tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 10, 2012 10:00am-1:00pm EDT
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 panetta says threaten our national security? 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 portion of spending in this budget. 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: no one is arguing sequestration should go into effect. 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: 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. the 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california
reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: 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 quotes 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. mcgovern: mr. speaker. wood wod if -- mr. woodall: 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 -- mr. garamendi: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i yield to my friend from california. mr. garamendi: 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 -- mr. woodall: reclaiming my time from my friend. i would say reaching out and bringing folks in the program who do not qualify for the program. 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. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: yes. mr. mcgovern: the government 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? mr. woodall: 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 but they gave them to them anyway. 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, i happen to agree with the gentleman. 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 disengine with us. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman
will yield? mr. woodall: i'm prepared to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: 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. mr. mcgovern: half a minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts
reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me yield myself a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: what galls me is that the republican majority is balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in this country, the poorest of the poor. 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 will be cut from snap altogether. 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 priorities are wrong and bad for the country. we have an alternative. you won't let us have an opportunity to debate that alternative on the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: 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. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: 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 what it means to the people of this country. 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
secretary, 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. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: and i want to read one paragraph from that letter to congress. i quote, the catholic bishops of the united states recognizes the serious deficits our country faces and we 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 to establish a family and so on. 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 -- we shouldn't be discussing on the floor. 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: 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. until now we have 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. they want to protect the oil companies. 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 their fair share. every one. 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 balance of my time. and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. 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. mr. mcgovern: may i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: 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. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. 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.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays -- the nays are 177 and the resolution is adopted. the previous question is adopted. 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. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from massachusetts virginia tech. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. 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.]
the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: 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 house is requested.
from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. speaker, pursuant to house 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 speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tight of the bill. the clerk: 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. the speaker pro tempore: 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. ryan: 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. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself five minutes. and ask that the house shall be in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: 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 result of that a sequester occurs. . 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 spending, cut deficits, was 2005. 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. we basically are doing five things. 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. just like europe is experiencing. 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you very much, mr. speaker. there's agreement here on two things. one, we need to reduce our long-term deficits. the question is not whether we need to do that, but how. second, we agree that the automatic indiscriminant meat axe cuts scheduled to begin next january are the wrong way to reduce the deficit. we need a responsible alternative. now, the house democrats put forward a budget as did the president that deals with this issue over 10 years in a balanced way. building on the more than $1 trillion of cuts we already made on a bipartisan basis last august and including additional cuts but also cutting tax loopholes that benefit special interests and asking people who make more than $1 million per year to help a little bit more toward deficit reduction.
that is the kind of bipartisan approach that's been recommended by bipartisan groups like simpson-bowles. unfortunately the republican approach to the budget and now to the sequester issue takes this lopsided approach. now, let's remember, 98% of our house republican colleagues, while they come down here and talk about how we have this big deficit and debt problem, they have signed a pledge that says, we're not going to ask for one penny of additional contribution from people making more than $1 million a year to help reduce our deficit. not one penny. we won't take one penny of taxpayer subsidies away from the big oil companies to help reduce the deficit. and the math is pretty simple after that. if you say from the beginning you're not going to ask people making $1 million a year to help do a little more to reduce our
common deself -- deficit, if you say you're not going to ask companies that have these tax loopholes that actually incentivize them to ship jobs overseas to pay a little bit more, what do you do? your budget has to whack everyone else and that's what it did. that's why their budget ended the medicare guarantee. that's why they cut $800 billion from medicaid. 2/3 of medicaid spending goes to help seniors and disabled people in nursing homes. that's why they slashed vital investments in education, research, infrastructure, things that had been bipartisan investments to help our economy grow. that's what they did then. now on the sequester proposal what could they do? the chairman talks about eligibility. these are people who are eligible to get food and nutrition assistance because they're struggling and the nonpartisan congressional budget office, which is our referee around here, has told us what the consequences, the real world
consequences, of their proposal before us today would be. over 22 million households with kids would see their food and nutrition support reduced. 300,000 kids knocked off the school lunch program. 300,000 kids knocked off the children's health insurance program. those are the kind of choices they make because they refuse to take a balanced approach to this deficit issue. now, i want to say one word about defense spending. last august, as part of the bipartisan budget control act, our republican colleagues deliberately chose to expose defense spending to deep additional cuts rather than ask millionaires and big corporations to share greater responsibility for paying for our national security. now our republican colleagues are on the floor today saying these defense cuts would devastate our national security, but they still, even today, apparently aren't concerned
enough about the impact of those cuts on national security to ask millionaires to pay a little bit more for our common defense. that's the same kind of mentality that led us to put two wars on our national credit card. even as we asked our soldiers to sacrifice, we said, we're just going to put that on our national credit card. so there's a fundamental question here, fundamental question. if you're so concerned about those cuts to defense, why is it you won't close one special interest tax loophole to help pay for them? we, the democrats, had a substitute amendment that we would have been able to debate and vote on right here today. we took an alternative approach. we also prevented those defense cuts. you know how we did it? we said, we don't need to make these big agricultural subsidies and direct payments, we also don't think we should have oil -- taxpayer subsidies for the big oil companies. we did it in a different way. and apparently our republican
colleagues are kind of worried about what we were going to propose because they brought a closed rule to the floor meaning democrats didn't have an opportunity to get a vote on our alternative. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself one minute to say, mr. speaker, that the gentleman's substitute raises taxes $85 billion and raises spending $55 billion on the net to achieve simply $30 billion in deficit reduction. this bill achieves $243 billion in deficit reduction without raising taxes. the ratio of spending increases, of tax increases to spending cuts gross 3-1. that's what they think balance is. let's look at food stamps. food stamps are up 270% over the last decade. if this passes it will have gone up 260%. let's talk about medicaid and schip. this program has gone up 50% over the last 10 years.
it's probablied to grow 125% over the next 10 years. if this passes, it will grow 123% over the next 10 years. if we can't have a civil debate about how to slow the growth of spending around here, then we'll never get this under control. medicaid alone made $15.8 billion in overpayments in 2011 alone. if we can't deal with this waste, if we can't deal with this overspending, we can't fix this problem. with that, mr. speaker, i yield -- i ask unanimous consent to yield seven minutes of my time to mr. hensarling of the financial services committee and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, will control the time. is recognized for seven minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman from wisconsin for yielding and, mr. speaker, i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from
alabama, mr. bachus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. bachus: mr. speaker, the financial committee's work on this reconciliation package saves more than $35 billion. but more importantly it does what 2,300 pages of the dodd-frank, 400 new regulations, over 2,000 newly hired federal regulators, many of them living in my maryland colleague's district, and more than $24 million worth of compliance work required of america's companies, at the cost of $100 billion, it ends the bailouts. a bailout fund doesn't end the bailout, it guarantees them. we're telling the big banks what my democratic colleagues didn't want to tell them. if they make risky bets and make bad decisions, they're on the hook, not the taxpayers.
no more privatizing the profits, no more socializing the losses. in short, no more bailouts period. thank you, mr. speaker. hen hen -- mr. bachus: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. hensarling. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank ranking member van hollen. well, here we are again. america still recovering from the worst economic downturn since the great depression, and the republicans don't seem to understand that we need to focus on job creation. our economy has been producing private sector jobs each month for the last two years, in stark contrast to the bush years. but today we're not debating job
growth to balance the budget. we aren't considering a transportation bill today. no, that would create the most new jobs. making real investments in america by putting people back two, and growing our economy. today we are debating nothing more than the latest political talking points for the republican party. we all know that this strategy is going nowhere in the senate. so instead of focusing on economic growth and job creation, the republicans decided to protect their rich friends and slash the programs that the most needy in our country depend upon. while protecting the well, here's what the republican bill does to ordinary families. cuts health coverage for the least among us. 300,000 low income children. the republican bill slashes food and nutrition support for the unemployed. and for struggling children and families. the republican bill eliminates social services block grant which is give states and local communities flexibility to target funding for essential
services like meals on wheel, preventing child abuse and neglect and providing child care for working parents. the republican bill wants to repeal the prevention and public health fund established under the affordable care act. and what does that do? it supports cancer screenings, including for breast and cervical cancer, immunizations, education, research and prevention, which in the end saves the most money. prevention saves money. if the republicans were serious about putting our fiscal house in order, they would put forward a serious proposal that grows our economy and creates jobs to balance the budget and involve shared sacrifice. that's how you balance budgets. you grow the economy. i look forward to that day. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time to mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes.
mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. speaker. a lot of discussion here this morning about who we're protecting. really the reason we're here today is to protect the future of america. you know, they're throwing around a lot of large numbers here but what we need to do is put in per spectacular whave we're talking about today. i want to talk -- perspective what we're talking about today. i want to talk about a family, they're spending $37,000 a year so they're spending $13,000 more a year than they're making. and they just got their credit card statement the other day, mr. speaker, and they found out they owe $157,000 on their credit card and people out there would say, that's a family that doesn't have a future. unfortunately the family that i'm just talking about here, mr. speaker, is the united states of america because i took the eight zeros off of the front of these numbers that we're kicking around today. so i think the american people ought to be excited that we're here today, you know, making a start, and i want to point out, this is just a start to addressing a very large problem. and so when we go into some of the programs out there like the
consumer protection financial bureau, basically that was tucked inside the fed, has no accountability, that was the reason i was pleased to introduce h.r. 1355, to bring accountability to that. the american people deserve accountability and they also deserve for this body to come together and work on this very large problem because as has been pointed out, a lot of the things that we actually vote on, in fact this $13,000 deficit, if we eliminated the part of spending that we are talking about voting on in these appropriation bills, that only eliminate $11,000 of that deficit. so this family would still have a $2,000 budget deficit even after we eliminate all of the programs that we vote on. . this is the business we are supposed to be about. let's work together and protect the future of our children and grandchildren so they will have a future, they will have an opportunity to have jobs and opportunities in america. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, yields bark.
the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling -- mr. hensarling: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: i'd like to respond to the chairman of the budget committee in terms of the ratio of cuts to revenue. i think the gentleman will recall one of the recommendations that the bipartisan commission made was the trillion dollars in cuts that we made as part of the budget control act, that was 100% cuts. if you take that into account, the reality is what we have done so far with our proposal is 92% cuts, 8% revenue. with that revenue generated by closing those tax loopholes i talked about earlier. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz, is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to the sequester replacement reconciliation act. the second phase in the republican pathway to poverty plan. this bill once again fails to reach any measure of fairness and shared responsibility. all of us agree that the implementation of sequestration would be a damaging, harmful
approach to taking an effort to achoove deficit reduction. -- achieve deficit reduction. the difference between democrats and republicans, instead of taking a balanced approach, the balance would replace sequestration with tax breaks to millionaires and special interests, while ending the medicare guarantee, slashing investments that strengthen our economy, and shredding the social safety net. not surprisingly important provisions of the affordable care act are in their sights. the prevention and public health fund was an unprecedented investment in our health and well-being, particular for women and children. by providing funding for vital cancer, and the fight against epidemic, fighting obesity, and diabetes, this fund invests in our nation's health and it will provide savings down the line to help catch afflictions early. by seeking to undermine the affordable care act, this bill would eliminate funding for hundreds of thousands of lifesaving screenings. all to score political points with their extreme base. mr. speaker, just a few years ago when i was 41 years old i
found a lump in my breast. which was confirmed to be cancer and a series of screenings, including a clinical screening, just like the ones that this fund provides. these screenings saved my life, but this bill would prevent 326,000 women from having access to the same screenings i did. it will prevent an estimated 10,300 women from being diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer in the earl will i stages and may cost them their lives. furthermore, this bill slashes funding for screening for birth defects, developmental disability, and hearing loss children. how can any of us in good conscience cut investments in children health? frankly as a mom of three young kids i'm stunned. you don't pay down the deficit our children didn't create by compromising their health. our constituents deserve a balanced approach to deficit reduction. the republicans approach would deny women like me access to screenings that save lives and children the screenings they need so we can keep them healthy. it's unacceptable and i ask colleagues with a conscience to vote down this terrible bill.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, it's important for us to remember why we are here. we are here because the president's policies have failed. $1 frill deficit. a second $1 trillion deficit. a third $1 thrill deficit. and now a fourth $1 trillion deficit. putting the nation on the road to bankruptcy, that's why we have a reconciliation bill before us. i hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about deep cuts. the deepest cuts that are happening in america today are to the family budgets of breadwinners who are either unemployed or underemployed due to the economic policies of this administration. we just got the news last month, third month in a row, where job growth is down.
we are not even keeping pace. we have the lowest labor force participation rate in 30 years because, mr. speaker, people have given up. on the obama economy. those are the deep cuts that truly count. republicans have a plan for america's job creators. we want to get this economy going. as we do, as people go back to work, they get off of the wfl checks on to the paychecks. that's what counts. and so republicans have brought forth a reconciliation plan that says you know what? maybe we ought to quit spending money we don't have and maybe this will help provide part of the confidence that job creators need to put america back to work. and i'm very proud of the work that was done on the financial services committee, among other things, to end the perpetual wall street bailout fund that
was put in by the democrats in the dodd-frank bill. because if you lose your ability to fail in america, you lose your ability to succeed and the american people are tired of the bailouts. i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. before i turn to one of my colleagues let me just say in response to my friend, mr. hensarling. the american people are well aware of what was happening in the economy the very day the president was sworn in as president of the united states. losing 800,000 jobs every month. the economy in free fall, almost 9% negative economic growth. people's retirement savings had dropped by 1/3 compared to where they were in 2007. that's the economy the president
inherited. as a result of the extraordinary measures taken by the president, by the previous congress, and most importantly with the fortitude of the american people, what we see is this, after the day the president was sworn in, when the economy was in free fall, those are jobs lost, we began to lift ourselves slowly out. we have now had 25 consecutive months of positive private sector job growth. is it enough? no. of course we had no help from our republican colleagues in working on the turn around. the president's jobs bill that he submitted to this house last september, is still sitting here. fortunately we finally did a piece of it with the payroll tax cut. my republican colleagues says the republicans have an answer, their answer is back to the old trickle-down economics. another round of tax breaks for the folks at the very top. somehow that will trickle down and lift everybody up. you know what? we tried it. it didn't work.
it was called eight years of the bush administration. we had two back-to-back tax cuts at the end of eight years. net job loss in the private sector after those eight years, and big deficits. the last time we had a balanced budget here was 2001 before those policies. so it's important for us to get the history of the past right in order to make sure we know how to move forward properly in the future. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this as i appreciate his setting the stage turns up why we are here, in terms of what prom inherited when he was elect -- what president obama nharetted when he was elected to office, and the republican leadership doesn't want to work with us in a balanced and reasonable way to reduce the deficit and get us on a sustainable path. nothing is of greater
illustration of this than the response to an amendment that i offered in the budget committee. monday when we were dealing with this i offered up to my colleagues instead of throwing -- eliminating food stamp benefits for two million people, for cutting benefits for 20 months, reducing benefits for 44 million people in total, school lunches for 280,000 children. i said, wait a minute, why don't we work together on something that we agree on? i had worked with the chairman of the budget committee in the past to try and reform agriculture subsidies. we got a reconciliation from the ag committee that takes it all out of nutrition for poor people. for children, for struggling families. i said why don't we go to where we agree -- crop insurance
wastes billions, direct payments go to farmers who don't need them and don't deserve them. we have an opportunity to put reasonable limits on the amount that goes to the wealthiest business interests. we worked on that together. a majority of the budget committee i'm sure agrees and it would pass on the floor. and we could meet this objective and more without assaulting the well-being of 44 million struggling americans. i have looked at those people in my community and i can't imagine my colleagues who are proposing this have worked with the food kitchens, have worked with the food stamps recipients. may i have 30 additional seconds? mr. van hollen: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: the answer in part was we can't do that because we do agree on some farm reform, but we have to do it when we reform the farm bill.
that's coming up for re-authorization later. you have to do it in the farm bill, that's where we deal with direct payments, that's where we deal with crop insurance. hello? where are food stamps authorsed -- authorized? they are in the exact same farm bill and the republicans have decided they are going to ignore this opportunity, they are going to vote a bipartisan compromise that will save more money and protect families and instead they are going to protect agribusiness and avoid an opportunity for everybody to win on the floor. it's shameful and should be rejected. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, is recognized. mr. hensarling: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. the financial services committee has responsibly contributed roughly $35 billion in deficit reduction measures to this bill.
and i'm happy one of these measures that i sponsored, a repeal of the office of financial services, was adopted by voice vote in our committee. mr. canseco: this agency created by dodd frank is a threat to the privacy of every american citizen and no place in the system of checks and balances such as ours. repealing the o.f.r. will save $270 million over 10 years and americans will be better off for it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remaining minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, the american people know that after the nation's first, second, third, and now fourth trillion dollar deficit, the american people know after the worst employment record in 30 years, that the problem is with the president's economic policies
and ultimately this debate comes down to this. do we have a debt crisis because washington spends too much or because the american people are undertaxed? my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say a nation can tax its way into economic growth, tax its way into economic prosperity. they want to impose taxes from 40% of the income on small businesses and somehow think they will create more jobs. mr. speaker, if you gave them every job harming tax increase that they have asked for, it's roughly 16% of the additional $11 trillion of debt that the president wants to put on this economy, our children, and grandchildren. the american people know we can do better. it is time to quit spending money we don't have for jobs, the stimulus program never creates. i'm proud to be a part of this
reconciliation package which will save the draconian cuts that are aimed at our war fighters and their families and be able to begin the process of assuring that a great nation lives within its means and that we can give the next generation greater hope, greater opportunity, greater economic growth, and i urge all my colleagues to support this reconciliation bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. . mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just point out that the nonpartisan congressional budget office has stated that as a result of the economic recovery bill, the extraordinary actions that were taken, over four million jobs were created or saved. that means a lot to the people who didn't lose their jobs, the people who were losing their jobs at the rate of 800,000 per month when the president was sworn in. are we where we want to be?
of course not. are we a lot better off than we were? we're pulling ourselves up and the last thing we want to do is go back to where we were. nobody on the democrat side has said, we can deal with this on the tax side alone. that's not true. we voted on a bipartisan basis in august for $1 trillion in cuts. what we propose is what every bipartisan group that's looked at this challenge has said. you have to do this through a combination of cuts, but you also got to get rid of all that pork barrel stuff in the tax code and use some of that to reduce our deficit. ask the folks who are have -- who have been making over $1 million a year to help pay for our common defense. that is just common sense. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes, mr.
doggett. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, normally when we think of reconciliation we think of a coming together, of a finding common ground. this is not such reconciliation. whether this is a bill that provides more tax breaks to the few and more pain to the many, it is in fact a wreck, as in a train or auto wreck, wreckonciliation. there is legitimate concern that we must address our budget difficulties to avoid a long-term budget wreck. but i am concerned about the wreck that this legislation under consideration today poses to the lives of so many americans. it is a wreck for educational opportunity. the failure of this budget committee to address the needs of our youngest americans with head start and early learning, the failure to extend the education -- more education tax
credit that i authored, for more opportunity at the alamo colleges at texas state and institutions across this country. it is a wreck for our most vulnerable neighbors, the texas seniors who rely on one hot meal a day for meals on wheels. their director says, it will be devastating to eliminate the social services block grant, a wreck for those seniors. it is a wreck for those who are relying on food security, like the 74-year-old who gave me this plate at the food bank in san antonio. my social security check doesn't give me enough to buy any groceries. just my rent and utilities. without the food bank, i would starve. those are the kinds of people for whom it is a wreck right now. now, we had a president once who realized the need for shared sacrifice. he had almost half of his budget from new revenue by what he said
was closing off special interest loopholes and he said, that is just a matter of simple fairness. his name was ronald reagan. i think we might follow that example. do you have another 30 seconds? mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas voiced for 30 seconds. mr. doggett: president california candidates said they wouldn't give -- presidential candidates said they wouldn't give for spending cuts. this is a reconciliation bill that asks nothing of mr. exxon, that asks nothing more of hedge fund managers, but asks those who are most vulnerable in our society to share more pain. i think we must reject this wreck, a wreck for so many american families, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, controls the time for the majority. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield
myself one minute to just address a few of these. if you're eligible for food stamps today, you'll be eligible for food stamps tomorrow under this bill. we're simply saying, you have to be eligible for this benefit to actually get the benefit. the slush fund which is called the preventative services fund, it doesn't fund cervical and breast cancer research. it funded things such as the pike county, north carolina, funds for signage to promote recreational destinations including public parks, bike lanes and more. the city of boston got a $1 million grant for urban gardening. the new york department of health used a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant from this fund to lobby for a soda tax initiative. the cascade bicycle club education foundation received $3 million to use taxpayer dollar 20's to quote, im-- dollars to, quote, improve the walking and biking environment. this is where the tax dollars are going. the child tax credit.
one investigation in indiana said, illegal immigrants receiving $29,608 for 20 children that they claim for the tax credit who live in mexico and have never visited the united states before. yielding myself 30 additional seconds, mr. speaker. what we're saying is government spending on these programs should go to the people who are intended, not for people who are not eligible and are not intended. if we're going to do prevention for health care, then do cancer screening, do cancer research, don't fund signs for bike paths. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house armed services committee, mr. mckeon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 5652. 50% of the savings that we have already generated this year have come from the military cuts and we're talking about adding another $500 billion to $600 billion on top of that next january with sequestration.
that's over $1 trillion a year coming out of the military over the next 10 years while defense spending only accounts for 20% or less than 20% of our budget and while we're fighting war in afghanistan and facing our uncertainties around the world. let me remind everyone here of the major consequences of sequestration. 200,000 troops will be taken out of the army and the marines, bringing our force level down below pre-9/11 levels. ability to respond to contingencies in north korea and iran and other places, hot spots around the world, will be put in jeopardy. a fleet of fewer than 230 ships, a navy that has protected the sea lanes around the world, our commerce, 95% of our commerce travels on the sea. they protected that since world war ii. they'll be taken down to pre-world war i levels. we'll have a smaller air force than any time since the air force was created and two rounds of base closure. that's why secretary panetta has said, it's not shooting
ourselves in our foot with sequestration, it's shooting ourselves in the head. that's why 31 coalition -- 31 organizations representing more than 5 1/2 million american troops and veterans have called on congress to act immediately to prevent these catastrophic cuts to our military. mr. speaker, i urge all members to support our troops, support our national security and support this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i also urge all our colleagues to support our troops and support our military. and the democratic substitute that we offered would have made sure that the sequester on defense spending did not take place. and i have great respect for the chairman of the armed services committee, mr. mckeon, who just spoke. and here's what he said not long ago. he says, quote, we need to address our budget problems
comprehensively, through smarter spending and increased revenue. he also said, and i quote, if it came that i only had two choices, one was a tax increase and one was a cut in defense, over and above where we already are, i would go to strengthen defense. in our democratic substitute, we said, let's close some of those tax loopholes to generate a little more revenue to help pay for defense. let's ask people who are making over $1 million a year to get rid of some of their tax breaks to help pay for our common defense. so that we don't have to have a budget that whack everybody else in the country. -- whacks everybody else in the country. i agree with him. he got beaten down by many in the republican party after he made those comments. oh, you violated that pledge that says we're not going to raise one more penny of revenue to reduce the deficit. but he was candid. unfortunately neither he nor any of us are going to have a chance to vote on the democratic subs duty that makes sure --
substitute that makes sure that we don't have the defense sequester, we just do it in a balanced way. through cuts, as well as closing some of these tax loopholes. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. castor: thank you. i thank the ranking member. mr. speaker, two of the most prominent independent scholars on congress recently completed a detailed research initiative. they've never been shy in criticizing either side of the aisle. but their latest research concluded that the republican party has become so ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and they said, when one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the nation's
challenges. the republican budget is a perfect example of that. the republican budget shields special interests from participating in deficit reduction and instead says, we want to end medicare as we know it, and we would like -- we target children and our older neighbors and middle class families for the overwhelming burden of deficit reduction. it's a political party -- if a political party wanted to undermine the health and economic security of millions of american families, well, then this is the way to do it. and it's too bad because i believe democrats and reasons agree on the need for -- republicans agree on the needer to deficit reduction but we have starkly different visions on how to get there. others have called this republican budget extreme, reverse robin hood, destructionive and a threat to -- destructive and a threat to middle class security. i offered an amendment to say, it's time, we don't have the luxury to be giving big oil companies tax breaks any longer. instead let's make sure that
children across america can see a doctor, can get the immunizations that they need. but what was the vote? republicans rejected that commonsense amendment. it was paid for by eliminating these big oil subsidies. this is what they mean by their ideologically extreme. it's not in keeping with our values as americans and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the republican budget and sequestration plan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. ryan, is recognized -- wisconsin, mr. ryan, is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself 30 seconds to make three points. the line the lady used on medicare was rated the lie of the year. number one. number two, the reasons the democrat substitute is not being doctored is it violates the house rules. it would have violated the house rules that the democrats had in place when they were in the
majority. third point is when it comes to tax loopholes, we're proposing to close those in order to lower tax rates for american families and businesses, to create jobs. they want to do it to prevent spending cuts. $3 in tax increases for $1 of spending cuts is the math and the logic that the other side chooses to use. when you have a spending problem, you got to cut spending. with that, mr. speaker, i yield five minutes, i ask unanimous consent to yield five minutes of my time to the chairman of the committee of agriculture, chairman lucas, and ask unanimous consent he be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and controls the time. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this legislation. it's no secret that we're facing a severe debt crisis right now. we have almost $16 trillion in debt piled up and if we don't act quickly we'll be passing a crushing burden onto our
children and grandchildren. reducing the government spending, though, is never an easy task. we face difficult choices. but house republicans have lived up to our responsibility to find ways to cut our costs so that we can once again live within our means. the house agriculture committee has asked -- been asked to do its part by finding $33 billion in savings over 10 years. we did that by making credible, commonsense reforms to the supplemental nutrition assistance program. or snap. these provisions reduced waste and abuse and closed program loopholes. snap, form early known as food stamps, comprises almost 80% of the agriculture committee's manned spoir spending. over the past 10 years, the cost of snap has nearly tripled, increasing by 270%. the changes that we're proposing today cut only 4% over the next 10 years. i'd like to make it absolutely
clear, none of these recommendations will prevent families that qualify for assistance under snap from receiving their benefits. we are working to better target the program and improve its integrity, so that families in need can continue to receive nutritional assistance. . opponents would have you believe we are decimating the nutritional safety net and hungry children and seniors will be left to fend for themselves. that is a false and misleading scare tactic. it's important to remember that many of the very people opposing these cuts, proposed and voted for similar measures during the last congress when they were in control of this body. not once but twice my colleagues on the left voted to cut the temporary increase in snap benefits under the american recovery and reinvestment act.
one of those cuts was to pay for the bailout of a union. now the house republicans are advocating that same policy, those across the aisle are crying foul. by ending the artificial increase in snap benefits, we can save $5.9 billion over 10 years. and we won't be turning that into more government spending, it will go towards deficit reduction. this legislation also ends bonus that is have been awarded to states on the taxpayer dime. states are responsible for administering snap and it's their duty to make sure the program is operating in the most efficient and effective fashion. we save nearly half a billion dollars by ending bonuses that are given to states for merely doing their job. we also find savings by closing loopholes that allow states to game the system when administering snap. first we stop the states from abuse -- abusing liheap to
inflate snap benefits. states are exploiting, long since past exploring, it's exploiting the interact between liheap and snap by sending token checks to households which can trigger hundreds of dollars in increased snap benefits. liheap is a valuable program for households in need of assistance with heating and energy costs. it shouldn't be abused in this fashion. in new york city a $1 liheap check triggers an additional $131 in snap benefits per month for nearly 90,000 households. in washington state a $1 liheap check triggers an additional $4 million in snap benefits -- $43 million in snap benefits. that's egregious and taxpayers know it. these token checks not only undermine the integrity of snap and liheap, but they also cost taxpayers billions of dollars in overpayments. closing this loophole saves
$14.3 billion over 10 years and ensures that both liheap and snap are targeted to the families who truly need the assistance. another loophole we have closed is called categorical eligibility which allows any household that receives a benefit from certain low-income assistance programs to become automatically eligible for snap. some of these benefits can be as simple as providing a household with a pamphlet or access to 1-800 number. when states implement categorical eligibility, these households do not need to meet snap asset or gross income tests. that's how lottery winners slip through the cracks and continue to receive nutrition assistance. when someone is categorically eligible for snap, states don't have to verify assets like lottery winnings. it isn't just lottery winners that are unfairly collecting benefits, either. the "cincinnati enquirer" reported that one woman collected $500 per month in snap
benefits, had an $80,000 -- $80,000 in savings, a paid for home valued at $300,000. let me repeat what i said earlier, these provisions do not decimate the program and leave struggling families to fend for themselves. what they do is restore program integrity. they reserve taxpayer dollars for families that are in need of assistance. every one ever these provisions represents common sense and -- of these provisions represents common sense and good government at a time of fiscal restraint. there's no denying snap provides important support for many americans. that's why it's important we ensure the integrity of the program, those who qualify for snap under the program law will continue to receive benefits. by voting for this package we are not only doing our part to reduce the debt, we are improving the implementation of this important program while continuing to meet the nutritional needs of our fellow americans. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma's time has expired.
the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. first i'd just like to respond to the chairman of the budget committee and point out that the rules committee waived three rules to bring the republican legislation to the floor. waived three rules, couldn't waive one rule to allow a democratic substitute to have an up or down vote. and the one rule you wouldn't waive is the one that rigs the process against closing special interest tax loopholes. to the chairman of agriculture committee, i think everybody needs to know that the ag committee didn't reduce one subsidy to ag businesses. not one. even though the overall republican budget says it should be $30 billion, there's a bipartisan bill that would do that, but not one. instead they took $33 billion out of food and nutrition programs. now, we should be very clear on this. people say that they are going to make sure everyone who is eligible to get food stamps who will, then they say under snap. suggesting there are a lot of people who are getting it who are cheating.
that's not true. all those other people are em-- eligible. it's not democrat scare tactics saying all these people are going to lose their access, it's the nonpartisan congressional budget office. the referee here that was never contested by our republican colleagues in the budget committee, they say, they say 22 million american households with children will see their food nutrition support reduced. two million americans approximately will lose all access to the food nutrition programs through snap. 300,000 kids will lose the school lunch program. those are our facts. that's what the congressional budget office says. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman oregon is recognized for two minutes. ms. bonamici: i rise today in strong opposition to house resolution 5652, the sequester replacement reconciliation act.
not long ago we were here debating a very misguided budget resolution and today with this house resolution, the leadership has decided to double down on the draconian cuts contained in that budget. we should be able to come together and have a frank discussion about deficit reduction. that is what the american people expect and that's what the american people deserve. but instead, here we are today considering another resolution and here we are today with another missed opportunity. there is not even the ability to consider a balanced alternative today. and this is of particular concern because of what is actually in this bill. instead of cutting back generous agriculture subsidies, this bill is cutting food stamps, supplemental nutrition assistance programs. this means a reduction in benefits for an estimated 47 million people and a loss of benefits for almost two million people. and instead of closing loopholes
for oil companies, this bill eliminates the social service block grant, not reduces, not tweaks, eliminates the social service block grant. grants that assist states in providing a wide range ever services from support to meals on wheels, to foster care. these are programs that feed struggling seniors and protect abused children. and these are just two examples. now, we have a moral responsibility to get this right, mr. speaker. this bill yet again attempts to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable, our seniors, our children, those who are struggling. while not asking the most fortunate in our society to contribute anything more. i urge my colleagues to reject this latest misguided effort by voting against house resolution 5652, i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from oregon yields back her time. the gentleman from maryland reserves.
the gentleman from wisconsin controls the majority time and is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds simply to say that the social services block grant according to the general accountability office is a textbook example of overlap and duplication of federal programs. it's one of 69 programs to fund early education. one of 200 programs serving americans with disabilities. one of 49 programs for -- providing education services. it provides no measure or means to measure the impact of the programs. mr. speaker, we've got to end duplication and waste in government. we are saying also on the tax side, close loopholes for tax reform not to fuel more spending. with that, mr. speaker, i yield five minutes -- i ask unanimous consent to yield five minutes to mr. pitts, a member of the energy and commerce committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pitts:mr. speaker, --
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the time and is recognized. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. the reconciliation package we bring to the floor today sensibly reduces spending so that we can continue to adequately depend our nation. the first responsibility of the federal government is to keep our nation safe from foreign threats. by cutting wasteful spending and reforming programs, we can continue to maintain a military that keeps us secure at home and makes the world a more peaceful place. i'm proud to report that the energy and commerce committee exceeded the budget instructions by $17 billion to save a total of $114 billion over 10 years. in three titles we cut wasteful programs created by obamacare, reform the medicaid program, and reform our broken medical liability system. with the nation struggling with trillion dollar deficits, the president chose to increase
government spending by more than -- another $1 trillion with his health care law. this wasn't reform, it was a government takeover of 1/6 of the u.s. economy that will increase dependency and bankrupt the nation. we continue to push for full repeal, but also do everything we can to stop wasteful and unwise spending immediately. the prevention and public health fund is a classic example of how the government bureaucrats fail to spend public funds wisely. the health care law provided an advanced appropriation of $16 billion and called for a permanent annual allotment of $2 bill perfect -- $2 bill -- $2 billion per year in perpetuity. so in 2036, 2037, 2057 the secretary of h.h.s. has complete
authority over this $2 billion to spend on whatever he or she wishes without cutting back for appropriations authorization from congress. let's call this what it is. it's a slush fund for the secretary of health even human services. almost any program can make a claim that it is preventive. the secretary has the soul -- sole role of control of the fund and so far has found some quite interesting ways to spend it. for example in pitt county, north carolina n., a recipient used the money to provide signage for parks and bike lanes. in boston, spent $1 million on urban gardening. one of the successors of the program was getting the city of golden park, california, to put a nine-month moratorium on construction of fast food restaurants. government should be encouraging job creation not finding ways to stop it for a few months. new york, spent $3 million to
lobby for a soda tax initiative. philadelphia spent money to push for higher state cigarette excise taxes. why on earth is the federal government paying for campaigns to lobby state governments? these are all examples from just the last two years. who knows what projects will get money in the future. we have numerous public health and prevention funds that could be managed through the yearly appropriations process. a permanent slush fund with limited oversight guarantees that money will be wasted every year. we also repeal the unlimited authority to fund the implementation of state health insurance exchanges. obamacare gave the secretary a credit card with no limit. a bottomless direct appropriation. this is unprecedented and unwise. again, we need oversight in order to make sure that the public's money is being wisely spent. congress never should have
abdicated its authority in this area and now we need to reclaim it. we defund the co-op program before billions of public dollars can be lost. the office of management and budget estimates that a significant portion of the funds given to unproven co-ops would never be returned to the treasury. we would stop this funding before h.h.s. creates its own solyndra. the president's health care law places a dramatically increased burden on state medicaid programs. the maintenance provisions restricts states from making commonsense reforms to stop fraud and abuse. we know that medicaid is ripe with fraudulent claims. in 2011 there were $15 billion in improper payments. we need to give states the flexibility to run these programs sufficiently and to help the truly needy. we also repeal an unwise bonus program that encourages states to undermine the integrity of the program. we should not place unsess barriers to qualifying for
medicaid, but neither should we encourage states to oversimplify reviews of eligibility. we do not have unlimited funds. again, medicaid coverage needs to be opened only to the truly needy. finally, we include real medical liability reform in this reconciliation package, the president's health care law gave a pitiful 50 million -- mr. ryan: additional 30 seconds. mr. pitts: projects. this is paying lip service to the $200 billion program and i recently heard from a doctor who has been practicing in my district for decades, he beknowned defensive medicine but more concerned that doctors being trained in today's climate don't realize they are prescribing unnecessary tests. defensive medicine is simply becoming the norm. medical liability reform means saving for consumers, doctors, and the government. mr. speaker, i'm proud of the job we have done, energy and commerce committee and i now not only urge all my committee's
support the reconciliation package but yield to the gentleman from -- florida, mr. diaz-balart. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. diaz-balart: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to engage in a colloquy with my friend from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, chairman of the energy and commerce health committee. mr. chairman, i am clearly no fan of obamacare and i know that you are not as well. and you and your committee have done some really excellent work in this reconciliation process in eliminating some of the major spending abuses in this law. i do have a concern, however, with one of these provisions that would affect puerto rico. and in fact what puerto rico receives in medicaid funding. the fact of the matter is that the question regarding made cade funding for the territories -- medicaid funding for the territories has been separate from many issues that many of us on this side of the aisle find so objectionable in obamacare.
for example, like individual mandate, the raid on medicare and the slough of job-killing new taxes and regulations. that are at least partially responsible for the unacceptable unemployment situation, including 10% unemployment among hispanics in the united states. as you know, the bill before us returns medicaid funding cap and federal match to pre-obamacare levels for the u.s. territories. for years, the territories have -- an additional 30 seconds if i may. mr. ryan: additional 30 seconds. i have three other committees. mr. diaz-balart: yes. for years, they have expressed concerns with the funding levels and i believe that the ppaca was a vehicle to try to alleviate some of those concerns. mr. chairman, my hope is that we can work together along with the governor who has been the most fiscally responsible governor in puerto rico, to look into the funding levels in medicaid so that we can properly address the needs of the millions of u.s. citizens in the territories. mr. pitts: mr. chairman, i very
much appreciate the gentleman's concerns, want to assure him that these issues deserve the attention of my health subcommittee and as we continue to legislate the process, i'll gladly work with the gentleman to address the needs for the most vulnerable citizens in the territories. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i know it makes our republican colleagues feel better when they pretend that these cuts don't harm real people. but the reality is they do harm real people. and the cuts that were made in the energy and commerce will mean that 300,000 children will no longer get health care through the children's health insurance program. that's not my fact, that's the nonpartisan congressional budget office. we've heard a lot about the fact that the cuts to the health prevention fund, the prevention fund to help provide for healthier starts, that that won't have any impact. and we hear these stories coming
up, i would just ask unanimous consent to put in the record information from the centers for disease control that refutes this urban legend that somehow these funds were used for spaying or neutering dogs. these things just aren't true. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. the reality is, the reality is it will mean that 326,000 women will not get breast cancer screenings and 284,000 women will not get cervical cancer screenings. that's what happens when you zero out the prevention fund and now i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, a member of the budget committee, who's been focused very clearly on these health issues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. ms. schwartz: thank you. and i appreciate the ranking member's comments and his good work and important work on this plan, the republican plan, and the democratic alternative. let me start by saying very clearly, once again house republicans are taking a
shortsighted approach to deficit reduction and economic growth in this country. the federal budget is a statement of our priorities and our values as a nation. and republicans have made their priorities and their values very clear. the federal budget is about choices. the choice to protect seniors, the choice to grow our middle class, the choice to make smart investments in our economy or not. the republicans have made their choice very clear. they are choosing to cut prevention and public health earths, immunizations and flu vaccines, screenings for birth defects, developmental disabilities and hearing loss in children. and they are hurting mothers who need prenatal care, children who need hearing and eye exams. women who need screening for cancer and heart disease, and our frailest, sickest seniors who need nursing homes and in-home care. republicans are choosing to eliminate essential health services that save dollars and save lives.
this choice will hurt millions of american women, children and seniors. instead, the republicans are choosing to protect tax breaks for the largest oil and gas companies and tax breaks for companies that ship american jobs overseas. there is a better way. the democratic budget takes a balanced approach to deficit reduction and makes spending cuts and targeted investments to grow our economy and it meets our obligations to our nation. the republican plan rejects this balanced approach. it rejects efforts to grow our economy, it rejects protections for our seniors, our children and our future, it is a wrong choice for the american people and we must reject this plan. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, controls the time. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. young, is recognized for one minute. mr. young: mr. speaker, i rise
in support of h.r. 5652, to stop sequestration of our nation's defense. we need certainty in the future of our national defense. we need certainty in the industry that serves our national defense. we can't wait until january to make decisions about sequestration, what the funding is going to be. the pentagon will begin in the next month to prepare industry to begin stopping contracts, not issues contracts, putting -- basically putting small suppliers out of business, putting small contractors out of business. it is important for the readyiest of our nation to defend our nation, that we avoid sequestration at all costs. and there is much more to be said about this. i would ask unanimous consent to include that the balance of my statement -- this is serious.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: when we talk about sequestration regarding our national defense, this, my colleagues, is serious. and we have got to take this first step so that we can complete before the deadline, we can complete this job. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. it is serious and the democratic substitute proposal would have prevented those cuts from going across the board in defense as well as the nondefense part of the budget. unfortunately our republican colleagues don't think it's serious enough to ask oil companies to do without taxpayer subsidies, to help cover the cost. they apparently don't think it's serious enough to ask people making $1 million a year to help with our deficit reduction and to pay for the military that we have. and with that i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the financial services committee, mr. franks, to talk
about some -- frank, to talk about some of the impact of this on taxpayers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: mr. speaker, the republican approach does some cutting but it does even more shifting. i agreed with "the wall street journal" editorial a few weeks ago which praised the gentleman from wisconsin because he was shielding the military from any significant cuts and instead making up for medicare and medicaid. that's "the wall street journal," mr. murdock, thanking the gentleman from wisconsin, for cutting medicare and medicaid, not to balance the budget or reduce the deficit, but to pump up military spending. similarly this claim that they are saving $20 billion-odd in dealing with the lickry dation authority is exactly wrong -- liquidation authority is exactly wrong. what it says, it continues their position that the large financial institutions, financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets,
should pay nothing, nothing for the cost of cleaning up the mess. in our rorge bill in 2010 -- original bill in 2010, we met c.b.o.'s requirement that there be a $20 billion cost by assessing the large financial institutions. to get the cloture in the senate, three republicans managed to back off and our company this ye, -- year, the republicans said, we don't like this and it's going to cost $20 billion. c.b.o. by the way says that it cost $20 billion only within the 10-year window. c.b.o. said the $20 billion will be paid out and it will be repaid by the large financial institutions and i ask unanimous consent to submit another article from the "wall street journal" making that point. but here's the -- here's what the republicans did. they said, let's not have the financial institutions be vulnerable. we look to what c.b.o. said, we said, ok, c.b.o. says the $20 billion from the financial institutions will come at the
end of the 10 years rather than the beginning so we had an amendment to assess the large financial institutions, $0 billion, $29 billion, the c.b.o. said it would cost, at the beginning of the period. the republicans said the banks were being overtaxed and voted it down on a party line vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts' time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. medicaid is projected to grow at 125% over the next decade. under this bill it will grow 123%. food stamps grew 275%. under this bill they would have grown 260%. only in washington is this considered draconian cuts. slowing the growth of spending is not cutting. it's slowing the growth of spending. with that, mr. speaker, i have
unanimous consent to yield five minutes of my time to mr. franks of the judiciary committee and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from arizona controls the time and is recognized for five minutes. mr. franks: i certainly thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i believe it's important first of all in this challenge that we have with our federal budget to realize that all budgets, whether they are personal budgets or business budgets or budgets by governments, all of them eventually and inevitably come to balance. they either do so by wise fiscal policy or by catastrophic failure. the fact is that this administration has spent us into the stone age and added to our deficit approximately $1 trillion a year since they came into office. and, mr. chairman, the result is that we have more people living in poverty under this administration than ever before.
so, there is something wrong with the equation. now, having listened to the debate over this reconciliation bill, it's clear to me that republicans and democrats have a very fundamental philosophical difference over whether or not we should take steps to reduce the federal deficit and avoid the arbitrary and inflexible automatic spending cuts that are set to go in effect next year. republicans propose to reduce the deficit and avoid the automatic sequestration by eliminating wasteful programs, wasteful government spending and curbing fraud in government programs in general. the president on the other hand has proposed raising taxes on the american people and american families and businesses while at the same time increasing federal government spending. i cannot think of a more stark contrast, mr. chairman. my friends on the other side of the aisle have demagogued this reconciliation bill beyond recognition. the fact, however, remains that this bill reduces the deficit,
not by some parade of horribles, but by stopping fraud, eliminating government slush funds and duplicative programs and controlling runaway federal spending. and it does so while preventing devastating defense cuts that the obama administration, their own defense department has called, quote, unacceptable. and it does so by making sure that the domestic spending cuts that the president's own budget claims will inflict great damage on critical domestic priorities do not go unaddressed. as part of the reconciliation process, the judiciary committee, mr. chairman, has recommended reforms to our medical liability system, to rein in unlimited lawsuits and to make health care more accessible and affordable to all americans. according to the congressional budget office, the judiciary committee's proposed medical liability reforms will reduce the deficit by more than $48 billion the very first year and
beyond. the simple fact is that frivelout lawsuits -- frivolous lawsuits drive physicians out of the practice of medicine, in the primes of their careers, it pushes others away from high-risk medical specialties and causes the vast majority of health care providers to practice defensive medicine. studies indicate that the cost of health care lawsuit abuse is between $230 billion and $650 billion annually. the judiciary committee's proposal helps to eliminate the cause of this out-of-control lawsuit abuse. mr. chairman, i would just urge my colleagues to support this reconciliation pact so we can avoid the draconian sequestration of defense department funding that threatens harm to our national security. mr. speaker, just a word on our national security. there is no more important thing to our economy of any kind than making sure that we are doing everything to be productive in a secure
environment. if our national security is undermined, our economic security will be writing its own economic obituary. with that i yield back and thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time to the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we keep hearing from our republican colleagues that there's nothing more important than making sure that we defend our national security. we agree that that's essential. we also agree that we need a strong economy. what's confusing is if that's so important where are our republicans colleagues refusing to ask the big oil companies, why they don't ask them to give up their big subsidies. they say they don't hear them. we hear those cuts won't have an effect. the old saying you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. what we're speaking about is
the number of kids that would lose their health care and the number of struggling families that would lose their food and nutritional support. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from puerto rico is recognized for one minute. mr. pierluisi: mr. speaker, i strongly oppose the provision in this legislation that would single out the medicaid programs in the u.s. territories for a 65% cut. even though the territories are already treated in a profoundly unequal manner under this program. i'm joined in my opposition to this by the republican governor of puerto rico, luis fortuno, who knows discrimination when he sees it. i'd like to remind the gentleman from wisconsin that in the case of the territories, we're talking about an actual cut, we are not talking about the reduction in our funding, because we have a cap to live with. just as we fought to obtain the funding that this bill now seeks to repeal, we will fight
alongside our allies in the white house, the senate and this chamber to retain this funding. this is a fight we intend to win. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i ask unanimous consent to yield five minutes of my time to the chairman of the oversight and government committee. i also ask unanimous consent that chairman issa be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized and controls the time for five minutes. mr. issa: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of this legislation. our committee has participated in $83 billion worth of this package saving our men and women in uniform from finding themselves holding wooden rifles. i use that term because it once happened. it wouldn't happen under sweet ration, but we would make -- sequestration but we would make cuts that would maim them in
danger just as if they were carrying wooden rifles. now, many people talk about public servants in a less than kind way. i am not one of them. the federal work force has kept its promises. the federal workers are not always well-led, well-managed but they themselves deliver the product they're asked to deliver. however, the president's own commission, often called simpson-bowles, on which the chairman of the budget committee served, found something that they all agreed on and that was that in fact the pension program that we as federal employees -- and i say we because members of congress pay into social security, have a 401-k, but we also have a pension -- that that pension was nor generous than our counterparts in the private sector. they recommended that we in fact make it a 50/50 shared pension. my contribution from our committee in fact does that. at a rate of 5%, over five
years, we bring the federal work force, members of the civilian d.o.d., members of your park service and members of congress, house and senate, we bring us all into paying what simpson-bowles on a bipartisan basis very much felt was a fair share. now, i want to make sure that everyone understands today that this is in fact a changing for members of the federal work force from what they perceived they would always have. it will not be easy. they will know that after this goes into effect they will in fact not have as much take-home as they did before. it is not that it doesn't need to happen, let's say we need understanding. these are tough times. the american people made sacrifices for many years before this one. federal work force has made some sacrifices. the president implanted a pay freeze. but i must tell you our looking at it is because of an outdated system, the pay freeze does not
in fact freeze pay. step increases have virtually automatically, almost 100% automatically caused the vast majority of these individuals to be eligible and receive pay increases even at a time in which theoretically it was frozen. additionally, civil servants know that if we're going to continue to hold on to a civil service work force that has the confidence of the american people, their wages has to be comparable to their civilian counterparts. our committee will continue to work with others to study to make sure we do keep federal workers fairly paid as compared the nongovernment work force. but our bill today takes the president's own recommendations, the recommendations made to the president, implements them for a savings over 10 years of $83 billion. we believe this is the federal work force and we as their representatives asking them to make a reasonable sacrifice, one that i know they will do,
while remaining confident they can deliver the products they can. lastly, mr. speaker, there are things not in this bill. the kind of pay-for-performance that we'd like to see enhanced, the kind of procedure for a quick remedy of individuals who have become disabled that's not in there. there are many other savings that have improved for the federal work force. we intend to go back on a bipartisan basis to do that, but when it comes to purely paying your fair share, we believe that simpson-bowles got it right. we believe the federal work force will not like this but they will accept that this allows them to say, our package is not inherently more generous than the private sector. it's been normalized for it and that and other changes we made in this bill allow the federal work force to say stop saying that we somehow get something everyone else doesn't. the federal work force pays into social security, into medicare and in fact they're going to be paying half the cost of their pension plan which is commensurate with
their private sector. so i want to be very positive here in saying this is never easy to do in times of austerity, but in fact the federal work force will stand behind this as congress will in recognizing that they're doing their share. i'm very proud of the people throughout government who recognize that getting this right is part of being able to say to the american people, we're all in this together, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from wisconsin controls the majority time. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i appreciate words the chairman of the government affairs committee said with respect to federal employees. if you listened to the comments of a lot of these colleagues, they have made federal civil servants scapegoats and in fact their budget that's before us today does hit federal employees. so the folks in the intelligence community who helped track down osama bin
laden, what do they get under this proposal? 5% pay cut. how about the folks at n.i.h. who are every day looking to find cures and treatments for diseases that plague every american family? 5% pay cut. how about the nurses who work in the veterans' hospitals? 5% pay cut. and yet you don't cut the direct payment subsidies to agriculture. you don't cut the subsidies of the big oil companies. you just want to whack federal civil servants. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, who has been working on this issue for a very long time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i want to thank my friend, mr. van hollen, for the work he's done. i want to rise in opposition to this focus on federal
employees. first of all, the federal employees have contributed $75 billion over the last two years towards helping us reduce the deficit. $75 billion. no other working american has been asked to do that. you treat federal employees in this house as second-class working people. that's wrong. this is a 5% tax increase on federal employees. nobody else. nobody else do we ask. the richest people in america, we don't ask to help solve this deficit problem. but federal employees, yes, $75 billion contribution. and you don't blink an eye because it's easy because we demagogue about government and by association, we demagogue about bureaucrats used as an ep
they. as mr. van hollen said, they protect our food, tries to find cures to cancer, protects us against terrorism, guards our borders. that's what we're talking about, and we treat them as second-class citizens. that's wrong. it's wrong for our country. it's wrong for the american people and it's wrong for us as an institution representing the government of this country. ladies and gentlemen, reject this. i'm going to talk about other aspects of this so-called reconciliation bill at a little future date, but i ask you on this basis alone, federal employees, i will tell you, as one who represents a large number of them, are ready to participate in helping to bring down this deficit and meet this crisis. but do not ask them to do it alone. that's what mr. van hollen says about oil companies, big
corporation loopholes and the wealthiest of americans. don't simply ask more from those who have less and less from those who have more. that is not just good policy. let us not pursue it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland -- -- maryland. mr. van hollen: it's now my privilege to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. cummings: we honor state, local and federal government employees. shawna from mr. bishop's staff who saved americans billions of dollars by identifying tax evaders and scammers. they include the state department shane morris, a
constituent of representative christopher smith of new jersey who played a critical role in ensuring that united states diplomats in the middle east continue to receive classified information, material and equipment during the arab spring uprising in 2011. those who dedicate their lives for serving others, the republican majority put legislation on the house floor that would take billions of dollars out of their pockets. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, where is the appreciation or compassion for the dedication and commitment that public employees display day by day? it certainly is not in this bill, which is a passionate and wrong-headed approach to our fiscal problems. federal employee-related provisions in this bill will reduce the take-home pay of nearly three million middle-class americans by 5%, mandating increase retirement contributions. the bill would eliminate the
annuities supplement for new workers who retire before they're eligible for social security at 62. according to the office of personnel management, the average annuity amount for current retirees is nearly $700 per month. i do not think any american who is dedicated his life or to the public service should be forced to lose that much money on a monthly basis, particularly those on a fixed retirement budget. our middle-class federal employees have already contributed $75 billion towards deficit reduction and other government programs while millionaires and billionaires have not been asked to contribute one additional cent to improve our government's financial condition. i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and instead support a more rational and equitable budget proposal that asks for shared sacrifice from everyone in our country and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: members of congress and federal employees contribute .8% to their pensions. according to the c.b.o. their benefits are 48% higher than their average private sector counterparts. we think it's just reasonable and appropriate that they contribute about 5.8% to their pensions, to contribute their half. it's the least we can ask of ourselves, as members of congress, and hardworking federal employees, that we treat ourselves like private sector workers are treated. more to the point, mr. speaker, if we want to have the moral authority to get spending under control we need to ask more of ourselves. with that, i ask unanimous consent to yield five minutes of my time to the chairman of the ways and means committee and ask unanimous consent that be allowed to yield time -- that he
be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you. i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, back in 2010 i served on the president's debt commission, otherwise known as the simpson-bowles commimp commission. and during that commission -- commission. and during that commission we heard nonpartisan expert testimony that debts as large as ours slow economic growth by about 1%, in america that translates into about a million jobs. mr. camp: so to start getting our debt under control and our economy back on track, we passed the budget control act. but we all know that was a blunt and ineffective tool and as a result republicans have stepped forward with the smarter plan. and today i want to highlight the more targeted, sensible reductions in spending, the ways and means committee has offered, as part of the reconciliation process. each of which has enjoyed bipartisan support. our first recommendation requires exchange subsidies in the democrats' health care law to be repaid in full. this is simple. if you aren't entitled to the
benefit you don't get to keep it. this policy will reduce the deficit by $43.9 billion over the next 10 years. a democrat-controlled house and a democrat-controlled senate first used a version of this to offset in 2010 and to pay for temporary medicare so-called doc fix. this congress also endorsed the policy as part of the 1099 repeal legislation that became law early last year. and as secretary sebelius has previously said, requiring the return of exchange subsidy overpayments, quote, makes it fairer for recipients and all taxpayers, end quote. mr. speaker, i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas to discuss the committee's second recommendation. he is a true american hero as well as chairman of the social security subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. johnson, is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. johnson: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding.
mr. speaker, due to a loophole in the tax code, the i.r.s. is shuffling out billions of americans' taxpayer dollars to those to who are heel -- to those who are here illegally. this includes a commonsense solution based on legislation i've authored that would save $7.6 billion by putting a stop to this. the provision would stop illegal immigrants from getting the $1,000 refundable child tax credit by simply requiring tax filers to provide their social security number. right now those who are here illegally can get cash from uncle sam by providing an i.r.s.-provided taxpayer i.d. number to claim their refundable credit. illegal immigrants are even filing tax returns claiming children who do not live in america. according to a recent report by nbc indianapolis, mr. speaker, there really shouldn't be any controversy over this.
the american people are speaking out against this, treasury and tax has spoken out against this. democratic senator mccaskill has spoken out against this. even the administration supports the idea of preventing illegals from receiving public benefits through funding of a verification program. mr. speaker, we can fix this, put a stop to the abuse of precious taxpayer dollars, by simply requiring a social security number. americans want, need and deserve better protection of their hard-earned money and we owe it to the united states of america, to take action today. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to the chairman of the human resources subcommittee, the gentleman from kentucky, to discuss the committee's final recommendation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation, including
the provision to end the duplicative social services block grant. we held a hearing last year on duplicative programs such as ssbg. despite what we heard from some on the other side, our concern is not focused squarely on the design of the ssbg program, which does not serve taxpayers well for a number of reasons. ssbg is duplicative and unfocused. it supports 29 different types of social services with no eligibility requirements. mr. davis: the federal program -- or the federal government already spends $446 billion per year on other social services programs. which is about 260 times the amount of ssbg spending. with no state spending requirements or accountability for results, ssbg is more akin to stimulus dollars than other more effective antipoverty programs. with staggering deficits, we can't afford to send money to states without accountability through a program that is recommend cated by literally dozens of other federal programs. that's what ssbg does today and why it makes sense to end this duplicative program.
with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized for one minute. mr. camp: thank you. today the economy's down and we're out of money. so it's our responsibility to re-evalueways wait these programs -- re-evaluate these programs, assess whether they're meeting their purpose and to determine if the american taxpayer can afford them. we must reduce the burden, the debt, our debt is putting on our economy, our families, on job creation in this country. this legislation does that. it encompasses common sense -- commonsense, bipartisan policies and i urge its passage and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. with respect to the child tax credit, i ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter received from the catholic bishops on the subject. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. van hollen: and, mr. speaker, i would just say and i
quote, i reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal that would alter the child tax credit to exclude children of hardworking immigrant families. the bishops also talk about the devastating impacts of eliminating the social services block grant and now i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, who has been working so hard on these issues, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, the bill that is before us today is an unbalanced package of cuts that hurts the most vulnerable populations in our society and the working middle class. there was a budget agreement on a bipartisan basis between the congress and the president where we would shield lower income programs from the cuts that are now before us today. that agreement is being rejected and the republicans are pushing
for cuts for low income programs such as medicaid, snap, the food stamp program, programs helped by the social security's block grant that are vital to maintaining a continuing economic recovery. these are the safety net programs. with the slashes in medicaid we'll have hundreds of thousands of people, including 300,000 children, denied health insurance. is this something that we have to do when we're letting others not do their fair share? the bill would establish a federal medical malpractice system. that tramples on the meaning of states' rights which the republicans have said is a essential tenant of their point of view. it would undermine our future health care by cutting prevention and public health
investments. they would make it harder for women to access important and life-saving presentive care. and they fail to protect medicare from billions of dollars in cuts that would happen under the sequestration. but we shouldn't be surprised. this is all based on the ryan budget the republicans passed on the house floor last month. and under that budget defense spending is increased over investments in health, education and research. medicare as we know it would come to an end. the number of uninsured would rise. but millionaires and billionaires -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. waxman: millionaires and billionaires would receive enormous tax cuts. instead of a budget that reduces the deficit, actually reduces the deficit, which this budget would not do, and tries to do it in a balanced and fair way, the
ryan budget and this bill specifically target those most in need and puts our nation's financial recovery at risk. i urge a no vote on the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time i yield -- mr. camp: -- mr. van hollen: at this time i yield one minute to the gentlelady from the virgin islands. mrs. christensen: thank you. so say i rise in strong opposition to this bill would be an understatement. in addition to the other egregious cuts this bill would eliminate the critically needed $6.3 billion in funding that the u.s. territories medicaid program receive under the affordable care act. and more than that, it send as clear message to americans in the territories that while they're american enough to defend this nation during times of war, they are not american enough for this nation to protect and preserve their
health and well-being. this bill is un-american, it is unjust. i ask my colleagues to vote no on this terrible reconciliation bill and i ask unanimous consent to include the list of organizations opposing the cuts to our medicaid funding. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma, a member of the budget committee, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. the american people know in their gut that their not taxed too little and they also know that the federal government spends too much. this bill is an important first step in restraining spending and bringing our out-of-control deficit under control. i'm very proud of our chairman, mr. ryan, and our committee for bringing it to the floor. i'm even prouder of the six authorizing committees that systematically did their job, reviewed nondiscretionary spending and found real savings
that we can use to reduce the deficit and protect important investments in defense. taming the deficit will require that we take these steps each and every year going forward. we haven't done it since 2005, it's time to do it today. let's take a step in the right direction. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: this bill is vivid evidence of the radicalization of the republican party. i recall decades ago chairing a committee in the michigan state senate and addressing a number of reforms affecting the lives of working men and women. i directly engaged in give and take and negotiated final
legislation with governor george romney. resulting in legislation that passed on a bipartisan basis. today the radicalization of the republican party would make that impossible. instead we have a bill that would take away food stamps for two million americans, children, working parents and seniors, threaten 280,000 school meals and end the social services block grants which provide home care, transportation for individuals with disabilities, protection for abused children and meals on wheels. all of this and much more extremism to carry out an additional tax cut of $240,000 for the very wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. we can turn off the budget
sequester and the damaging across-the-board cuts but not with this extreme partisan bill. the house leadership refuses to follow a bipartisan path. this bill is sad proof of how the republican party of today has moved dramatically to the extreme, leaving behind most americans except the very wealthiest. mr. speaker, i now ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from the following organizations that are opposed to this bill's drastic cuts in services for the elderly. , the disabled a -- elderly, the disabled and children, catholic charities, the jewish federation of north america, easter seals, the aarp, the arc, national
foster care coalition, the child welfare league of america, the coalition on human needs, the national women's law center, the leadership conference on civil and human rights, the national conference or state legislators and the american public human services association. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. and the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the budget committee, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, week of heard a lot about fairness which the democrats define to mean taxing businesses to finance a variety of welfare programs. problem is, businesses do not pay business taxes. business taxes can only be paid by consumers through higher prices, by employees through lower wages and by investors,
mainly pension funds, through lower earnings. there is no other way to pay a business tax. so the net effect of pursuing their definition of fairness is to push more consumers into debt, push more employees into employment and push more retirees into poverty which in turn requires more and more government welfare spending until their financial house of cards collapses. that's the economic spiral their policies are producing in our time. the house budget, which this act advances, breaks that cycle and restores policies that throughout our history have lifted our nation from times of want and despair to areas of prosperity and abundance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we're still waiting for this
house to take up the president's jobs bill that was submitted last september. we've seen 25 consecutive months of private sector job growth was a whole lot better than where we were in january when the president was sworn in losing 800,000 jobs a month but we need to sustain that recovery and we're still waiting. the clock is ticking. let's take that legislation up so we can accelerate the recovery. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas representing the ranking member of the judiciary committee, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. i thank the ranking member. i thank the gentleman from -- i thank the gentleman from the full committee, mr. conyers. this is a debate that is of
course necessary but it is not going anywhere. this is in essence to respond to the potential impending sequestration and the dead lock of the committee, but the dead locke of the committee gave us an opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner. and my good friend who spoke on the other side of the aisle talked about abundance and prosperity and welfare. i say we are not talking about welfare. we are talking about investment in people and we are talking about not having a siege upon our children. on april 25, 2012 we were back in the judiciary committee again looking at medical malpractice for the ump teent time and i wondered -- empteenth time and i wondered why they were asked to find money and so directions for the republicans of the judiciary committee was to oppress the sick and to be able to cap medical malpractice insurance on innocent victims of women
and children and the elderly when the medical system fails us as it relates to medical devices and other elements. we were told to eliminate for the children of america by eliminating noneconomic damages, restricting punitive damages, limiting access to court for poor victims of medical malpractice, eliminating the protections of children and prohibiting joint and several liability. so we were simply told to shut the courthouse door for children that needed to be able to have the opportunity to have their lives saved. just like the little boy who needed a surgery in san antonio and they told the family it was a serious surgery. they needed to have a cardiologist on staff. he went into surgery and of course things went wrong. there was no cardiologist there. there was a mishap. there was a fault and that little boy died. they wanted to deny that family, that poor family the access to the courthouse. that is what this bill does. and when my friends begin to talk about what else it does,
it cuts the snap, the nutrition program. it cuts medicaid. mr. speaker, what i would say is that this bill is a siege on children. we should oppose it. it is not reconciliation. it is oppression and i'd ask us to vote against it. i'd ask to submit in the record, mr. speaker, a letter from the international association of firefighters that are against this underlying legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute and 30 seconds to a member of the budget committee, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. lankford: it's interesting to hear all the hyperbole. for a freshman not hearing the back and forth, used to sitting around the table and work out the facts, it's fascinating for me to hear the speeches and hear how oppressive things are when there are simple things. it remind me how difficult it
is to bring down federal spending and to actually balance our budget. when we can't agree on simple things. simple things like, should we write a check and mail it on april 15 to people that are here in this country illegally? yes or no? if people do not qualify for food stamps, should we give them food stamps anyway? if there is a tarp program that's out there that all of us in a bipartisan manner have said does not work, it was supposed to give home assistance for mortgages for millions of people and it's been a miserable failure. can we close down that program and use those dollars? the anticipate seems to come back, no, no and no. and it's this repetitive statement again and again. just tax those oil companies, everything will be all right. well, i'm sorry. but a $4 billion tax on oil companies, which would cause prices to increase on gasoline, does not solve a $1 trillion
hole. this is a first step. this is a beginning point to say we got to get in balance. and this is a real practical way to begin to deal with fraud and abuse and waste in our system and duplication in government so we do not have the across the board sequestration, so we do not have a big hit on our defense. we got to solve this and we should be able to come together and say this is waste and fraud and abuse and we should do that before we deal with taxes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. listen, we keep hearing about wruste. we need to do -- about waste, fraud and abuse. we need to make so we do everything possible to deal with waste, fraud and abuse. we hear about people cheating the system. they are eligible for the system. and that is why the nonpartisan congressional budget office says that 22 million households
with kids are going to see their food nutrition cut. not because they're getting it somehow fraudulently. because what the republican proposal does is cut it off. almost two million people off the food nutrition program. someone that knows something about these issues is the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. ms. moore: thank you, mr. speaker and i thank the gentleman from maryland. i think the american people need to know the point about this sequestration replacement point. no matter how many times this package is going to cut welfare programs or socialist programs like medicare and medicaid, things that we call the safety net, all for the sake of
preserving every last time of military spending, ignoring the opportunity to route out waste, fraud and peace dividend, it doesn't add up. i was taught in math, what you do to one side of the equation, you have to do to the other side of the equation for it to balance out. you can't just subtract from the social safety net. medicare, medicaid, food stamps , cut the social services block grant. stop the wall street bailouts. you can't just add more tax cuts for the wealthiest, add more defense spending, maintain oil subsidies, maintain expensive corporate farm subsidies and say that's a balanced approach. i want to say to americans, it don't add up. this dog doesn't hunt. you can't just cut the social safety net and add billions of
dollars of corporate welfare and say that's a balanced equation. it doesn't support simple math. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair reminds all members to address their comments to the chair. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes for the purpose of a colloquy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> i would like him to respond, everyone wants to protect the social safety net for the truly needy but we want to stop abuses within a system that take money from that -- those programs and hurt the poor. for example, people who hide their assets to fraudulently qualified, people who misuse food stamps or alcohol and tobacco. mr. murphy: i'd like to ask the
gentleman if he's going to work to close loopholes, reduce waste and abuse and reform the system while really protecting those who qualify? and i yield back to the gentleman for an answer. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is exactly right. that is the goal of our language in this bill and it will be the additional efforts that we will undergo in the comprehensive farm bill that will follow soon. mr. murphy: i have one additional question for the gentleman and ask in fairness here, will you be bringing forward a bill to the house from the committee that's truly going to reform farm subsidies, produce savings and reduce deficits and i yield to the gentleman. >> when we come with our comprehensive farm bill, things that have been identified, like the direct payments, will not be there. we will address all spending in all portions of the farm bill. we will make reductions in every part of agricultural spending as we do our part in helping address this huge tremendous national deficit.
mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman for his response and i yield back. mr. lucas: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: well, thank you, mr. speaker. i was glad to hear that last colloquy because this republican proposal cut the food and nutrition programs in the ag committee's jurisdiction and didn't put one penny, didn't ask one penny from the ag subsidies if our democratic substitute had been put in order, that was one of the cuts that we made in order to prevent devastating cuts to the food and nutrition programs for over 22 million american families with children. i now yield a minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, this bill seeks to achieve a very worthy goal, reduce the debt of the united states and establish a sustainable level of spending. i share that goal, but i oppose this bill for two reasons.
first, the proponents of this bill know or they certainly should know, this bill won't be passed by the senate or signed by the president. that turns us into a political manifesto, not a practical proposal. secondly and most importantly, the design of this bill guarantees that it will fail. our budget is a three-prong stool. domestic spending, pentagon spending and revenues. if you want a strong and durable stool you need three legs. this budget cuts two away. it takes revenues off the table completely and it exempting the pentagon with its nearly $700 billion for making any contribution to debt reduction. mr. speaker, our debt problem is serious but solvable. 100 of us in this house, 60 democrats and 40 republicans, wrote to the supercommittee and we said the obvious. put everything on the table. doing so we can succeed. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, a member of the subcommittee, mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. speaker. in my office as we all do we get emails from time to time from constituents, these viral emails, alleging from time to time some type of violent fraud in the system or some type of bizarre government overreach. we actually researched them in my office to find out if they were true or not. we got dozens of them this week about a program where supposedly was part of an investigative report by a television station in the midwest that said that supposedly illegal immigrants were able to file paperwork every april 15 and get $1,000 for every child they had. regardless of whether or not they could prove that the child existed, whether or not the child actually lived in the