Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
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.
THERE'S NO BALANCE IN THIS
PARTICULAR BILL AT ALL.
THERE IS NO BALANCE.
CUTS ARE DEVASTATING.
MEALS ON WHEELS FOR SENIORS.
MEDICARE PROGRAMS, MEDICAID
PROGRAMS FOR SENIORS, AND IF
YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE REST OF
THE ISSUES, SCHOOL LUNCH
PROGRAMS, KIDS ARE GOING TO GO
HUNGRY.
THERE'S NO BALANCE.
THERE IS NO TAX PROPOSAL IN
THIS.
THERE IS NO BAT -- BALANCE AT
ALL.
I HAVE ONE MORE PROBLEM THAT'S
NOT BEING RESOLVED.
THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
BILL WAS PART OF THIS
RECONCILIATION AND IT HAS A
GAPING HOLE.
AS THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAS
GONE THROUGH THE NATION'S
LEVEES AND DOWNGRADED THOSE
LEVEES, CREATING AN ENORMOUS
PROBLEM FOR AGRICULTURE FOR
THIS NATION AND CERTAINLY IN
CALIFORNIA WHERE MANY OF THE
LEVEES HAVE BEEN DOWNGRADED,
IT'S NOW IMPOSSIBLE FOR FARMERS
AND THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY
TO OBTAIN LOANS TO CONTINUE TO
PRODUCE AND TO ENHANCE THEIR
AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION.
IN AMENDMENT, I HOPE COULD BE
PUT IN THE BILL, WOULD SIMPLY
REQUIRE AN IMMEDIATE STUDY BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO UNDERTAKE
A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF THE
DOWNGRADING OF THE LEVEES AND
THE RESULTANT INABILITY TO GET
FLOOD INSURANCE AND THE IMPACT
THAT HAS ON THE AGRICULTURE
COMMUNITIES.
KEEPING IN MIND THAT
AGRICULTURE IN A FLOOD ZONE IS
ONE OF THE VERY BEST WAYS TO
REDUCE THE RISK.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THE MAJORITY
WOULD CONSIDER AS THIS THING
MOVES ALONG TO FOLD INTO THE
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
FARM FLOOD PROGRAM THAT I'VE
INTRODUCED WHICH WOULD ALLOW
FARMERS TO OBTAIN NATIONAL
FLOOD INSURANCE AND THEN THE
LENDING THAT THE BANKS COULD
MAKE AVAILABLE SO THEY CAN
CONTINUE TO BUILD THE NECESSARY
FACILITIES FOR THEIR
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS RESERVES.
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE NO TOUGH
CHOICES HERE.
I TALK TO THE GENTLEMAN WHOSE
SEAT I TOOK THE OTHER DAY.
I SAID, JOHN, WHEN YOU ARE UP
HERE AS A CONGRESSMAN YOU MADE
IT LOOK FUN.
FOLKS WERE ALWAYS SAYING THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, FOR
ALL THE STRENGTH THAT WAS GOING
ON HERE.
-- FOR ALL THE SPENDING THAT
WAS GOING ON HERE.
WHEN YOU INCREASE THE PUBLIC
DEBT IN THIS COUNTRY BY 50%
OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS, YOU
ARE OUT OF GIVEAWAY DECISIONS.
ALL WE HAVE HERE IS TOUGH
DECISIONS.
THAT'S ALL WE HAVE.
I KNOW MY FRIEND FROM
MASSACHUSETTS SPEAKS ABOUT
PASSION AND CONVICTION.
HIS ADVOCACY FOR THE NEEDIEST
AMONG US IS AN INSPIRATION ON
THE FLOOR, AND IN COMMITTEE AND
ON, I DON'T FAULT HIM THAT FOR
A BIT.
BUT I SAY TO MY FRIEND, HADN'T
WE GIVEN THAT PAYROLL TAX CUT
FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, WE
COULD HAVE PROVIDED THAT FOOD
STAMP INCREASE THAT YOU
DISCUSSED EARLIER TO AN
ADDITIONAL TWO MILLION
INDIVIDUALS IN THIS COUNTRY.
TWO MILLION INDIVIDUALS IN THIS
COUNTRY HAD WE FORGONE THAT TAX
INCREASE HERE IN.
WE DIDN'T.
WE CHOSE TO GO ALONG WITH THE
PROGRAM AND CUT AWAY, SPEND
AWAY.
WE CAN'T DO THAT.
WE HAVE TO STOP THAT.
AND I WOULD SAY TO MY FRIEND,
BECAUSE IT'S HARD.
I HAVE THE SAME FAMILIES
STRUGGLING IN MY DISTRICT THE
SAME YOU DO.
THE FORECLOSURE RATE IN MY
DISTRICT IS HIGHER THAN YOUR
DISTRICT.
THE NUMBER OF FOLKS GOING
HOMELESS IN GEORGIA BECAUSE OF
FORECLOSURE IS HIGHER THAN IN
MASSACHUSETTS.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE
ADDITIONAL 1.8 MILLION FOLKS,
1.8 MILLION FOLKS, MR. SPEAKER,
ACCORDING TO THE C.B.O., ARE
GOING TO LOSE THEIR FOOD STAMP
BENEFITS UNDER THIS BILL.
THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
BUT HERE'S THE THING, MR.
SPEAKER, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT.
THIS BILL DOESN'T CUT ANYBODY
FROM FOOD STAMPS.
THIS BILL SAYS THE ONLY PEOPLE
WHO CAN GET FOOD STAMPS ARE
PEOPLE WHO APPLY AND QUALIFY
FOR FOOD STAMPS.
HEAR THAT, MR. SPEAKER.
THE C.B.O. TELLS US, AND MY
FRIEND FROM MASSACHUSETTS
THAT 1.8 MILLION PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO LOSE FOOD STAMP
BENEFITS.
BUT THE ONLY CHANGE THIS BILL
MAKES IS THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE
TO APPLY FOR THE BENEFITS TO
GET THE BENEFITS.
SO THAT MEANS 1.8 MILLION
PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE
LOSING --
MR. SPEAKER.
WOOD WOD IF --
IF YOU WANT TO
CHANGE THE FOOD STAMP RULES, IF
YOU WANT TO LAX IT, THEN LET'S
NOT DEMONIZE IT.
LET'S NOT SAY WE'RE THROWING
POOR CHILDREN OUT IN THE
STREETS.
WE HAVE A SUCCESSFUL FOOD STAMP
--
PROGRAM AND WHY DON'T WE JUST
IF THE GENTLEMAN
WILL YIELD?
I YIELD TO MY
FRIEND FROM CALIFORNIA.
THE FACT IS 1.8
MILLION PEOPLE WILL NOT GET THE
SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD THAT THEY GET
FROM FOOD STAMPS.
THEY ARE GOING TO BE HUNGRY,
THAT'S A FACT.
NOW THE FACT -- THE REST OF THE
FACT IS THE APPLICATION PROCESS
HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND BY THE
LEGISLATION SO THAT THE STATES
CAN REACH OUT TO THOSE PEOPLE
THAT ARE HUNGRY AND THAT ARE
QUALIFIED -- THAT ARE ABLE TO
QUALIFY FOR FOOD STAMPS.
THAT'S GONE IN THIS BILL.
SO THE ABILITY TO REACH OUT AND
TO BRING INTO THOSE PROGRAMS
AND BEYOND THAT --
RECLAIMING MY TIME
FROM MY FRIEND.
I WOULD SAY REACHING OUT AND
BRINGING FOLKS IN THE PROGRAM
PROGRAM.
WHO DO NOT QUALIFY FOR THE
THE RULES FOR THE PROGRAM ARE
CLEAR, MR. SPEAKER.
IF YOU QUALIFY FOR FOOD STAMPS,
I AM THE FIRST ONE WHO WANTS
YOU TO HAVE THEM.
IF YOU QUALIFY FOR THE SNAP
PROGRAM, UNDER SNAP PROGRAM
RULES, YOU SHOULD GET FOOD
STAMPS.
IF THE GENTLEMAN
WILL YIELD?
THE GOVERNMENT
YES.
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE SAYS THE
ERROR RATE IN THE SNAP PROGRAM
IS LESS THAN 3%.
WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT WHEN
PEOPLE GETTING BENEFITS -- I'D
LIKE TO KNOW THE NUMBERS OF
THAT.
HOW MUCH?
THIS IS IMPORTANT,
MR. SPEAKER.
I HOPE PEOPLE ARE PAYING
ATTENTION BACK IN THEIR OFFICE.
THE GENTLEMAN IS TALKING ABOUT
THE ERROR RATE.
THE ERROR RATE.
FOLKS WHO MISTAKENLY GOT FOOD
STAMPS BECAUSE IN THE
APPLICATION PROCESS THEY GOT
THE APPLICATION PROCESS WRONG.
THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE QUALIFIED
ANYWAY.
BUT THEY GAVE THEM TO THEM
WHAT THE C.B.O. SAYS IS
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
WHAT THE C.B.O. SAYS IS 1.8
MILLION AMERICAN FAMILIES, IF
THEY WALKED INTO THE OFFICE
TODAY AND APPLIED FOR FOOD
STAMPS TODAY, WOULD NOT QUALIFY
FOR FOOD STAMPS.
IT'S NOT AN ERROR.
IT'S NOT A MISTAKE.
IT'S THAT THE RULES OF THE GAME
HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO SAY WE
JUST WANT EVERYBODY, WE JUST
WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE A PART
IN THE PROGRAM.
WHEN THE GENTLEMAN SAYS THE
PAPERWORK NIGHTMARE FOR STATES,
GENTLEMAN.
I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THE
THERE IS A TREMENDOUS PAPERWORK
CHALLENGE FOR THE STATES.
THIS DOES NOT SOLVE THAT.
ALL WE'RE SAYING GO THROUGH THE
APPLICATION PROCESS.
TO SUGGEST WE ARE TRYING TO
TAKE BENEFITS AWAY FROM PEOPLE
WHO NEED THOSE BENEFITS IS
IF THE GENTLEMAN
DISENGINE WITH US.
WILL YIELD?
I'M PREPARED TO
RESERVE.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA HAS
SIX MINUTES REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS HAS 6 1/2 MINUTES
REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED.
HALF A MINUTE,
MR. SPEAKER.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
WRONG.
JUST WRONG WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT
THE ABUSE IN THE SNAP PROGRAM.
THAT PEOPLE ARE SOMEHOW GETTING
BENEFITS THAT THEY ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO.
AND THE DEMAGOGUERY THAT IS
GOING WITH CATEGORICAL -- IT
HELPS PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE
GET THE BENEFITS.
NO, I AM NOT GOING TO YOLD TO
THE GENTLEMAN.
HE GETS UP ON THE FLOOR AND
TALKS ABOUT IT THIS PAYROLL TAX
CUT FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
THAT WAS A PAYROLL TAX CUT FOR
THE -- FOR EVERYBODY.
NOW, IF HE WANTED TO EXEMPT
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, THAT WOULD
BE MINUSCULE.
THAT WOULD DO NOTHING TO
PROVIDE ANY BENEFIT TO ANYONE.
I RESERVE MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RESERVES.
RECOGNIZED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
MR. SPEAKER, I
WOULD SAY TO MY FRIEND, I WISH
HE WOULD SHOW ME THE CODE
SECTIONS HERE THAT IF IN THE
SNAP PROGRAM AND SAY UNDER THE
SNAP PROGRAM THE INCOME
CRITERIA WE HAD YESTERDAY,
THAT'S CHANGING AND SO FOLKS
AREN'T GOING TO GET THOSE
BENEFITS TOMORROW.
THAT'S NOT HERE.
ALL THIS BILL DOES IS TO SAY
YOU NEED TO APPLY AND YOU NEED
TO EARN THOSE BENEFITS ON YOUR
OWN MERITS.
WHEN THE GENTLEMAN TALKS ABOUT
PAPERWORK, HE KNOWS GOOD AND
WELL THE C.B.O. TOOK THAT INTO
CONSIDERATION.
WHEN THE C.B.O. SAYS 1.8
MILLION FAMILIES ARE NO LONGER
GOING TO QUALIFY, IT MEANS SOME
FOLKS ARE GOING TO GET OFF OF
CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY BECAUSE
THAT IS THE GAMING OF THE
SYSTEM AND THEY ARE GOING TO GO
BACK IN AND APPLY FOR THE
BENEFITS AND GET THEM BUT 1.8
MILLION WILL GO BACK IN AND
APPLY AND GET DENIED BECAUSE
THEY DON'T CALLIFY FOR
BENEFITS.
-- QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS.
MR. SPEAKER, IF WE NEED TO
CHANGE THE ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA, IF WE HAVE FOLKS IN
NEED WHO CAN'T QUALIFY, LET'S
CHANGE THE ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA.
BUT IN THE NAME OF GOOD
GOVERNMENT, WHEN WE ARE GOING
IN PROGRAMS AND SAY WE HAVE
RULES OF THE GAME, WE JUST WANT
PEOPLE TO HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM,
TO SOMEHOW DEFINE THAT AS BEING
MEAN-SPIRITED, IT GALLS ME.
WITH THAT I RESERVE MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA
RESERVES.
MASSACHUSETTS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MR. SPEAKER, LET
ME YIELD MYSELF A MINUTE.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
WHAT GALLS ME IS
THAT THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IS
BALANCING THE BUDGET ON THE
BACKS OF THE MOST VULNERABLE IN
THE POOR.
THIS COUNTRY, THE POOREST OF
THE GENTLEMAN TALKS ABOUT
C.B.O.
C.B.O. SAYS THAT CUTTING $36
BILLION FROM THE SNAP PROGRAM
MEANS THAT MORE THAN 22
HOUSEHOLDS WILL SEE A CUT IN
THEIR BENEFIT.
IT MEANS THAT 22 MILLION
FAMILIES WILL HAVE LESS FOOD
TOMORROW THAN THEY DO TODAY.
IN FACT, TWO MILLION PEOPLE
ALTOGETHER.
WILL BE CUT FROM SNAP
THAT'S NOT ME MAKING UP
NUMBERS.
THAT'S C.B.O.
THAT'S WHERE I GET THIS FROM.
I THINK THAT'S CRUEL AND
INHUMANE DURING THE WORST
ECONOMIC CRISIS THAT WE'VE
FACED.
YES, WE HAVE TO BALANCE A
BUDGET AND WE HAVE TO MAKE
TOUGH CHOICES BUT WHY DOES IT
ALWAYS HAVE TO BE ON THE BACKS
OF THE MOST VULNERABLE?
WHY CAN'T DONALD TRUMP MAY A
COUPLE MORE DOLLARS IN TAXES?
WHY CAN'T WE END THE SUBSIDIES
TO BIG OIL?
WHY CAN'T WE HAVE WARREN
BUFFETT PAY THE SAME TAX RATE
AS HIS SECRETARY?
THAT'S ALL WE'RE SAYING HERE.
YOUR RECONCILIATION BILL
REPRESENTS YOUR PRIORITIES.
WHAT WE'RE ARGUING IS YOUR
FOR THE COUNTRY.
PRIORITIES ARE WRONG AND BAD
WE HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE.
YOU WON'T LET US HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE THAT
ALTERNATIVE ON THE FLOOR.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEAKER, I'D
SAY TO MY FRIEND FROM
MASSACHUSETTS, AND I'M PREPARED
TO CLOSE IF HE HAS ANY MORE
SPEAKERS.
I WOULD YIELD TO MY -- I'D
RESERVE AND ENJOY MY FRIEND
FROM MASSACHUSETTS TO CLOSE.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEAKER, I'M
GOING TO URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
DEFEAT THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
I'LL OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO THIS
CLOSED RULE TO LET THE HOUSE
WORK ITS WILL AND GIVE MR. VAN
HOLLEN'S SUBSTITUTE AN UP OR
DOWN VOTE IN THE HOUSE.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT, MR.
SPEAKER, TO INSERT THE TEXT OF
THE AMENDMENT IN THE RECORD
ALONG WITH EXTRANEOUS MATERIALS
IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE VOTE
ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. SPEAKER, YOU
KNOW, I THINK WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY ARE
TWO DIFFERENT VISIONS FOR THIS
COUNTRY.
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE THEIR
VISION.
THAT IS OUTLINED IN THEIR
RECONCILIATION PACKAGE.
MR. VAN HOLLEN I THINK HAS
ADEQUATELY SUMMARIZED WHAT THE
DEMOCRATIC PRIORITIES ARE.
THE DIFFERENCE -- MAIN
DIFFERENCE IN THEIR PROPOSAL
THERE IS NO BALANCE.
IT'S A MEAT AX APPROACH TO
EVERYTHING.
CUT, CUT, CUT, CUT REGARDLESS
OF THIS COUNTRY.
OF WHAT IT MEANS TO THE PEOPLE
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AND
QUITE FRANKLY WHAT OTHER
BIPARTISAN COMMISSIONS HAVE
RECOMMENDED IS A MORE BALANCED
APPROACH.
WE CUT SPENDING BUT THERE'S
ALSO SOME REVENUES TO BE
RAISED.
AND AT A TIME IN OUR COUNTRY
WHERE WE HAVE A TAX CODE THAT
ALLOWS WARREN BUFFETT TO PAY A
LOWER TAX RATE THAN HIS
IT SEEMS THAT WE CAN
HAVE -- IT'S TIME FOR A LITTLE
FAIRNESS AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE
ASKING FOR HERE.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING IS FOR
A BALANCED, FAIR APPROACH.
WE'RE PREPARED TO MAKE THE
TOUGH CHOICES.
THOSE TOUGH CHOICES MEANS CUTS.
I SAY TO THE REPUBLICANS,
YOU'LL HAVE TO SUPPORT CLOSING
TAX LOOPHOLES AND RAISING
TAXES.
ON THE WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS
IN THIS COUNTRY.
MR. SPEAKER, I'D LIKE TO ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AT THIS TIME
TO INSERT IN THE RECORD A
LETTER FROM THE U.S. CONFERENCE
ON CATHOLIC BISHOPS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
AND I WANT TO
READ ONE PARAGRAPH FROM THAT
LETTER TO CONGRESS.
I QUOTE, THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS
OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES
COUNTRY FACES AND WE
THE SERIOUS DEFICITS OUR
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CONGRESS MUST
MAKE DIFFICULT DECISIONS ABOUT
HOW TO ALLOCATE BURDENS AND
SACRIFICES AND BALANCE
RESOURCES AND NEEDS.
HOWEVER, DEFICIT REDUCTION AND
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY EFFORTS
MUST PROTECT AND NOT UNDERMINE
THE NEEDS OF THE POOR AND THE
VULNERABLE PEOPLE.
THE PROPOSED CUTS TO PROGRAMS
IN THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION
FAIL THIS BASIC MORAL TEST.
THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH STATES IT IS THE PROPER
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT TO MAKE IT
ACCESSIBLE TO EACH WHAT IS
NEEDED TO LEAD A TRULY HUMAN
LIFE -- FOOD, CLOTHING, HEALTH,
WORK, EDUCATION AND CULTURE
SUITABLE INFORMATION, THE RIGHT
ON.
TO ESTABLISH A FAMILY AND SO
POOR AND VULNERABLE PEOPLE DO
NOT HAVE A POWERFUL LOBBYIST TO
ADVOCATE THEIR INTERESTS BUT A
THEY HAVE THE MOST COMPELLING
NEEDS, END QUOTE.
MR. SPEAKER, THAT PARAGRAPH
SUMS UP WHAT I FEEL AND WHAT SO
MANY OF US FEEL ABOUT WHAT MY
FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
.
THE AISLE ARE DOING.
YES WE HAVE TO MAKE TOUGH
CHOICES, BUT WHY ARE ALWAYS THE
TOUGH CHOICES ON THE BACKS OF
MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES AND THE
BACKS OF MOORE?
THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY
WHO ARE HUNGRY.
WE ARE THE RICHEST PEOPLE ON THE
PLANET AND WE HAVE HUNGRY PEOPLE
HERE.
WHAT IS OUR RESPONSE?
NOT TO HELP A WAY TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS SCOURGE,
THEIR RESPONSE IS TO TAKE A MEAT
AXE APPROACH TO SNAP.
WHICH WILL CUT BENEFITS.
THAT'S WHAT C.B.O. SAID.
IT WILL CUT BENEFITS.
PEOPLE WILL HAVE LESS FOOD
TOMORROW THAN THEY HAVE TODAY IF
THIS WERE TO BECOME LAW.
I THINK THAT'S A HORRIBLE
CHOICE.
THAT'S NOT A CHOICE WE SHOULD --
THE FLOOR.
WE SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING ON
LET'S MAKE THE PROGRAMS MORE
EFFICIENT.
LET ME TELL YOU THE SNAP PROGRAM
IS MORE EFFICIENT THAN THE
PENTAGON.
THE WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE AT
THE PENTAGON, THE WASTEFUL
WEAPON SYSTEMS AT THE PENTAGON.
I WILL TELL YOU, I DON'T CARE
WHAT LEON PANETTA SAYS, THERE'S
SAVINGS TO BE FOUND IN THE
PENTAGON BUDGET.
WE OUGHT TO GO AFTER THAT.
WE OUGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT
DONALD TRUMP PAYS HIS FAIR SHARE
IN TAXES AND OUGHT TO CLOSE
THESE CORPORATE TAX LOOPHOLES
THAT ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO GET
AWAY WITH PAYING NO TAXES.
MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES CAN'T DO
THAT.
THIS IS ABOUT FAIRNESS.
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR.
FAIRNESS AND BALANCE.
THIS IS A TOUGH TIME.
RATHER THAN FOLLOWING THE
EUROPEAN MODEL WHICH MY FRIENDS
SEEM TO LOVE OF AS YOU TARET AND
CUT, CUT, CUT -- AND AUSTERITY
AND CUT, CUT, CUT, WE SHOULD
INVEST IN A ROBUST HIGHWAY BILL
TO PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK,
INVESTING IN EDUCATION MAKING
SURE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE ARE
COMPARED TO COMPETE IN THE 21ST
CENTURY ECONOMY.
AND YES, INVESTING IN A SOCIAL
SAFETY NET AND INVESTING IN
PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE A CIRCLE
OF PROTECTION TO THE POOR AND
MOST VULNERABLE.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH
THAT.
WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF THE FACT
.
THAT WE ARE A COUNTRY THAT CARES
LET'S NOT GIVE THAT UP.
THAT'S A STRENGTH.
IT'S NOT A WEAKNESS, IT'S A
STRENGTH.
AND I SAID TO MY COLLEAGUES, MY
BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE
REPUBLICANS IS IT FAILS THAT
TEST.
WHAT IT DOES IS IT GOES AFTER
THE MOST VULNERABLE IN A WAY
THAT I THINK IS CRUEL AND WRONG.
MR. SPEAKER, YOU URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO AND DEFEAT
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
I URGE A NO VOTE ON THE RULE.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEAKER, I
THANK MY FRIEND FROM
MASSACHUSETTS FOR JOINING ME ON
THE FLOOR TODAY.
I THINK HE CHOSE EXACTLY THE
RIGHT CHOICE OF WORDS WHEN HE
WAS TRYING TO MAKE HIS POINTS.
DESCRIBE YOUR OPPOSITION AS
HATING WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND
THAT'S YOUR BEST CHANCE OF
WINNING THE ARGUMENT.
IF ONLY IT WERE TRUE.
THAT'S WHAT I HOPE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE TAKE HOME FROM DEBATES
LIKE THESE, MR. SPEAKER, IS THAT
THERE ARE SERIOUS CHALLENGES
HERE AND SERIOUS PEOPLE HERE
TRYING TO SOLVE THESE
CHALLENGES, BUT WE GET WRAPPED
AROUND THE AXLE IN THE
NAME-CALLING, I HEAR, THAT I
ARGUE DOES NOTHING TO FEED A
CHILD, TAKE CARE OF A FAMILY.
THE GENTLEMAN SAYS THAT WE ARE
THE RICHEST NATION IN THE WORLD.
I WOULD TELL THE GENTLEMAN THERE
IS NO POORER NATION ON THE
PLANET.
THERE IS NOT A NATION ON THE
PLANET THAT HAS BORROWED MORE
MONEY THAN THIS NATION HAS.
NOT ONE.
NOT ONE.
WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT
SOCIALISM, MR. SPEAKER?
IT'S A GREAT PLAN UNTIL YOU RUN
OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
GUESS WHAT?
WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OTHER
PEOPLE'S MONEY.
I WANT TO SHOW YOU A CHART, MR.
SPEAKER.
THIS IS A CHART -- I'LL SHOW IT
AROUND SO OTHER MEMBERS CAN SEE
IT.
THE GREEN LINE REPRESENTS TAX
REVENUES THIS THIS COUNTRY, IT
GOES BACK TO 1947.
WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS TAX REVENUES
ARE FAIRLY FLAT BECAUSE OF THE
ECONOMY.
BECAUSE THIS GOES BACK TO 1947
IT REFLECTS THE NEW DEAL WITH
F.D.R., ALL OF THAT GROWTH IN
GOVERNMENT.
THE REDLINE IS THE SPENDING,
GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
IT GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH
1965.
IT REFLECTS LYNDON JOHNSON AND
ALT GREAT SOCIETY SPENDING THAT
GOES ON.
WHAT YOU'LL SEE, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE MY COLLEAGUES CAN SEE IT
THERE, THE REDLINE REPRESENTING
WHERE SPENDING IS GOING IN THIS
NATION.
THE GREEN LINE REPRESENTING
WHERE TAXES ARE HISTORICALLY IN
THIS NATION.
MR. SPEAKER, DOES THIS LOOK LIKE
WE HAVE A TAX PROBLEM HERE?
DOES IT LOOK LIKE WE HAVE A
SPENDING PROBLEM IN THIS NATION?
TAXES HAVE REMAINED THE SAME AS
A PERCENT OF G.D.P. AS HAS
SPENDING UNTIL NOW.
A SPENDING
DRIVEN CRISIS IN THIS NATION.
I SAY TO MY FRIEND, AGAIN HE
CHOSE ALL THE RIGHT TALKING
POINTS.
THEY WANT TO PROTECT THE RICH.
COMPANIES.
THEY WANT TO PROTECT THE OIL
I WILL TELL YOU THERE'S ONE
BILL, MR. SPEAKER, YOU KNOW IT
WELL, THERE IS ONE BILL IN THIS
CONGRESS THAT ELIMINATES EVERY
SINGLE CORPORATE LOOPHOLE
EXEMPTION DEDUCTION AND BREAK.
THERE'S ONE.
THAT SAME BILL, MR. SPEAKER,
ELIMINATES EVERY LOOPHOLE THE
WEALTHY USE TO AVOID PAYING
EVERY ONE.
THEIR FAIR SHARE.
MR. SPEAKER, IT IS THE SINGLE
MOST POPULAR CO-SPONSORED TAX
BILL, FUNDAMENTAL REFORM BILL,
IN THE HOUSE AND IN THE SENATE,
IT HAS ALMOST 70 MEMBERS IN THE
HOUSE, IT HAS NINE MEMBERS IN
THE SENATE, AND THERE IS ONE
DEMOCRAT ON IT.
ONE.
MR. SPEAKER, GIVEN THE RIGHT
SPEECH DOWN HERE ABOUT WHAT
FOLKS OUGHT TO DO DOESN'T MOVE
US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
PUT YOUR NAME ON SOME
LEGISLATION AND MOVING SOMETHING
FORWARD GETS US IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
THIS BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
SITTING HERE BESIDE ME, I'M
PROUD OF HIM, CHAIRMAN PAUL
RYAN, THAT'S A NAME KNOWN AROUND
THIS COUNTRY AS A MAN WHO IS
TRYING.
THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS HERE
KNOWN FOR BLAMING.
THERE AREN'T MANY FOLKS KNOWN
FOR TRYING.
WE SAY WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE
SLINGS AND ARROWS.
AMERICA IS FACING A CRISIS AND
IF NOT ME THAN WHO?
WE GOT THAT IN THE HOUSE-PASSED
BUDGET, MR. SPEAKER.
FOLKS WHO SAID IF NOT ME, THEN
WHO?
THEY MADE TOUGH CHOICES.
HERE WE HAVE THE FIRST
RECONCILIATION BILL, FIRST
RECONCILIATION BILL.
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
ARE GOING TO OFFER A MOTION TO
RECOMMIT TO THIS DEFICIT
REDUCTION BILL THAT ACTUALLY
INCREASES SPENDING.
AND CALLED THAT BALANCE.
MR. SPEAKER, FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
SPENDING HAS INCREASED 270% OVER
THE LAST DECADE.
THE MEAN-SPIRITED FOLKS THAT MY
COLLEAGUES TALK ABOUT WANT TO
INCREASE IT BY 260% INSTEAD.
THESE AREN'T EASY DECISIONS, MR.
SPEAKER.
BUT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PUT
ONE FAMILY THAT QUALIFIES FOR
FOOD STAMPS OUT.
NOT ONE.
NOT ONE.
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE BEYOND THE
DEMAGOGUERY, MR. SPEAKER.
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE INTO THE
REAL BUSINESS THAT GOVERNING
THIS NATION TAKES.
I HOPE WE'LL GET A STRONG
BIPARTISAN VOTE ON THIS RULE.
I HOPE WE'LL GET A STRONG
BIPARTISAN VOTE ON THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE IN
FAVOR OF BOTH THE RULE AND THE
UNDERLYING BILL W THAT, MR.
SPEAKER, I YIELD BACK THE
AND I MOVE THE PREVIOUS
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
QUESTION.
THE
BACK.
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA YIELDS
ALL TIME HAVING EXPIRED, THE
QUESTION IS ON ORDERING THE
PREVIOUS QUESTION ON THE
RESOLUTION.
SO MANY AS ARE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE CHAIR RULES THE AYES HAVE
IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
MAY I ASK FOR THE
YEAS AND NAYS.
THE
YEAS AND NAYS ARE REQUESTED.
THOSE FAVORING A VOTE BY THE
YEAS AND NAYS WILL RISE.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE
ORDERED.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 9 OF RULE 20,
THE CHAIR WILL REDUCE TO FIVE
MINUTES THE MINIMUM TIME FOR ANY
ELECTRONIC VOTE ON THE QUESTION
OF ADOPTION.
THIS WILL BE A 15-MINUTE VOTE.
NATIONAL CAPTIONING INSTITUTE,
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY THE
INC., IN COOPERATION WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVES.
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITED BY THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.]
ON THIS
VOTE THE YEAS ARE 237.
THE NAYS -- THE NAYS ARE 177 AND
THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.
ADOPTED.
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IS
THE QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION OF
THE RESOLUTION.
SO MANY AS ARE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.
MR. SPEAKER.
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
VIRGINIA TECH.
ON THAT I ASK A
RECORDED VOTE.
A
RECORDED VOTE IS REQUESTED.
THOSE FAVORING A RECORDED VOTE
WILL RISE.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, MEMBERS WILL RECORD
DEVICE.
THEIR VOTES BY ELECTRONIC
THIS WILL BE A FIVE-MINUTE VOTE.
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY THE
NATIONAL CAPTIONING INSTITUTE,
INC., IN COOPERATION WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVES.
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITED BY THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.]
IS IS
ON THIS
VOTE THE YEAS ARE 230.
ON THIS
VOTE THE YEAS --
THE
YEAS ARE 233.
THE NAYS ARE 183.
THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER IS LAID UPON THE
TABLE.
THE CHAIR WILL RECEIVE A
MESSAGE.
THE MESSENGER: MR. SPEAKER,
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.
THE SECRETARY: MR. SPEAKER.
MADAM
SECRETARY.
THE SECRETARY: I HAVE BEEN
DIRECTED BY THE SENATE TO INFORM
THE HOUSE THAT THE SENATE HAS
PASSED S. 254, AN ACT TO REQUIRE
THE PRESIDENT TO REPORT TO
CONGRESS ON ISSUES RELATED ON
WHICH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE
REQUESTED.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM WISCONSIN SEEK RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, PURSUANT
RESOLUTION 648, I CALL
UP THE BILL H.R. 5652, THE
SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT
RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2012, TO
PROVIDE FOR RECONCILIATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 201 OF THE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013, AND
I ASK FOR ITS IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION IN THE HOUSE.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TIGHT OF
THE BILL.
UNION CALENDAR NUMBER
330, H.R. 5652, A BILL TO
PROVIDE FOR RECONCILIATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 201 OF THE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 648
, AN AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF
A SUBSTITUTE CONSISTING OF THE
TEXT OF RULES COMMITTEE PRINT
112-21, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS
ADOPTED AND THE BILL AS AMENDED
SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS READ.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN,
MR. RYAN, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND, MR. VAN HOLLEN, WILL
EACH CONTROL ONE HOUR.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT ALL
MEMBERS MAY HAVE FIVE
LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE AND
EXTEND THEIR REMARKS ON H.R.
5652, THE SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT
RECONCILIATION ACT.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
MYSELF FIVE MINUTES.
AND ASK THAT THE HOUSE SHALL BE
IN ORDER.
THE
HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER.
TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OFF THE
FLOOR.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. SPEAKER, I'D LIKE
TO REMIND EVERYBODY FOR A MINUTE
AS TO HOW WE GOT HERE.
WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
WHAT'S GOING ON?
WHEN THE PRESIDENT WAS
REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN THE
DEBT LIMIT LAST YEAR, HE WANTED
A BLANK CHECK.
JUST INCREASE THE DEBT LIMIT.
BORROWING UNCHECKED.
THEN WHEN THAT WASN'T GOING TO
HAPPEN, HE ASKED FOR A BIG TAX
INCREASE.
THAT DIDN'T OCCUR.
AND WHEN IT RECURD OUT OF THAT
WAS THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT.
YOU GOT TO CUT AT LEAST $1 WORTH
OF SPENDING FOR EVERY DOLLAR OF
DEBT INCREASE THAT OCCURS.
THUS THEY PASSED NO SPENDING
CUTS.
HALF OF IT WERE APPROXIMATELY
CAPS ON DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
NETTING ABOUT $1 TRILLION IN
SAVINGS.
THE OTHER HALF, $1.2 TRILLION,
WAS THESE SELECT COMMITTEE,
PEOPLE CALL THIS THE SUPER
COMMITTEE, THAT COMMITTEE FAILED
TO PRODUCE THE RESULT AND AS A
.
OCCURS.
RESULT OF THAT A SEQUESTER
AND THE SEQUESTER, ACCORDING TO
PEOPLE ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS, IS
NOT GOOD GOVERNMENT.
THE SEQUESTER, ACCORDING TO THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THE
PRESIDENT HIMSELF, WOULD HOLLOW
OUT OUR MILITARY WHEN IT KICKS
IN ON JANUARY 2 NEXT YEAR.
THE SEQUESTER WILL TAKE
NONDEFENSE DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING DOWN 8% AND DEFENSE
DOWN 10%.
WE BELIEVE THE PURPOSE OF THE
SEQUESTER WAS TO REPLACE THE
FACT THAT CONGRESS ISN'T
GOVERNING.
WELL, LET'S HAVE CONGRESS
GOVERN.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING THIS.
AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE
BRINGING A BILL TO THE FLOOR TO
CUT 405% OF THE SPENDING CUTS
THAT ARE IN THE SEQUESTER IN THE
FIRST YEAR.
A NET DEFICIT REDUCTION OF
$242.8 BILLION TO SET ASIDE TO
SEQUESTER ON DISCRETIONARY FOR
ONE YEAR OF $78 BILLION.
WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD TRADEOFF.
MORE TO THE POINT, WE NEED TO
GET IN THE HABIT OF DOING
RECONCILIATION.
BECAUSE 61% OF THE FEDERAL
BUDGET IS OFF LIMITS.
IT'S AUTO PILOT.
IT'S NOT TOUCHED.
CONGRESS DOESN'T DEAL WITH IT.
AND SO WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS
PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT THAT IS
NOT BEING DEALT WITH, THE LAST
TIME WE USED RECONCILIATION FOR
THE INTEND PURPOSE, TO CUT
2005.
SPENDING, CUT DEFICITS, WAS
AND SO RATHER THAN JUST HAVING
ANNUAL DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
BOUTS AN DEBATES, WE SHOULD LOOK
AT THE OTHER PARTS OF GOVERNMENT
WHICH ARE ON AUTO PILOT AND TAKE
A LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THINGS.
WE BASICALLY ARE DOING FIVE
WE'RE STOPPING THE ABUSE BY
ENSURING INDIVIDUALS ARE
ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE
TAXPAYER BENEFITS THEY RECEIVE.
NOVEL IDEA, I KNOW.
WE'RE ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT
SLUSH FUNDS TO STOP BAILOUTS.
WE'RE CONTROLLING RUNAWAY,
UNCHECKED SPENDING.
WE'RE PUTTING RESTRAINTS ON
GOVERNMENT SPENDING BY
BUREAUCRACIES AND WE'RE GETTING
RID OF DUPLICATIVE SPENDING.
I CAN GO THROUGH EACH PROGRAM
AND WE'LL DO THIS IN THIS
DEBATE.
BUT WHAT WE'RE SIMPLY SAYING IS,
PEOPLE SHOULD ACTUALLY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFITS THAT
THEY RECEIVE.
WHETHER IT'S A TAX CREDIT,
WHETHER IT'S A SNAP BENEFIT,
WHATEVER IT IS.
AND WHEN WE TAKE A LOOK AT WHY
WE'RE CUTTING SPENDING, WE'RE
DOING THIS WITH THE GUISE OF THE
FACT THAT WE HAVE A
SPENDING-DRIVEN DEBT CRISIS ON
THE HORIZON.
IF TAXES GO BACK TO WHERE
THEY'VE BEEN FOR THE LAST 40
YEARS WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE
PROJECTED TO DO, THERE'S NO WAY
YOU CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM BY
RAISING TAXES.
WE HAVE A SPENDING-DRIVEN DEBT
CRISIS AND THE DEBT CRISIS IS
ONE IN WHICH WE HAVE A TIDAL
WAVE OF DEBT COMING TO THIS
COUNTRY.
EXPERIENCING.
JUST LIKE EUROPE IS
AND IF WE DON'T GET OUR SPENDING
UNDER CONTROL AND WE DON'T GET
OUR DEFICIT UNDER CONTROL, THE
PEOPLE WHO NEED GOVERNMENT THE
MOST, THE POOR, THE ELDERLY,
THEY'RE THE ONES WHO GET HURT
THE FIRST AND THE WORST.
WE NEED TO GET SPENDING AND
THEREFORE DEFICITS UNDER CONTROL
TO PREVENT A DEBT CRISIS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES.
IT'S A DOWN PAYMENT.
AND INSTEAD OF SAVING HUNDREDS
OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS LIKE THIS
BILL DOES, WE NEED TO GET INTO
THE PRACTICE OF ACTUALLY SAVING
TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHICH IS
WHAT OUR BUDGET DOES, IN ORDER
TO PREVENT A DEBT CRISIS FROM
RUINING THE AMERICAN DREAM FOR
AMERICANS.
WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I WILL
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND, MR.
VAN HOLLEN, IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.
THERE'S AGREEMENT HERE ON TWO
THINGS.