WHERE THE MIDDLE
CLASS, POOR, AND VULNERABLE ARE
ESSENTIALLY FORGOTTEN.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE
THIS.
IT IS OUTRAGEOUS.
IT TAKES MY BREATH AWAY.
MY FRIENDS WON'T CUT BILLIONS IN
SUBSIDIES FROM BIG OIL AT A TIME
WHEN OIL COMPANIES ARE MAKING
RECORD PROFITS AND GOUGING
AMERICANS AT THE PUMP.
THEY WON'T ADDRESS THE
INEQUITIES OF THE TAX CODE WHICH
ALLOWS BILLIONAIRE WARREN
BUFFETT TO PLAY A LOWER TAX RATE
THAN HIS SECRETARY.
THE REVENUES ON JUST THESE TWO
POLICIES ALONE WILL RESULT IN
BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DEFICIT
REDUCTION, BUT THE REPUBLICANS
HAVE PROTECTED BIG OIL AND THE
BILLIONAIRES.
HOWEVER, MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS
TAKE A MEAT AXE TO SNAP.
FORMERLY KNOWN AS FOOD STAMPS.
THIS IS A PROGRAM TO HELP POOR
PEOPLE AFFORD FOOD.
MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
OF PRESIDENT JOHN FINANCIAL
THE AISLE SHOULD HEED THE WORDS
KENNEDY, I QUOTE, IF A FREE
SOCIETY WILL NOT HELP THE MANY
WHO ARE POOR, THEY CANNOT SAVE
THE FEW WHO ARE RICH.
MR. SPEAKER, WE ARE ONE COUNTRY.
WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT ONE
ANOTHER, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO
ARE MOST VULNERABLE.
THAT'S NOT A WEAKNESS OR
SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED
OF.
RATHER IT'S SOMETHING THAT MAKES
US STRONG AND GREAT.
AS MY FRIENDS KNOW, I SPENT A
LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT IN
CONGRESS ON THE ISSUES OF HUNGER
AND FOOD INSECURITY AND
NUTRITION.
TENS OF MILLIONS OF OUR FELLOW
CITIZENS DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO
EAT.
AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US,
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE,
SHOULD BE ASHAMED.
AND THAT'S WHY I AM SO OUTRAGED
BY THE $36 BILLION IN SNAP CUTS.
THIS NOTION THAT SNAP PROMOTES A
CULTURE EVER DEPENDENCY, SNAP IS
A GOLDEN TICKET TO PROSPERITY IS
JEONG.
SOME ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE HAVE
EVEN CLAIMED THAT SNAP ENSLAVES
AMERICANS.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
IN FACT, EVEN IN 2010 WHEN
UNEMPLOYMENT WAS CLOSE TO 10%
AND JOBS WERE SCARCE, THE
HOUSEHOLDS OR
THE NONDISABLED WORKING AGE
ADULT WERE WORKING HOUSEHOLDS.
WORKING HOUSEHOLDS.
WORKING FAMILIES ARE TRYING TO
EARN MORE.
NO ONE WAKES UP IN THE MORNING
DREAMING TO BE ON SNAP.
BUT THESE ARE TOUGH ECONOMIC
TIMES.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE NO CHOICE.
BUT WE KNOW THAT SNAP ENROLLMENT
AND SPENDING ON SNAP WILL GO
DOWN AS THE ECONOMY IMPROVES.
AS FAMILIES SEE THEIR INCOMES
RISE AND NO LONGER NEED SNAP TO
FEED THEIR FAMILIES.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.
OF COURSE LAST NIGHT IN THE
RULES COMMITTEE WE HEARD THE
TIRED LINE THAT THERE IS A LOT
OF ABUSE IN THE SNAP PROGRAM.
WE HEARD THAT THERE ARE
COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE
RECEIVING BENEFITS WHO DO NOT
DESERVE THEM.
THAT, MR. SPEAKER, IS SIMPLY NOT
TRUE.
IT IS COMMON AND -- IT'S A
COMMON AND UNFORTUNATE
MISCONCEPTION THAT SNAP IS RIPE
WITH FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE.
THINK IT IS BEING TRADED
FOR ALCOHOL AND OTHER THINGS, IT
CANNOT.
THE USDA IS CRACKING DOWN ON IT.
SNAP IS BOTH EFFECTIVE AND
EFFICIENT.
THE ERROR RATE IN SNAP IS NOT
ONLY AT AN ALL-TIME LOW, IT HAS
THE LOWEST IF NOT THE LOWEST OF
ANY FEDERAL PROGRAM.
IF ONLY WE COULD FIND A PROGRAM
IN THE PENTAGON THAT HAD SUCH A
LOW ERROR RATE.
LAST NIGHT WE ALSO HEARD ABOUT
CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY, A
PROCESS IN WHICH A LOW-INCOME
PERSON IS AUTOMATICALLY ELIGIBLE
FOR FOOD STAMPS IF THEY ARE
ALREADY ENROLLED IN ANOTHER LOW
INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO STATE THIS BECAUSE
THERE IS SUCH MISCONCEPTION
HERE, BUT CATEGORICAL
ELIGIBILITY MAKES IT EASIER FOR
POOR PEOPLE, THOSE WHO ARE
ALREADY APPROVED FOR OTHER
LOW-INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
TO RECEIVE SNAP BENEFITS.
BUT IT ALSO MAKES IT EASIER ON
THE STATE TO HAVE TO ADMINISTER
THESE PROGRAMS.
THIS SAVES TIME AND MONEY AND
PAPERWORK BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE ALREADY ELIGIBLE FOR
SIMILARLY ADMINISTERED BENEFITS
TO NOT HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR SNAP
AND STATES DO NOT HAVE TO WASTE
HOURS PROCESSING PAPERWORK FOR
PEOPLE ALREADY ELIGIBLE BASED ON
INCOMES.
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT PEOPLE WHO
DON'T QUALIFY -- WHO DON'T
QUALIFY FOR SNAP GET THOSE
BENEFITS.
TO THE CONTRARY PEOPLE STILL
HAVE TO QUALIFY FOR THE PROGRAM
TO RECEIVE FOOD, ANY CLAIM THIS
IS A FRAUDULENT PRACTICE OR RIPE
WITH ABUSE IS JUST ANOTHER
FALSEHOOD AND SMEAR AGAINST ONE
OF THE MOST EFFICIENT FEDERAL
PROGRAMS, THE DEMONIZATION OF
SNAP AND OTHER FOOD AND
NUTRITION PROGRAMS BY REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS IT MUST COME TO AN END.
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION IN THIS
COUNTRY TO PROVIDE A CIRCLE OF
PROTECTION FOR THE MOST
VULNERABLE.
CUTTING $36 BILLION MEANS THAT
MORE THAN 22 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS
WILL SEE A CUT IN THEIR BENEFIT,
THIS MEANS 22 MILLION FAMILIES
WILL HAVE LESS FOOD TOMORROW
.
THAN THEY DO TODAY.
TWO MILLION PEOPLE WILL BE CUT
ALTOGETHER.
FROM THE SNAP PROGRAM
MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE DON'T LIKE TO HEAR
THIS BUT SOMETIMES THE TRUTH
HURTS.
IF THIS BILL BEFORE US BECOMES
LAW, IT WILL TAKE FOOD OUT OF
THE MOUTHS OF CHILDREN IN
ALL IN THE NAME OF PROTECTING
AMERICA.
TAX CUTS FOR WEALTHY AND
INCREASE PENTAGON SPENDING.
THE REPUBLICAN RECONCILIATION
BILL THREATENS MEDICARE, IT
THREATENS CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS,
IT THREATENS EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAMS, PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT
OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
IN SHORT, IF THIS WERE TO BE
ADOPTED INTO LAW IT WILL
THREATEN OUR ECONOMY AS A
WHOLE.
AND THE BILL NOT ONLY PROTECTS
THE PENTAGON BUDGET, IT
INCREASES IT BY BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS.
DOES ANYONE HERE HONESTLY
BELIEVE THAT THERE'S NOT A
SINGLE DOLLAR TO BE SAVED
ANYWHERE IN THE PENTAGON?
IF YOU DO YOU'RE NOT READ BE
THE NEWSPAPERS.
IT'S THERE IN FRONT OF US EVERY
SINGLE DAY.
THE ABUSE THAT GOES ON.
NO MID DEFENSE CONTRACT.
I CAN GO ON AND ON AND ON.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE
STRONGEST MILITARY IN THE FACE
OF THE EARTH, BUT AT SOME POINT
NATIONAL SECURITY MUST MEAN
MORE THAN THROWING BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS AT UNNECESSARY NUCLEAR
WEAPONS OR A PIE IN THE SKY
STAR WARS PROGRAM THAT WILL
NEVER MATERIALIZE, BUT NATIONAL
SECURITY HAS TO MEAN TAKING
CARE OF OUR OWN PEOPLE.
IT MEANS EDUCATING OUR
CHILDREN.
IT MEANS THAT INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT ISN'T CRUMBLING AROUND US.
IT MEANS CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN
THAT WORKS.
WATER AND A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
THOSE SHOULD BE OUR PRIORITIES,
BUT SADLY THOSE ARE NOT THE
PRIORITIES IN THE BILL BEFORE
US TODAY.
NOW, OF COURSE, SENATOR REID
SAYS THE BILL IS DEAD IN THE
WATER IN THE SENATE AND THE
PRESS CONFERENCE YESTERDAY, THE
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER SAID,
AND I QUOTE, AS LONG AS
REPUBLICANS CONSIDER A MORE
REASONABLE APPROACH, ONE THAT
ASKS EVERY AMERICAN TO PAY
THEIR FAIR SHARE, THE SEQUESTER
IS THE ONLY PATH FORWARD, END
QUOTE.
THAT'S A PRETTY CLEAR STATEMENT
THAT THE SENATE WILL NOT
CONSIDER THIS BILL.
QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S THE RIGHT
THING TO DO.
A REASONABLE APPROACH IS WHAT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT.
YES, THEY WANT IT TO GET OUR
FISCAL HOUSE IN ORDER.
THEY WANT US TO REDUCE THE
DEFICIT IN A FAIRWAY SO THE
WEALTHIEST AMONG US PAY THEIR
FAIR SHARE.
BUT MOSTLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WANT JOBS, SOMETHING THAT HOUSE
REPUBLICANS LEADERSHIP
CONTINUES TO IGNORE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THE
BEST WAY TO BRING THIS DEFICIT
DOWN IS THROUGH JOB CREATION.
THEY WANT THE ECONOMY TO
IMPROVE.
THEY WANT THEIR LIVES TO GET
BETTER.
THIS BILL DOES NOT DO THAT.
MR. SPEAKER, LET ME CONCLOUD BY
QUOTING PRESIDENT DWIGHT EISEN
HIRE IN A SPEECH HE MADE IN
1953.
I QUOTE, EVERY GUN THAT IS
MADE, EVERY WAR SHIP LAUNCHED
SIGNALS A THEFT FROM THOSE WHO
HUNGER AND ARE NOT FED, THOSE
WHO ARE COLD AND ARE NOT
CLOTHED, END QUOTE.
I'M AFRAID, MR. SPEAKER, THAT
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER WOULDN'T
PARTY.
RECOGNIZE TODAY'S REPUBLICAN
WE SHOULD REJECT THIS CLOSED
RULE AND THE UNDERLYING BILL
AND I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RESERVES.
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I
MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
TO SAY TO MY GOOD
FRIEND AS THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET
CHAIRMAN SAID TO HIM YESTERDAY,
I APPRECIATE HIS PASSION ON
THIS ISSUE.
WHAT BRINGS US TO THE VERY BEST
DECISION THAT WE CAN MAKE IN
THIS BODY, MR. SPEAKER, IS
HAVING FOLKS WHO WORK HARD DAY
IN AND DAY OUT, EDUCATING
THEMSELVES ON THE ISSUES.
THEY CAN BRING THE VERY BEST
CASE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO
THE FLOOR.
AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD ASK MY
FRIEND WHETHER OR NOT HE
BELIEVES IT ACTUALLY HELPS THAT
DEBATE TO GET INVOLVED IN SOME
OF THOSE RHETORICAL FEATS OF
MIND, I GUESS WE'D CALL HIM,
BECAUSE HE KNOWS AS WELL AS I
KNOW UNDER THE LAW OF THE LAND
IN 2002 FOOD STAMP BENEFITS,
SNAP BENEFITS WOULD HAVE GONE
UP ABOUT 40% OVER THE LAST 10
YEARS.
AND DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
CAME TOGETHER OVER THE LAST
DECADE AND INCREASED THOSE
BENEFITS 270%.
270%, MR. SPEAKER.
NOW, THIS PROPOSAL SUGGESTS
THAT INSTEAD OF GOING UP 270%
WE ALLOW THOSE BENEFITS TO GO
UP 260%.
THAT'S THE DRACONIAN CUT.
I MEAN, WE SEE THAT IN THE SAME
RHETORIC IN THE STUDENT LOAN
PROGRAM, MR. SPEAKER.
EVERYONE IN THIS BODY KNOWS THE
LAW OF THE LAND WAS THE STUDENT
LOANS RATE AT 6.8%.
A BELOW MARKET RATE OF 6.8%.
THEY WERE LOWERED FOR A VERY
SMALL FRACTION OF THE STUDENT
POPULATION FOR A VERY TEMPORARY
PERIOD OF TIME TO 3 KP 4% AND
THE LAW HAS IT BACK TO 6.8%.
THEY TALK ABOUT THAT AS A
DOUBLING INSTEAD OF RETURNING
TO COMMON LAW.
AND, MR. SPEAKER, TO CONTINUE
TO SUGGEST AS HE KNOWS IS NOT
THE CASE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE
UNWILLING TO FOCUS ON THE
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, LET ME SAY
IT PLAINLY.
I BELIEVE THERE IS WASTE AND
FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT AND I STAND HERE
WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU TO
ERADICATE IT ALL.
I SUPPORTED RANKING MEMBER VAN
HOLLEN'S AMENDMENT TO PUT
DEFENSE ON THE TABLE.
THE BUDGET THAT THIS HOUSE
PASSED, THE ONLY BUDGET THAT'S
PASSED IN ALL OF WASHINGTON,
D.C., REDUCED DEFENSE SPENDING
BY $300 BILLION IN RECOGNITION
OF EXACTLY THAT.
AND, MR. SPEAKER, AGAIN, THE
RHETORIC JUST GETS A LITTLE
OVERHEATED FROM TIME TO TIME.
CANDIDLY I THINK IT GETS IN THE
WAY OF US DOING BUSINESS.
WHEN I SAY TO YOU THAT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, LEON
PANETTA, ON AUGUST 4, 2011, IF
THESE DEFENSE CUTS HAPPEN, AND
GOD WILLING THAT'S NOT THE
CASE, BUT IF IT WOULD HAPPEN,
IT WOULD RESULT IN A FURTHER
ONCE.
ROUND, BECAUSE WE ALREADY CUT
IN FACT, WE CUT TWICE.
A FURTHER ROUND OF A DANGEROUS
ACROSS-THE-BOARD DEFENSE CUTS
THAT I BELIEVE, LEON PANETTA,
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, WOULD DO
REAL DAMAGE TO OUR SECURITY,
OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
I WOULD SAY TO MY FRIEND, HOW
DOES IT ADVANTAGE US TO MAKE
THIS A REPUBLICAN-DEMOCRATIC
ISSUE, WHEN THE DEMOCRATIC
ISSUE OF THE -- WHEN THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SAID THIS
WOULD BE HURTFUL TO OUR TROOPS
AND THEIR FAMILIES?
HOW DOES THIS MAKE A DEMOCRATS
AND REPUBLICAN ISSUE WHEN LEON
PANETTA, THE O.M.B. DIRECTOR,
SAID THIS WOULD BE DANGEROUS
ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUTS TO TROOPS
AND THEIR FAMILIES?
WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CHIEF
OF STAFF, LEON PANETTA, FORMER
O.M.B. DIRECTOR, FORMER BUDGET
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, SAYS I
BELIEVE ALLOWING THESE CUTS TO
GO FORWARD WOULD DO REAL DAMAGE
TO OUR SECURITY, TO OUR TROOPS
AND TO OUR FAMILIES.
DO WE HAVE REAL CHOICES TO
I DO.
MAKE?
IF THE GENTLEMAN
WILL YIELD?
I WOULD YIELD.
THE DEMOCRATS
HAVE A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT
THAT WOULD REPLACE THE
SEQUESTER IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
IT WOULD PREVENT THE
ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUTS FROM
HAPPENING TO DEFENSE AND THE
NONDEFENSE PROGRAMS.
SO THERE'S AN AGREEMENT THAT
THAT MEAT AX APPROACH IS THE
WRONG WAY.
WE HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE.
THE GENTLEMAN JUST TALKED ABOUT
HOW WE HAVE THIS GREAT DEBATE
HOUSE.
ON IDEAS ON THE FLOOR OF THE
I HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION, WHY
AREN'T WE GOING TO GET AN UP OR
DOWN VOTE ON OUR IDEA, ON HOW
WE WOULD REPLACE THE SEQUESTER
IN A BALANCED WAY?
RECLAIMING MY TIME
AND I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
HIS COMMEPTS AND HIS OFFERING
OF THAT SUBSTITUTE.
THE REASON IS THREE-FOLD.
NUMBER ONE, THAT SUBSTITUTE
DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE RULES
OF THE HOUSE.
WE MADE A DECISION IN THIS BODY
THAT WE WERE GOING TO NOT
CONTINUE TO ASK FOR MORE AND
MORE AND MORE OUT OF TAXPAYERS'
POCKETS BUT THAT WE WERE GOING
TO TRY TO DO OUR OWN BUSINESS
HERE IN TERMS OF OVERSIGHT ON
ALL OF THE MONEY THAT'S ALREADY
BEING BORROWED AND SPENT AND
SENT OUT THE TWO.
NUMBER TWO, THAT IS THE RULES
WE ADOPTED IN THIS CONGRESS,
MR. SPEAKER.
BUT UNDER THE RULES ADOPTED IN
THE LAST CONGRESS IN WHICH YOU
WERE THE BUDGET CHAIRMAN, YOU
KNOW YOUR SUBSTITUTE WOULD ALSO
NOT HAVE BEEN IN ORDER UNDER
INSTITUTED.
THE PAY-GO RULES THAT YOU
UNDER A REPUBLICAN HOUSE, THE
SUBSTITUTE IS NOT IN ORDER.
AND UNDER A DEMOCRATIC HOUSE
THE SUBSTITUTE WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN IN ORDER.
BUT NUMBER THREE, AND I WOULD
ARGUE MOST IMPORTANTLY, I WOULD
IS A TOY -- I WOULD SAY TO MY
FRIEND, WE HAVE A TRUST DEFICIT
WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
FIVE-YEAR IMPACT OF THE
RECONCILIATION PLAN THAT WE
PASSED OUT OF OUR BUDGET
COMMITTEE AND I HOPE THIS HOUSE
WILL PASS TODAY, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT A NET EFFECT ON DEFICIT
REDUCTION, THE PROCESS FOR
WHICH RECONCILIATION WAS
CREATED OF $65 BILLION OVER
FIVE YEARS.
OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, $65
BILLION IS NOT GOING TO HAVE TO
BE BORROWED FROM OUR CHILDREN
AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN.
UNDER THE GENTLEMAN'S
SUBSTITUTE, OVER THAT SAME
PERIOD OF TIME, SPENDING IS
ACTUALLY GOING TO GO UP BY
ALMOST $37 BILLION.
THIS IS A PROCESS THAT IS
DESIGNED TO REDUCE BORROWING
AND SPENDING, TO REDUCE THE
BURDEN WE'RE PLACING ON OUR
CHILDREN AND THE GENTLEMAN'S
SUBSTITUTE INCREASES THE BURDEN
CHILDREN.
THAT WE'D PLACE ON OUR
IF THE
GENTLEMAN WILL YIELD?
I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP ALL
YOUR TIME.
I WILL.
I WANT TO MAKE
OUR POINT THAT WHAT OUR
SUBSTITUTE DOES IS DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR REPLACES THE SEQUESTER,
WHICH IS WHAT OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID IS THE
OBJECT OF THIS EFFORT WHICH IS
TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE THE
MEAT AX APPROACH AND I WOULD
JUST NOTE THAT THE GENTLEMAN
SAID THAT ONE OF THE REASONS
WE'RE NOT FG TO HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO -- GOING TO HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON OURS
IS IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE
RULES.
IN BRINGING THE REPUBLICAN BILL
TO THE FLOOR TODAY, I'M READING
RIGHT HERE ON THE REPORT, THE
COMMITTEE REPORT, YOU WAIVED
THREE RULES.
YOU WAIVED THREE RULES.
YET YOU CAN'T ALLOW AN UP
AMENDMENT.
OR DOWN VOTE ON A SUBSTITUTE
YOU KNOW -- YOU KNOW YOU HAVE
IT WITHIN THE POWER TO ALLOW
OUR SIDE --
RECLAIMING MY
TIME.
I WOULD SAY WHAT WE HAVE WITHIN
OUR POWERS, THE POWER TO STOP
THE BORROWING AND THE SPENDING.
I'M READING HERE FROM TODAY'S
"CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY"
BECAUSE FOLKS GET CONFUSED AND
WE TALK ABOUT THE READING CLERK
AND THINGS GETS CONFUSED.
READING FROM "CONGRESSIONAL
QUARTERLY" IT SAYS HERE
DEMOCRATS LEFT OPEN A
RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH A MOTION
TO RECOMMIT WHICH IS ALLOWED
UNDER THE RULE.
MY FRIEND ON THE RULES
COMMITTEE KNOWS THAT TO BE
TRUE.
MY FRIEND ON THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE KNOWS THAT TO BE
TRUE.
I LOOK FORWARD TO BRING YOUR
SUBSTITUTE TO THE FLOOR FOR A
VOTE.
I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT OF THE
MINORITY.
I'M GLAD WE PRESERVED THE RIGHT
OF THE MINORITY, MR. SPEAKER.
WITH THAT I RESERVE THE BALANCE
OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED.
I YIELD MYSELF
SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
JUST TO
RE-EMPHASIZE THE POINT THAT MR.
VAN HOLLEN MADE.
YOU KNOW, THE RULES COMMITTEE
HAS THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO
WAIVE THE RULES TO BRING ANY
PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO THE
FLOOR.
AND MR. VALUE HOLEN RIGHTLY
POINTED -- VAN HOLLEN RIGHTLY
POINTED OUT IN THE REPORT ON
THIS RULE, THE REPUBLICANS
IMPLEMENTED WAIVERS BECAUSE
THEIR PROPOSAL WITHOUT THESE
WAIVERS WOULD VIOLATE THE
RULES.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, MY FRIEND
TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS
SHOULDN'T BE A PARTISAN
DISCUSSION.
I WOULD JUST SAY TO MY FRIEND,
THE REASON WHY THIS IS A
PARTISAN DISCUSSION IS BECAUSE
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE IT
SUCH.
BY DENYING US THE RIGHT TO COME
TO THE FLOOR AND OFFER OUR
SUBSTITUTE, NOT AS A PROCEDURAL
MATTER, BUT AS A REAL
SUBSTITUTE.
DEBATE.
YOU HAVE POLITICIZED THIS
YOU HAVE SHUT US OUT AND THAT
IS WHY THERE IS FRUSTRATION.
I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER
THING, AGAIN, BECAUSE I AM SO
SICK AND TIRED OF THE
DEMONIZATION OF PROGRAMS THAT
BENEFIT POOR PEOPLE IN THIS
COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY THE SNAP
PROGRAM.
MY FRIEND WAS TALKING ABOUT ALL
THIS MONEY THAT WE INVESTED IN
SNAP AS IF SOMEHOW WE WERE
GIVING THESE VERY GENEROUS
BENEFITS OUT.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, IN 2002,
THE AVERAGE SNAP BENEFIT WAS $1
$1.
PER MEAL PER DAY PER PERSON.
YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE
IMPROVEMENTS WE HAVE MADE,
TODAY IT'S ABOUT $1.50 PER MEAL
PER DAY.
AND IT'S GOING TO GO DOWN NEXT
YEAR BECAUSE OF CUTBACKS WE
ALREADY MADE IN THIS PROGRAM,
UNFORTUNATELY, TO OFFSET OTHER
THINGS OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.
BUT THAT MEANS IN A 10-YEAR
PERIOD THAT WE HAVE INCREASED
THIS BENEFIT BY 50 CENTS PER
MEAL.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MY FRIEND
BUT, YOU KNOW, $1.50 DOESN'T GO
VERY FAR TODAY.
SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE GET
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING
THROUGH THIS ECONOMIC CRISIS,
ABOUT.
SO THIS IS NOT SOME EXTRAFFIC
GET, OVERLY GENEROUS BENEFIT.
THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
AND RATHER THAN CUTTING WASTE
IN THE PENTAGON BUDGET, WHICH
WE ALL KNOW EXISTS, YOU PROTECT
THE PENTAGON BUDGET.
YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN GOING
AFTER SUBSIDIES FOR OIL
COMPANIES AND GOING AFTER, YOU
KNOW, BILLIONAIRE TAX BREAKS,
YOU PROTECT ALL THAT.
AND WHERE DO YOU GO TO FIND THE
SAVINGS, PROGRAMS THAT HELP THE
POOREST OF THE POOR.
I MEAN, IT'S OUTRAGEOUS.
MR. SPEAKER, AT THIS POINT I'D
LIKE TO YIELD THREE MINT TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND, THE
RANKING MEMBER OF THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE, MR. VAN HOLLEN.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS
RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM
MASSACHUSETTS AND THANK HIM FOR
HIS LEADERSHIP ON EFFORTS TO
ENSURE THAT THOSE FAMILIES WHO
ARE STRUGGLING MOST IN OUR
COUNTRY CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS
TO FOOD AND NUTRITION AND THAT
CHILDREN IN OUR COUNTRY
CONTINUE TO HAVE ACCESS TO
HEALTH CARE AND THAT'S WHAT
THIS DEBATE IS ALL ABOUT
ALTERNATIVE.
BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN
ON TWO
THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, WE NEED TO REDUCE
OUR DEFICIT IN THIS COUNTRY IN
A CREDIBLE WAY.
NUMBER TWO, THE MEAT AX
APPROACH TO THE SEQUESTER IS
NOT A SMART WAY TO DO IT.
SO HOW SHOULD WE GO ABOUT
REDUCING OUR DEFICIT?
WELL, WE PROPOSED TO DO IT IN
THE SAME BALANCED WAY THAT
EVERY BIPARTISAN COMMISSION
THAT HAS LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE
HAS RECOMMENDED, THROUGH A
COMBINATION OF DIFFICULT CUTS,
AND I WOULD REMIND EVERYBODY
THAT JUST LAST AUGUST WE CUT $1
TRILLION THROUGH A COMBINATION
OF CUTS AS WELL AS CUTS TO TAX
BREAKS FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS
AND BY ASKING THE WEALTHIEST
PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, PEOPLE
MAKING $1 MILLION A YEAR, TO
CONTRIBUTE A LITTLE BIT MORE
.
TOWARD DEFICIT REDUCTION.
WOULD MY FRIEND
YES.
YIELD?
IT RAISES $3 IN
CAN YOU TELL ME --
TAXES VERSUS THE SPENDING CUTS.
I'M GLAD THE
GENTLEMAN ASKED THE QUESTION.
SIMPSON-BOWLES, THEY PROPOSED AN
APPROACH WHICH WAS ABOUT $3 IN
CUTS TO $1 IN REVENUE DEPENDING
ON THE ACCOUNTING RULES.
WE ALREADY ENACTED $1 TRILLION
100% IN CUTS.
IN CUTS.
YOU VOTED FOR THAT, I VOTED FOR
THAT, 100% CUTS.
WHAT THIS DOES IS FOR THE NEXT
ONE YEAR WE DO ANOTHER $30
BILLION IN CUTS, A LITTLE OVER,
AND $80 BILLION THROUGH CLOSING
LOOPHOLES.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE SAY THE BIG OIL
COMPANIES DON'T NEED TAXPAYER
DRILL.
SUBSIDIES TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO
THEY HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED,
THEIR CHIEF EXECUTIVES, THEY
DON'T NEED THAT.
THEY ARE MAKING PLENTY RIGHT
NOW.
WE ALSO SAY THAT MILLIONAIRES
SHOULD PAY THE SAME EFFECTIVE
TAX RATE AS THE PEOPLE WHO WORK
FOR THEM.
AND IF YOU TAKE THAT APPROACH,
FRANKLY WITH $1 TRILLION IN CUTS
WE HAVE ALREADY MADE, WE ARE
STILL CUTTING A LOT MORE THAN
THE BIPARTISAN GROUPS
RECOMMENDED COMPARED TO THE
REVENUE.
SO OUR RATIO OF CUTS TO REVENUE
IS MUCH HIGHER BECAUSE THOSE
BIPARTISAN GROUPS, THEY
CUTS.
RECOMMENDED THAT $1 TRILLION IN
WE ADOPTED THAT ON A BIPARTISAN
BASIS.
WHAT THEY ARE NOT DOING, WHAT
YOU'RE NOT DOING IS TAKING THE
OTHER PART OF THEIR
RECOMMENDATION, FRAKELY --
FRANKLY, WHICH IS TO SAY LET'S
CLOSE SOME OF THESE OUTRAGEOUS
TAX LOOPHOLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEFICIT REDUCTION.
AND BECAUSE 98% OF OUR HOUSE
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE
SIGNING THIS PLEDGE SAYING THEY
WON'T TAKE ONE PENNY OF
ADDITIONAL REVENUE --
AN ADDITIONAL TWO
MINUTES.
YOU WON'T ASK
ONE PENNY MORE FOR PEOPLE MAKING
OVER $1 MILLION A YEAR TO HELP
US REDUCE OUR DEFICIT.
NOT ONE PENNY.
THAT.
THE MATH IS PRETTY SIMPLE AFTER
BECAUSE YOU ASK NOTHING OF THEM,
ELSE.
YOUR BUDGET WHACKS EVERYONE
MEDICARE GUARANTEE.
THAT'S WHY YOUR BUDGET ENDS THE
THAT'S WHY YOU CUT $800 BILLION
OUT OF MEDICAID.
AND THAT'S WHY IN YOUR SEE
QUESTER -- SEQUESTER PROGRAM
HERE, YOU WHACK THE PROGRAMS
THAT HELP THE MOST VULNERABLE
STRUGGLING FAMILIES.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT THE
NONPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE SAID ABOUT WHAT YOUR
PROPOSAL WOULD DO.
22 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS WITH
CHILDREN WOULD SEE THEIR FOOD
AND NUTRITION SUPPORT CUT UNDER
THE SNAP REDUCTIONS.
300,000 KIDS WILL NO LONGER GET
THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM.
300,000 KIDS WILL LOSE THEIR
HEALTH COVERAGE UNDER THE
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM.
THOSE ARE THE DECISIONS YOU HAVE
TO MAKE BECAUSE?
YOU DON'T WANT TO ASK THE OIL
COMPANIES TO GIVE UP THEIR
TAXPAYER SUBSIDY.
WE SAY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENT CHOICE,
WE HAVE THAT DIFFERENT CHOICE IN
THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT.
THAT SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT WOULD
PREVENT THOSE CUTS TO THE
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, WOULD
PREVENT CUTS TO N.I.H. AND
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, BUT IT
WOULD PREVENT THOSE CUTS WITHOUT
WHACKING SENIORS AND CHILDREN'S
HEALTH PROGRAMS.
IT WOULD DO IT IN A BALANCED
WAY.
WE SAY WE DON'T NEED THE DIRECT
PAYMENTS TO AGRICULTURAL
BUSINESSES.
THESE ARE PAYMENTS THAT GO TO AG
BUSINESSES WHETHER THEY ARE
MAKING MONEY OR NOT.
THE SPIGOTS ON.
WE CUT THOSE.
YOU DON'T IN YOUR PROPOSAL
BEFORE US TODAY.
WHY NOT?
INSTEAD, YOU CUT THE FOOD AND
NUTRITION PROGRAMS.
SO, WE THINK THE RIGHT APPROACH
IS THE BALANCED APPROACH THAT
EVERY BIPARTISAN GROUP THAT'S
GOTTEN TOGETHER HAS RECOMMENDED.
AND BECAUSE 98% OF OUR
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE
SIGNED THIS PLEDGE SAYING THEY
ARE NOT GOING TO ASK THE FOLKS
AT THE VERY TOP TO PUT IN ONE
PENNY, ONE DIME MORE, YOU ARE
SMACKING EVERYBODY ELSE.
WE DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT
WAY TO GO.
WE AGREE WE SHOULD REDUCE THE
DEFICIT AND WE REDUCED -- WE
ELIMINATE THE SEQUESTER BUT JUST
IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
MR. SPEAKER, I
YIELD MYSELF 30 SECONDS TO SAY
WE JUST DISAGREE ON WHAT BALANCE
IS.
WHAT OUR PROPOSAL FOR BRUCKS IS
TO REDUCE SPENDING OVER $65
BILLION OVER FIVE YEARS.
AND YOUR PROPOSAL IS TO SPEND AN
ADDITIONAL $35 BILLION OVER THE
SAME FIVE YEARS.
WE DISAGREE WHAT BALANCE IS.
WE ARE MOVING IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION UNDER YOUR PROPOSAL.
RIGHT UNDER OUR PROPOSAL I A--
FRIEND.
I'M PROUD TO SERVE WITH MY
WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I'D LIKE
TO YIELD THREE MINUTES TO THE
GENTLELADY FROM MICHIGAN, MRS.
MILLER.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM MICHIGAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
I RISE TO SUPPORT THE RULE.
MR. SPEAKER, I AM VERY PROUD TO
REPRESENT THE GUARD BASE HOME TO
THE MICHIGAN RED DEVILS, THE 107
FIGHTER SQUADRON.
THE 107, MR. SPEAKER, FLIES
A-10'S.
THEY RECENTLY RETURNED FROM A
REDEPLOYMENT TO AFGHANISTAN
WHERE THEY PERFORMED SO BRAVELY,
MADE US PROUD.
THE 107TH WAS ONE OF THE AIR
GUARD UNITS SCHEDULED TO BE
ELIMINATED UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S
BUDGET PROPOSAL.
FORTUNATELY, THE HOUSE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE WILL PRESENT
A DEFENSE RE-AUTHORIZATION BILL
HERE NEXT WEEK WHICH RESOURCES
THAT AND SAVES THE 107TH, ALONG
WITH PROTECTING THE AIR NATIONAL
GUARD ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
THIS HOUSE IS GOING TO DO THE
RIGHT THING FOR THE GREAT
AMERICAN PATRIOTS OF THE AIR
NATIONAL GUARD BY PRIORITIZING
SPENDING WITHIN OUR BUDGET.
NOT BY SPENDING MORE MONEY.
SO I WOULD CERTAINLY URGE OUR
CLOOGS IN -- COLLEAGUES IN THE
SENATE TO JOIN US.
AND, MR. SPEAKER, WE NEED TO
REMEMBER THAT THE CUTS THAT
CAUSED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
TO TARGET THE AIR GUARD WERE
BEFORE THE SEQUESTER, BEFORE THE
SEQUESTER.
IF THE SEQUESTER IS ALLOWED TO
GO INTO EFFECT, THE IMPACT ON
THE COMMUNITY THAT I REPRESENT,
FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE IMMENSE.
AND THE DEFENSE CORRIDOR WE ARE
BUILDING AS PART OF OUR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION WOULD BE STOPPED
DEAD IN ITS TRACK.
NOT ONLY WOULD THE NATIONAL
GUARD AGAIN BE PUT AT RISK OF
MASSIVE NEW CUTS, BUT MILITARY
CONTRACTING ACROSS THE BOARD
CUTS.
WOULD BE FACED WITH ADDITIONAL
IN MCCOMB COUNTY ALONE, A COUNTY
I'M PROUD TO REPRESENT, THIS
WOULD MEAN $200 MILLION IN
ADDITIONAL CUTS, MR. SPEAKER.
AND OBVIOUSLY WOULD COUNT --
COST COUNTLESS JOBS IN THE
DEFENSE RELATED CORRIDOR.
THIS HOUSE HAS TAKEN STEPS TO
STOP THE DEVASTATION OF OUR AIR
NATIONAL GUARD AND NOW IT'S
TAKING STEPS TO STOP THE DEAF
SIGNIFICANCE OF OUR DEFENSE BASE
AND NEEDLESS LOSS OF JOBS WITH
COMMONSENSE REFORMS.
SO I WOULD URGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ME IN
RECONCILIATION TODAY IN THE
DEFENSE RE-AUTHORIZATION BILL
COMING TO THE FLOOR NEXT WEEK.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
THE
GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
AT THIS TIME I'M
PROUD TO YIELD TO THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM CONNECTICUT,
MS. DELAURO.
FIVE MINUTES.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM CONNECTICUT IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. SPEAKER, I RISE
IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL WHICH CHOOSES TO SLASH
PROGRAMS THAT HELP STRUGGLING
FAMILIES GET WHACK ON -- BACK ON
THEIR FEET WITHOUT CLOSING A
SINGLE TAX LOOPHOLE OR LIMITING
A SINGLE SPECIAL INTEREST
SUBSIDY.
OUR BUNT -- BUDGET SHOULD
REFLECT OUR VALUES EVEN AS MANY
IN THE FAITH COMMUNITY HAVE
ARGUED, IT SHOULD ADVANCE THE
MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
GOOD.
NATION TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON
I NOTE THAT THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS
JUST SENT A LETTER CONCLUDING
THAT, AND I QUOTE, THE PROPOSED
CUTS TO PROGRAMS IN THE
REPUBLICAN BUDGET RECONCILIATION
FAIL THE BASIC MORAL TEST, END
QUOTE.
I'M PLEASED THAT THE BISHOPS ARE
SPEAKING OUT, AS HE THEY SHOULD.
40% OF THE TOTAL CUTS HERE COME
FROM CUTTING ASSISTANCE TO LOW
AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES,
INCLUDING FOOD STAMPS, MEDICAID,
THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM, SOCIAL SERVICES FOR
VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND ELDERLY
AND DISABLED PEOPLE.
BUT INSTEAD OF ELIMINATING THE
AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES WHERE
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO PLANT A
SEED AND THEY GET PAID, THIS
BUDGET WOULD CAUSE MORE THAN
200,000 CHILDREN TO LOSE THEIR
SCHOOL LUNCH.
WOULD CUT THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
BY $36 BILLION.
THAT MEANS 46 MILLION AMERICANS,
ONE HALF OF WHOM OUR CHILDREN
WOULD SEE THEIR BENEFITS CUT AND
TWO MILLION AMERICANS WOULD LOSE
THEM ENTIRELY.
THIS AT A TIME WHEN ONE IN SEVEN
SENIORS FACES THE THREAT OF
HUNGER, AND ONE IN FIVE CHILDREN
RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA A LAND OF
PLENTY FACE A SIMILAR RISK.
THEY ARE GOING TO BED HUNGRY IN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
MALNUTRITION.
WE KNOW THE IMPACT OF HUNGER AND
LOWER PERFORMANCES AT SCHOOL,
POOR GROWTH, AN IMMUNE SYSTEM
LESS ABLE TO FEND OFF ILLNESS.
INSTEAD OF ENDING SUBSIDIES TO
BIG OIL COMPANIES, THIS BUDGET
ELIMINATES THE SOCIAL SERVICES
BLOCK GRANT WHICH PROVIDES
CHILDCARE ASSISTANCE TO LOW
INCOME WORKING MOTHERS,
ADDRESSES CHILD ABUSE, PROVIDES
CARE FOR THE ELDERLY AND
DISABLED.
ABOUT 22 MILLION PEOPLE, HALF OF
SERVICES.
THEM CHILDREN, WILL LOSE
INSTEAD OF ENDING TAX BREAKS
THAT ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO SHIP
JOBS OVERSEAS, THIS BUDGET CUTS
MEDICAID, SLASHES THE CHILDREN'S
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM, FORCES
350,000 AMERICANS TO FOREGO
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE PROVIDED BY
HEALTH CARE REFORM.
INSTEAD OF ASKING MILLIONAIRES
TO PAY THE SAME TAX RATES AS
MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES, THIS
BUDGET MAKES CHILDREN WHO ARE
U.S. CITIZENS BUT IMMIGRANT
PARENTS INELIGIBLE FOR THE CHILD
TAX CREDIT, HARMING TWO MILLION
FAMILIES AND 4.5 MILLION
CHILDREN WHO ARE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS.
THEY END THE MEDICARE GUARANTEE
FOR SENIORS IN THIS NATION.
THESE CUTS HAVE A CATASTROPHIC
EFFECT ON THE MOST VULNERABLE IN
OUR NATION AND FOR WHAT?
ALL TO PROTECT SPECIAL INTEREST
SUBSIDIES, TAX BREAKS FOR THE
OUR SOCIETY.
BY FRIENDS IT'S $150,000 FOR THE
AVERAGE MILLIONAIRE IN A TAX
CUT.
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
IN THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
IT IS WRONG.
BUDGETS ARE ABOUT CHOICES,
VALUES, AND THIS BILL EXPOSES
ALL ABOUT.
EXACTLY WHAT THIS MAJORITY IS
WE NEED TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT
STRENGTHENS, REBUILDS THE MIDDLE
CLASS OF THIS COUNTRY, CREATES
JOBS, INVESTS IN REBUILDING OUR
INFRASTRUCTURE, SUPPORTS
MANUFACTURERS, AND SUPPORTS
FAIRNESS TO OUR TAX CODE.
THIS REVERSE ROBIN HOOD AGENDA
OF THE HOUSE MAJORITY FAILS IN
EVERY SINGLE REGARD AND I URGE
MY COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE IT.
YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM CONNECTICUT
YIELDS BACK.
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
WHEN I HEAR MY COLLEAGUES TALK,
IT SOUNDS AS IF WE HAVE A CHOICE
ABOUT DOING ONE THING OR ANOTHER
THING.
SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES,
WHEN YOU ARE BORROWING $1.4
TRILLION A YEAR FROM YOUR
CHILDREN -- JUST A MOMENT.
FRIEND.
I WILL BE HAPPY TO YIELD TO MY
WHEN YOU ARE BORROWING $1.4
TRILLION A YEAR FROM YOUR
CHILDREN, WHEN YOU ARE
MORTGAGING THE FUTURE OF THIS
COUNTRY, IT'S NOT A CHOICE OF
CHANGES.
EITHER SPENDING CUTS OR REVENUE
WE GOT TO HAVE BOTH.
WE'VE GOT TO HAVE BOTH.
AND TO DESCRIBE IT TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AS IF WE CAN DO
ONE OR THE OTHER AND GET
OURSELVES OUT OF THIS MESS, WE
CANNOT.
WE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT.
I WOULD ASK MY FRIENDS, AND I
WOULD BE HAPPY TO YIELD TO MY
COLLEAGUE, WHEN THIS HOUSE
BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR A TAX CUT
BILL THAT GAVE EVERY MEMBER OF
CONGRESS A TAX CUT AT THE END
EVER 2011, THEY SAID WE DON'T
HAVE TO PAY -- WE ONLY HAVE TO
PAY 4% OF PAYROLL TAXES INSTEAD
OF 6%, I VOTED NO.
I SAID THERE IS NOT A MEMBER IN
THIS BODY THAT NEEDS A TAX CUT.
I SAID WE HAVE TOO BIG A PROBLEM
IN THIS NATION TO GIVE TAX CUTS
TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
I VOTED NO.
DID ANYBODY ELSE VOTE NO WITH
ME?
DID ANYBODY ELSE VOTE NO WITH
ME?
I WILL NOT BE LECTURED ABOUT HOW
IT IS THAT TAX CUTS ARE
DISTRIBUTED IN THIS COUNTRY WHEN
WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO CUT
THEM ON THIS FLOOR, TO ELIMINATE
THEM ON THIS FLOOR, AND MY
COLLEAGUES CONTINUE TO VOTE YES.
WE COULD HAVE ADDED A PROVISION
FOR THE RICH.
THAT ELIMINATED THOSE TAX CUTS
WE DID NOT AND SHOULD HAVE.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO YIELD.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THERE
ARE CHOICES AND THE MAJORITY
REFUSES TO MAKE THOSE CHOICES.
LET US CUT.
LET US CUT THE TAXES FOR PEOPLE
WHO -- LET'S NOT PROVIDE THE TAX
CUTS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING
OVER $250,000 IN THIS NATION.
LET US COME BACK FROM
AFGHANISTAN IN AN ORDERLY WAY.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
LET US CUT THE
AGRICULTURE SUBSIDIES.
THE
GENTLELADY WILL SUSPEND.
THE GENTLELADY WILL SUSPEND.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA HAS
THE TIME.
I THANK THE SPEAKER
FOR HIS HELP THERE.
I'M SORRY I NEEDED IT, BUT I
APPRECIATE HIM OFFERING IT.
WE PASSED A BUDGET IN THIS
HOUSE.
A COMPREHENSIVE BUDGET IN THIS
HOUSE.
AND TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES TALK,
YOU'D THINK THIS IS THE ONLY
BILL WE ARE GOING TO PASS FOR
THE REST OF THE YEAR.
TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES TALK YOU
THINK WE ARE NOT GOING TO BRING
A FARM BILL TO THE FLOOR AND GO
AFTER AG SUBSIDIES.
TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES TALK YOU
THINK WE ARE NOT GOING TO BRING
A TAX BILL TO THE FLOOR AND TRY
TO RAISE REVENUES IN THIS
COUNTRY.
TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES TALK, THIS
IS IT.
THIS ISN'T IT.
THIS IS THE BILL THAT RESPONDS
TO THE CHAIRMAN JOINTS CHIEF OF
STAFF, GENERAL MARTIN DEMOCRACY,
WHO SAID THIS YEAR ABOUT THE
CUTS WE ARE TRYING TO PREVENT
TODAY, I WILL TELL YOU THAT I AM
PREPARED TO SAY THAT
SEQUESTRATION WILL POSE AN
UNACCEPTABLE RISK.
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE TO TALK
ABOUT TODAY.
HOW DO WE MITIGATE AN
UNACCEPTABLE RISK.
HOW DO WE MITIGATE AGAINST THE
CHALLENGES THAT FORMER CLINTON
O.M.B. DIRECTOR, FORMER CLINTON
CHIEF OF STAFF, CURRENT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON
NATIONAL SECURITY?
PANETTA SAYS THREATEN OUR
.
AND AGAIN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A
CHOICE, MR. SPEAKER.
WE BROUGHT A VERY POWERFUL
PROPOSAL TO THE FLOOR TODAY.
VERY POWERFUL PROPOSAL.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OVER A
DECADE, WE'RE TRYING TO GET A
HANDLE ON THAT OUT-OF-CONTROL
BUDGET.
PORTION OF SPENDING IN THIS
JUST A LITTLE BIT, MR. SPEAKER.
JUST A LITTLE BIT.
AND, AGAIN, WE JUST HAVE A
DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT BALANCE
IS.
WE HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA OF
WHAT DEFICIT REDUCTION IS.
MY IDEA OVER DEFICIT REDUCTION
OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WE
REDUCE THE DEFICIT.
MY COLLEAGUES' IDEA OF DEFICIT
REDUCTION IS WE SPEND OVER $40
BILLION ABOVE WHAT WE WERE
GOING TO SPEND ANYWAY.
IT'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
I AM GLAD WE ARE BRINGING THIS
VOTE TO THE FLOOR.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DEBATE.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED.
I YIELD MYSELF 30
GENTLEMAN.
SECONDS TO RESPOND TO THE
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
NO ONE IS ARGUING
EFFECT.
SEQUESTRATION SHOULD GO INTO
WE DON'T THINK THAT IS GOOD FOR
OUR COUNTRY.
BUT WE THINK THE REPUBLICAN
RECONCILIATION BILL IS WORSE
FOR THE COUNTRY BECAUSE THE
CUTS IN SO MANY PROGRAMS THAT
HURTS OUR PEOPLE.
THERE IS NO BALANCE IN THERE.
THERE IS NONE IN YOUR
RECONCILIATION BILL.
IT'S ALL CUTS TO PROGRAMS THAT
ACTUALLY HELP THE PEOPLE OF
THIS COUNTRY.
AND THEN FINALLY, I JUST SAY,
WE HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO
SEQUESTRATION.
MR. VAN HOLLEN BROUGHT THAT
BEFORE THE RULES LAST NIGHT.
THE RULES COMMITTEE REPUBLICAN,
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, VOTED
NO.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MR.
GARAMENDI.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
I THINK I'LL LET
THIS THING COOL DOWN A LITTLE
BIT, BUT THE GENTLEMAN ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THIS DEBATE IS
QUITE WRONG.