[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7764-H7777]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 71, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 553
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2018 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2019 through 2027. The first reading
of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the concurrent
resolution are waived. General debate shall not exceed four
hours, with three hours of general debate confined to the
congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget and one hour of general debate on the subject of
economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by
Representative Tiberi of Ohio and Representative Carolyn
Maloney of New York or their respective designees. After
general debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. The concurrent
resolution shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be
in order except those printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent. All points of order against such
amendments are waived except that the adoption of an
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the
conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for
amendment. After the conclusion of consideration of the
concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of
general debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall
rise and report the concurrent resolution to the House with
such amendment as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent
resolution and amendments thereto to adoption without
intervening motion except amendments offered by the chair of
the Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical
consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all of my
colleagues may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a great day. I don't know
how your Wednesday has gotten started, but we are now in the throes of
budget day.
Budget day only happens on the floor of this House once a year, and
it is one of those times where I would tell you the House operates as
every man, woman, and child across this country believes the House
should operate every day.
I have the great honor as a member of the Rules Committee and as a
member of the Budget Committee of bringing this structured rule to the
floor today.
Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 71, the rule that we will be debating for
the next hour, makes in order every single budget substitute that was
offered in the Rules Committee. Now, let me tell you what that means in
practical terms.
Over the next 2 days, we are going to hear visions laid out for what
the American government should spend, what American policies should
look like, what the Federal budget should include.
Over the next 2 days, we are going to hear visions laid out from
every single Member or group in this institution that cared enough
about this process to craft a budget of their own.
Mr. Speaker, I serve in the Republican Study Committee. I was once
chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force on the Republican Study
Committee. I had the honor of crafting a substitute budget to bring to
the floor to offer for my colleagues' consideration.
Over the next 2 days, any Member who has a voice that needs to be
heard
[[Page H7765]]
has had the opportunity. We put out the call last week. My friend from
Massachusetts and I, we sit on the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. We
send out the call to the membership in advance to say this is what we
expect to happen in the Rules Committee, this is what we are going to
be considering in the Rules Committee. We sent out the call for any
Member of this House to craft their substitute amendment, and we
received four.
We received one from the Congressional Black Caucus, we received one
from the Progressive Caucus, we received one from the Republican Study
Committee, and we received one from the Democrats on the Budget
Committee. Every single one of those has been made in order by the rule
that I will ask my colleagues to support today.
We are going to debate those. We are going to vote on those each
individually, allowing everybody to have their say. That budget that
this House ultimately agrees on collectively, collaboratively after
these days of debate, we will then send to the United States Senate for
its consideration.
Mr. Speaker, they say that budgets are a reflection of values. I
believe that to be true. We are going to have budgets on the floor of
the House to consider that cut taxes, budgets that believe that the
economy has not grown to its full potential, budgets that believe that
the American workforce participation rate is still at historically low
levels. We have to get men and women back into the workforce. We have
to reward that dignity of work. We have budgets that are going to cut
taxes in an effort to stimulate that job growth across this land.
We have other budgets that are concerned that we are not bringing
enough revenue into the government coffers. It is true, Mr. Speaker. I
know you are thinking it. We are bringing in more tax revenue today
than we have ever brought in in the history of the United States of
America. That is true, but we are still running budget deficits. So we
will consider those budgets today that don't necessarily believe that
spending is the problem; they think it is tax collection that is the
problem.
We will consider budgets that raise taxes by about $2 trillion. We
will consider other budgets that raise taxes by about $4 trillion. Mr.
Speaker, I think we will even consider budgets that raise taxes by $9
trillion.
Mr. Speaker, there are only two things that can happen in this
institution. We either have to raise more revenue, or we have to cut
spending, or we have to mortgage our children's future. Three things:
raise taxes, cut spending, mortgage our children's future.
Over the next 2 days, we are going to have that debate and we are
going to have that discussion.
I know where my constituency lands, Mr. Speaker. There are tough
decisions that have to be made, and they believe they sent men and
women to Congress to help make those tough decisions. We sit on the
Budget Committee. That is what we do.
If you have not gotten a chance to work with her this season, Mr.
Speaker, Chairwoman Diane Black on the House Budget Committee, if there
is a more patient and more persistent Member of this body, I don't know
who that would be. She has worked tirelessly to move this process
along, to get us to this point where we are today, trying to bring
people together around a unified vision of what we can do and what we
should do not just as an institution, but as a nation.
I expect we will have some disagreements over the next 2 days, Mr.
Speaker. It won't surprise me at all. In fact, I think this institution
is characterized by the things that we disagree about. Certainly that
is what the media would like to focus on. But at the end of this
process, what will have to be said is that we have considered every
idea, that we have considered every point of view, that we have made
room for every voice, and that we have now come together on a common
pathway forward. That is what is ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, if
we support this rule that we are debating now.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I hope you will
find that budget that meets your constituency's needs, support that
underlying budget, and then let's move a budget to the United States
Senate and speak with one voice for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me
the customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in strong opposition to
this rule. This can be a frustrating place. So frustrating, that
sometimes I want to tear the remaining two strands of hair I have on my
head out, because what we do here, in my opinion, is not to advance
anything that is good for the American people. This is a frustrating
place, because what happens on this House floor is either nothing or
you guys make things worse.
On Sunday, we once again witnessed a massacre, the worst mass
shooting in American history. People across this country are demanding
action, but the response of the Republican leadership in this Congress
is nothing. We had a moment of silence, but it means nothing because
that is all we do. There are no hearings, no debate, no votes, just
absolutely nothing.
It is obvious that too many Republicans have been intimidated and
have been frightened or have been bought off by the National Rifle
Association. It is shameful and, quite frankly, it is disgusting.
If the Republican leadership of this House is not willing to lead,
then move aside. Allow us to bring measures to the floor so we can have
a vote, so we can have a debate, so we can enact measures that might
save some lives.
Mr. Speaker, what we are considering today, this Republican budget,
is an example of the majority making things worse for the American
people.
Budgets are moral documents. They show what we value and what we care
about. And if this budget reflects Republican values, then shame on
Republicans. When you look at the specific programs House Republicans
target, it becomes clear just how cruel this budget really is.
Last night, in the Rules Committee, I complained loudly to the
distinguished chairwoman of the Budget Committee about the cuts to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP, basically a
program that provides poor people food. It helps prevent hunger in this
country. In this budget, they call for $164 billion in cuts to this
program.
The chairwoman said: Well, I believe that people who get this benefit
ought to work.
I pointed out to her last night, and I am going to point out to my
colleagues here today, that the majority of people on this program--67
percent of the people who are on this program are not expected to work.
Why? Because they are children, because they are senior citizens,
because they are disabled.
Of those who can work, the majority work. But you have individuals
who are working, who are on SNAP because they earn so little that they
still qualify for this program.
So why aren't we demanding that work pay more in this country? Why
aren't we coming together to demand an increase in the minimum wage so
it is a livable wage, so that people who work don't have to be on
public assistance?
Instead, we have yet another attack on poor people in the form of
these cuts.
The gentlewoman said: Well, I want to narrow it down to just able-
bodied adults without dependents. They all ought to work.
{time} 1245
Well, many of these people do work, Mr. Speaker, but many of them
don't work, for a number of reasons. Many have limited educational
experience, with 80 percent having no more than a high school education
or a GED. Some are aging out of foster care. Some have underlying
mental health issues, difficult histories of substance abuse, or are
ex-offenders with nowhere else to turn.
As many as 60,000 of these able-bodied adults without dependents who
have qualified for SNAP initially are veterans. These are brave,
courageous men and women who have served our country, who have returned
home and are having difficulty reintegrating into the community,
getting on their feet. Our gratitude for their service is, we
[[Page H7766]]
are going to throw you off the food benefit? I don't know what people
are thinking who drafted this in the budget.
The chairwoman of the Budget Committee said: Well, it is important
that we constantly review programs to see if they are working, if they
are living up to our expectations. I agree. I am a liberal Democrat. I
want to make sure that whatever programs are in existence are working,
are effective. Nobody is for ineffective government.
I happen to sit on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Speaker. We have
already held 23 oversight hearings on this program--23 on SNAP alone.
We have had Republican witnesses, and we have had Democratic witnesses.
As my friend from Georgia knows, his party is in control, so
Republicans get to have more witnesses than Democrats do. We have had
23 hearings, and not one witness, not one, recommended a $164 billion
cut in this program.
In fact, what they recommended, Democrats and Republicans, was that
we ought to strengthen wraparound services. That means like you ought
to fund fully job training programs so that States can guarantee people
a slot in a job training program.
Many argue, Democratic and Republican witnesses, that the benefit is
too inadequate, that we need to expand the benefit, because contrary to
what you hear oftentimes on this floor about SNAP and about how
generous the benefit is and that it is like a gravy train, if you will,
the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal. That is it. That
is the benefit.
That is why when you talk to the heads of food banks all across the
country, in every State in this country, they tell you the same thing,
that they experience an uptick in people who need to utilize their
services in the middle and toward the end of the month because,
basically, the benefit is not enough to carry them through the month so
they can put enough food on the table for them and their families.
We have 42 million people in the United States of America, the
richest country in the history of the world, who are hungry. I am
ashamed of that, and I am ashamed because hunger is a political
condition.
What I mean by that is we can solve it, but we don't, because for
some reason, this population, these people struggling in poverty, never
quite rise to the level as the very wealthy in this country.
We have a budget here that not only cuts SNAP but basically cuts a
whole bunch of other programs aimed at helping people get out of
poverty and helping struggling middle class families.
Basically, this budget, just so everybody is clear, is kind of a
blueprint to help pave the way for the Republican tax cut bill that
they are going to produce on this floor in the not-too-distant future.
It was interesting last night in the Rules Committee, we heard people
talk about, well, we have to make tough choices because we don't want
to saddle our children and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren
with debt. Well, if, in fact, my Republican friends get their wish and
pass this tax cut, we are told that it will add about $2.4 trillion to
our debt.
The deal is this, Mr. Speaker. One of the faults in their budget is
they have these assumptions that we all know are not true. Like, for
example, the Affordable Care Act is going to kind of mysteriously just
disappear, and they are going to be able to cut Medicaid by close to $1
trillion to help offset the cost of their tax cut. But the last time I
checked, their repeal barely passed this House, and it can't seem to
get anywhere in the United States Senate. Their assumptions are
fantasy. They are not based on reality.
Mr. Speaker, it is not just food assistance that this budget
dismantles. It cuts half a trillion dollars in Medicare and ends the
Medicare guarantee. It rips apart the Affordable Care Act, drastically
raising healthcare costs for older and low-income adults, and kicks
another 20 million people off their health insurance if they get their
wish here. It makes higher education more expensive. It cuts veterans'
benefits. It reduces our commitment to ensuring that our neighbors have
access to affordable housing. It even sticks the American taxpayer with
a $1.6 billion bill to begin constructing a costly and stupid and
ineffective wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico.
In case people are scratching their heads, during the campaign,
Donald Trump said that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I guess he
didn't mean it because a downpayment was put into their budget.
I could go on and on and on, but you might ask yourself, Mr. Speaker:
Who wins? The answer is simple. If this budget goes through, and they
pave the way for their tax cut, it is clear who the winners are: Donald
Trump, the Trump family, and all of his wealthy friends. While all
these cuts in the budget come from our safety net programs,
infrastructure investments, and programs that help middle and working
class families, none of the savings in this budget--that is right, not
one penny--come from closing tax loopholes that benefit big
corporations or the wealthy.
As I said before, the drastic cuts are all being used to try to
finance this massive tax cut that disproportionately benefits the
wealthiest in this country. Give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, it is galling how indifferent that so many in this House
seem to be to those who are struggling in poverty. America's most
vulnerable, granted they don't have super PACs, they don't have big
lobbyists, their voice in Washington is supposed to be us. The whole
purpose of government, in my view, is to make sure that everybody gets
a fair shake, and the people who need government the most are the
people who are struggling in poverty.
But to listen to my colleagues and to look at this budget that they
put together, it is clear that the poorest Americans in this country
are being treated as if they don't exist, as if they are invisible, as
if they don't matter. I just find that deeply offensive.
President Kennedy said it this way. He said: ``If a free society
cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are
rich.'' It is frustrating. It is just frustrating that here we are with
this budget which devastates so much of what I think is important.
If we implemented what this budget asks us to do, this country would
become a tale of two cities, and it is already getting to that point.
It would truly become a tale of two cities. It would create a
government without a conscience, and I think we need to push back and
we need to reject that.
Mr. Speaker, this isn't some Ayn Rand fantasy where we can just mess
with the numbers and see what happens. We are talking about real people
here--people who are counting on us; people who need help. This budget
fails by any measure, in my opinion, to be a budget even for
Republicans to support.
I think America's hardworking middle class families and all those
working to struggle to get in the middle class deserve a heck of a lot
better than this.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and
certainly vote against this cruel Republican budget, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, you heard the passion of my friend from Massachusetts,
and I have had an opportunity to work with him on the Rules Committee
for 7 years now. I can tell you that every bit of that passion is
sincere.
So often I think folks turn on C-SPAN, they look at a group of
politicians talking, and they think it is all for the cameras and it is
all for show. I will tell you that while I sometimes have that same
suspicion when I turn on a program of folks I don't know, with folks I
do know, I can tell you that that passion is sincere.
What I can also tell you is that many of those concerns are
misguided, and I think that is important. What happens here in this
institution matters. Our ability to have that debate with one another
matters. The truth is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, most of that debate
doesn't happen here on the House floor.
My friend from Massachusetts and I are here today because it is time
to vote. We are here to bring the rule, we are here to bring the
substitutes, we are here over the next 2 days to vote. The conversation
has gone on not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, but for the
better part of this year on what the budget is going to look like.
I happen to have a copy of the budget report right here, Mr. Speaker.
It captures all the votes we have taken. It
[[Page H7767]]
captures all the debates we have had. It captures what the intent of
the institution is.
Now again, we are going to have a choice of which budget we want to
support. If you think taxes are too low, you can vote to raise taxes.
If you think taxes are much too low, you can vote to raise taxes a
whole lot. If you think the tax code as it exists today is a ridiculous
compilation of confusing provisions stitched together by a patchwork of
Congresses over the last 40 years, you can vote for fundamental reform.
If you are tired of the fact that America used to be number one in
the world in terms of tax competitiveness and now we are at the bottom
of the list and you want to take America back to being number one, you
can vote for that, too. I happen to put myself in that category.
I want to read, if I may, Mr. Speaker, from the budget report. The
fact is, I can't. I imagined myself a younger man when I grabbed that
report.
If I can now read from the budget report. ``The resolution's
reconciliation instructions,'' that is what is in the budget, Mr.
Speaker. That is what allows us to take a tax package from the House to
the Senate. You have heard about how the Senate is having a tough time
getting anything done because it requires a supermajority. It requires
60 votes. Through reconciliation, you can get things done with less
than 60 votes. That is how the Affordable Care Act was passed, with
less than 60 votes. You can get the tax bill passed with less than 60
votes.
It says this. ``The resolution's reconciliation instructions that the
Committee on Ways and Means will develop will be a deficit-neutral tax
reform legislation and report such legislative language to the
Committee on the Budget.'' Deficit neutral. Nobody wants to blow a hole
in the budget, Mr. Speaker.
What the discussion is, is can we do better than today's tax code?
Candidly, Mr. Speaker, if any Member of this body wants to take the
position that we can't do any better, the IRS is as good as it can be
in implementing the American Tax Code today, the Tax Code that is twice
as long as the Bible is absolutely as concise and succinct as it can
possibly be, those Americans who spend dozens of hours, even dozens of
days, even dozens of weeks trying to put together their taxes, that is
just the best we can do.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen it happen. Sometimes folks throw their hands
up and think: We can't do any better. Not me. Not today.
We can all agree that we can do better than what we are doing today.
Passage of this budget gives us that opportunity.
You heard my friend from Massachusetts speak from the heart, Mr.
Speaker, about the ability we have as a government to care for one
another. I would tell you that responsibility isn't uniquely a
government responsibility. I would say it is a faith responsibility, it
is a family responsibility, it is a community responsibility. It is a
responsibility that begins at home. It doesn't begin here, it begins at
home, but it is a sincere responsibility, and it is one that we want to
do better at every day.
I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the labor force participation
rate in America is the lowest it has been since the President from my
great State of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, was in office. The labor force
participation rate. There is not one of us in this body who can drive
down the street without seeing a ``help wanted'' sign. There is not one
of us in this body who can go out to a business without seeing someone
asking folks to come in and help, yet fewer Americans are working today
than ever before. Why? It is a hard question.
Fewer Americans are working today than since the 1970s. Why? It is
important that we ask that question.
The budget is not designed to answer it. The budget can't answer it.
I sit on the Budget Committee. I don't have the jurisdiction to answer
it, but I know this: you will find in this budget a discussion of
whether it is better to support people in poverty or lift folks out of
poverty.
{time} 1300
It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I would tell you that we
can support people until we can lift them up, but that lifting them up
must be our goal. Supporting them is not enough.
You will find it here, Mr. Speaker, in these pages. This is a vision
document. This is what we are gathered together to do today, and we
will have legitimate disagreements about when we are doing enough in a
particular area and when we are doing too much.
There are those in this body, Mr. Speaker, who believe passionately
in education. I am one of those people. I come from a district with
amazing school systems.
You can go to any public school in my district, Mr. Speaker, if you
work hard and apply yourself. I don't care what your background is, I
don't care where your family is from, I don't care what you have
stacked against you; if you work hard and apply yourself in our public
schools, you can be anything you want to be.
I know everybody wants that for their constituency back home; and I
have colleagues who believe that only Washington, D.C., is successful
enough, has a track record of success strong enough to implement that
vision back home.
I don't come from that camp. I see a lot of failure come out of
Washington, D.C. I see a lot of bureaucracy come out of Washington,
D.C. I see success come out of parents and teachers and principals back
home raising taxes, supporting those institutions, making sure every
child has a chance. We do that together as a community.
The discussion that we might have in this institution, Mr. Speaker,
is not: Do you believe in education?
It is: Do you believe educators in Washington, D.C., have the best
answers, or educators back home in your district have the answers?
The truth is that we don't have many educators in Washington, D.C. We
have bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who oversee educators. I side
with my educators back home. It is a legitimate disagreement that we
are welcome to have.
What can't be said, though, Mr. Speaker, is that there are any
disagreements over these next few days that we are not going to be
allowed to have. I have said it before, and I will say it again because
it makes me so proud. We don't always have time or make room for all
the voices in this institution, Mr. Speaker. You know, sometimes we
pick and choose winners and losers, whose voice is going to be heard.
Not today. Any Member of Congress could submit their budget to the
United States House of Representatives Committee on Rules.
It is a hard thing to produce a budget. I told you I have done it
before, Mr. Speaker. It takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of
commitment. But if you believe that you have a better idea, you can do
it. And if you did it, we made it in order in the Rules Committee last
night and we are going to debate it on the floor and we are going to
vote on it on the floor.
We can't always say that every single idea, every single substitute
is going to make it to the floor for a vote. We can say that today. I
am proud that we can.
It is not going to stop the disagreements, Mr. Speaker, but what it
is going to do is air those disagreements; what it is going to do is
allow us to talk about our differing visions; and what it is going to
do is allow us to come together on a common vision at the end of the
day.
I hope my colleagues will support this rule so we can begin that
process, and I hope my colleagues will support the underlying budget of
their choice.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops in opposition to the Republican budget.
United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops,
Washington, DC, August 31, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: As Congress proceeds with the 2018
budget process, the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops (USCCB) reaffirms that the federal budget is a moral
document with profound implications for the common good of
our nation and world. The budget requires difficult decisions
that ought to be guided by moral criteria that protect human
life and dignity, give central importance to ``the least of
these'' (Matthew 25), and promote the welfare of workers and
families who struggle to live in dignity.
The Catholic Church teaches that it is the role of the
state to promote the three pillars
[[Page H7768]]
of the common good. In May 2017, we outlined these three
pillars: respect for the fundamental and inalienable rights
of the human person, promotion of human development, and
defense of peace. Our Conference has long supported the goal
of reducing future unsustainable deficits that would harm all
citizens, especially those who are poor. However, a just
framework for sound fiscal policy cannot rely almost
exclusively on disproportionate cuts in essential services to
poor and vulnerable persons.
Sharp increases in defense and immigration enforcement
spending, coupled with simultaneous and severe reductions to
non-defense discretionary spending, particularly to many
domestic and international programs that assist the most
vulnerable, are profoundly troubling. The House Budget
Committee's H. Con. Res. 71 proposes increasing defense
spending by $929 billion over the next decade, which is $72
billion above sequester levels. This is coupled with a
proposal to cut $4.4 trillion over the same period from
domestic and international programs that assist the most
vulnerable, potentially impacting health care safety net
programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP, as well as food
security programs like SNAP. The proposal would also reduce
current funding levels for environmental stewardship by $824
million.
Such deep cuts would harm people facing dire circumstances,
and would place the environment and natural resources at
risk. When the impact of other potential legislative
proposals, including the proposed reduction of spending on
health care by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next
decade and implementation of tax policies that would offer
trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy over the same
period are considered, the prospects for vulnerable people
become even bleaker.
Our nation should elevate diplomacy, along with
humanitarian and international development assistance, as
primary tools for promoting lasting peace, regional stability
and human rights. The USCCB urges Congress to reject H. Con.
Res. 71's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget authority level of
$41.521 billion for the International Affairs functions of
government. This would represent a $10 billion cut from this
year's appropriations for those functions. Although the USCCB
does not support every individual International Affairs
account, it has repeatedly called for robust diplomatic
efforts to end longstanding conflicts in a range of
countries, including Syria and Iraq, as well as for robust
funding for refugee and humanitarian assistance. It is hard
to reconcile the need for diplomacy, political solutions, and
life-saving humanitarian and development assistance with cuts
to the State Department budget of the magnitude proposed by
H. Con. Res. 71.
At the same time, H. Con. Res. 71 anticipates dramatic
increases in immigration enforcement spending. We fear that
such increases could pave the way for enactment of many of
the destructive proposals contained in recently released
budget plans, including increases in immigrant detention
beds, the construction of a wall along the entire border
between the United States and Mexico, and the expansion of
agreements with state and local governments that threaten
local law enforcement's ability to foster trusting
relationships with immigrants in their jurisdictions. Any
changes to the tax code called for through reconciliation
should include a provision to empower the educational choices
of families. The reconciliation process should not be used to
achieve savings through cutting health care, nutrition,
income security, or other anti-poverty programs. This budget
attempts to use the reconciliation process to fast-track over
$200 billion in cuts to anti-poverty programs over the next
ten years, including Medicaid and Medicare. The bishops have
devoted their efforts to addressing the morally problematic
features of health care reform while insuring that all people
have access to health care coverage.
The human consequences of budget choices are clear to us as
pastors. Our Catholic community defends the unborn and the
undocumented, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless,
educates the young, and cares for the sick, both at home and
abroad. We help mothers facing challenging situations of
pregnancy, poor families rising above crushing poverty,
refugees fleeing conflict and persecution, and communities
devastated by wars, natural disasters and famines. In much of
this work, we are partners with government. Our combined
resources allow us to reach further and help more. Our
institutions are present in every state and throughout the
world, serving some of the most marginalized communities and
enjoying the trust of local populations.
The moral measure of the federal budget is how well it
promotes the common good of all, especially the most
vulnerable whose voices are too often missing in these
debates. The Catholic Bishops of the United States stand
ready to work with leaders of both parties for a federal
budget that reduces future deficits, protects poor and
vulnerable people, and advances peace and the common good.
Sincerely yours,
His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan,
Archbishop of New York, Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life
Activities.
Most Rev. Oscar Cantu,
Bishop of Las Cruces, Chairman, Committee on International
Justice and Peace.
Most Rev. Christopher J. Coyne,
Bishop of Burlington, Chairman, Committee on
Communications.
Most Rev. Frank J. Dewane,
Bishop of Venice, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice
and Human Development.
Most Rev. George V. Murry, SJ,
Bishop of Youngstown, Chairman, Committee on Catholic
Education.
Most Rev. Joe S. Vasquez,
Bishop of Austin, Chairman, Committee on Migration.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the
Coalition on Human Needs against the Republican budget.
Coalition on Human Needs,
Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Coalition on Human
Needs, I strongly urge you to vote no on H. Con. Res. 71, the
proposed FY 2018 Budget Resolution, and to vote for the
substitute budgets advanced by the Congressional Progressive
Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and the Democratic
alternative budget resolution.
The Coalition on Human Needs is an alliance made up of
human service providers, faith organizations, policy experts,
labor, civil rights, and other advocates for meeting the
needs of low-income and vulnerable people. Our members
understand that the economic security of millions of American
families depends on building on the progress we've made in
health coverage, jobs, basic living standards, and ensuring
that our children are well-prepared for productive lives. But
the majority's proposed budget does not build--it breaks
apart our engines of progress. It will make our nation weaker
for decades to come.
The most recent survey data on poverty in the U.S. shows
the biggest two-year decline since the late 1960's.
Refundable tax credits for working families, SNAP/food stamps
and housing subsidies have lifted multi-millions of people
out of poverty. The decline in the proportion of our
population without health insurance continued its decline in
2016, down to 8.8 percent. More people are working, and in
general, low- and moderate-income households have finally
started to make income gains.
The budget advanced by the House Budget Committee would be
a dangerous backwards plunge, stripping trillions of dollars
from programs that work to reduce poverty and create security
and opportunity. Medicaid, Medicare, working family tax
credits, nutrition assistance, education and housing
assistance: these are just some of the services the budget
would massively cut. The budget takes trillions in funding
that supports economic security and progress and hands it to
the wealthy and corporations in the form of enormous tax
cuts.
The primary goal of H. Con. Res. 71 is to allow huge tax
cuts to be enacted with only a simple majority in the Senate.
These tax cuts are claimed to be a critical element in
increasing economic growth enough to make the tax cuts
deficit neutral. Reputable economists are skeptical that the
proposed tax cuts would boost the economy to the 2.6 percent
average growth projected in the budget and acknowledge that
tax cuts to corporations and the rich deepen the deficit.
History supports this: the economy grew and unemployment
declined more during the Clinton tax increase years than
during the Bush era tax cuts. And the Kansas experience with
tax cuts is cautionary: revenues plummeted, with the tax take
in 2016 $570 million lower than in 2013, even after counting
increases enacted in sales and cigarette taxes. The economic
growth that did occur from cutting taxes was estimated to
bring in about $30 million, leaving the state very deeply in
the hole. The state legislature has recently reversed course,
unwilling to slash education budgets as much as the revenue
hole would have forced. They saw that they were weakening
their state. Congress should not inflict the same dangerous
lesson on the entire nation.
We urge you to reject H. Con. Res. 71 because of its
central choice: paying for tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor
the rich and corporations with cuts to essential services.
Our nation faces major challenges: reducing disproportionate
poverty among children and helping children and young adults
to advance in education so they can meet the challenges in
our economic future, protecting seniors in their retirement,
and rebuilding communities. Both the emergency needs of
communities devastated by natural disasters and the similarly
urgent threats from opioids and other epidemics, decaying
infrastructure and inadequate public health and consumer
protections demand a vigorous federal response. Instead of
making these investments, the House budget would cripple the
federal capacity to respond by slashing domestic
appropriations by 44 percent compared with FY 2010 levels
over the next decade and making similarly extreme cuts in
[[Page H7769]]
health care, nutrition, income assistance for seniors, people
with disabilities, and working families. In addition to
trillions of dollars in cuts and structural constraints to
basic mandatory programs, the budget would fast-track $203
billion in cuts to domestic programs over the next ten years
through reconciliation rules. Cuts like these would
recklessly weaken us; they are self-inflicted wounds.
The proposed tax cuts will worsen inequality and reward
businesses that park their income offshore. Instead, Congress
should insist that corporations and the rich pay their fair
share. Please vote against weakening America, and instead
protect and expand investments as called for in the budgets
proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus,
Congressional Black Caucus, and the House Budget Committee
Democrats' substitute. These three constructive alternatives
deserve your yes vote.
Sincerely yours,
Deborah Weinstein,
Executive Director.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to all
Members of Congress from the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda
against this Republican budget.
National Hispanic
Leadership Agenda,
July 26, 2017.
Re NHLA opposition to House Budget Resolution.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Hispanic
Leadership Agenda (NHLA), the coalition of the nation's 45
preeminent Latino advocacy organizations, we are writing to
express our deep concerns with the budget resolution that
recently passed out of the House Budget Committee and urge
you to vote against passage of the resolution if it comes to
the House floor. The resolution threatens the basic living
standards of tens of millions of Americans in order to
subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy. From education and
scientific research to basic assistance and health programs,
the House budget would cut $4.4 trillion from entitlement
programs and $1.3 trillion from non-defense discretionary
programs over the next decade, crippling the most important
drivers of our nation's economic engine--working families.
For these reasons, and those detailed further below, NHLA
will consider any votes on the budget resolution for
inclusion in future NHLA scorecards evaluating the support of
Members of Congress for the Latino community.
Budget resolutions serve as fiscal blueprints that signal
the priorities of government spending to support all
Americans in their attainment of the American Dream. However,
rather than seek to bolster opportunities for American
working families, the House budget places the burden of
reducing our deficit squarely on the backs of families
struggling to make ends meet in order to give tax breaks to
wealthy corporations and individuals. Rather than investing
in America's future homebuyers, workers, and students, both
the House budget and President Trump's budget undermine the
progress our country has made and prioritize corporate
interests over those of hardworking American families.
The trillions of dollars of cuts in the House budget would
have a catastrophic impact on the millions of Latinos who
struggle to put food on their tables and a roof over their
heads. Recent research by UnidosUS (formerly NCLR) provides
evidence of the strong impact of federal assistance programs
on lifting millions of Latinos, especially children, out of
poverty. In 2015, for example:
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) lifted about 2 7 million
Latinos out of poverty, including 1.4 million children.
Child Tax Credit (CTC) lifted an estimated 981,000 Latinos
out of poverty, including 560,000 children.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) lifted an
estimated 1.3 million Latinos out of poverty, including
640,000 children.
Rental assistance lifted about 720,000 Latinos out of
poverty, including 270,000 children.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) lifted an estimated
630,000 Latinos out of poverty, including 140,000 children.
The House budget resolution would threaten the
effectiveness of many of these programs. The budget plan also
calls for cuts to Medicaid and other health programs more
severe than the House-passed bill to repeal the Affordable
Care Act.
Further, the House budget resolution dismantles consumer
and worker protections, jeopardizing the ability of Latino
and all working families to build and maintain wealth. The
budget plan not only guts the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau--the only agency whose sole mission is to protect
Americans from predatory practices in the financial
marketplace--but also undermines our nation's workforce,
cutting funding for the Wage and House Division in the
Department of Labor more deeply than proposed in the Trump
budget. Additionally, Latino workers cannot afford cuts to
the Environmental Protection Agency, which protects our human
health and environment from toxic chemicals. Working families
need more and better enforcement of consumer financial and
labor protection laws to protect Americans from abuse, and
also ensure law-abiding financial service providers, as well
as employers, are not harmed by unfair competition by
unscrupulous actors.
Simply put, the House budget resolution would harm American
families and workers, especially Latinos, making our nation
more inequitable and less prepared for economic challenges.
We strongly urge Members of Congress to oppose the House
budget plan and instead support a budget that defends the
interests of the American public and prudently spends
taxpayer dollars.
Sincerely,
Hector Sanchez Barba,
Chair, NHLA, Executive Director, Labor Council for Latin
American Advancement (LCLAA).
Bruce Goldstein,
Co-Chair, NHLA Economic Empowerment and Labor Committee,
President, Farmworker Justice.
Eric Rodriguez,
Co-Chair, NHLA Economic Empowerment and Labor Committee,
Vice President, UnidosUS.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the
AARP, the Main Street Alliance, and the League of Conservation Voters,
all in strong opposition to the Republican budget.
AARP,
Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of over 38 million
members and other Americans who are age 50 and older, AARP is
writing to communicate our views as you consider H. Con. Res.
71, the House Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal
Year 2018. As the process moves forward, AARP urges you to
support Social Security, Medicare, and other key programs
that millions of Americans depend upon for their health and
financial security and oppose proposals that would hurt older
Americans.
Medicare and Social Security
Our members count on Social Security and Medicare and
believe they should be protected and strengthened for today's
seniors and future generations. Proposals creating a defined
contribution premium-support program; restricting access by
raising the age of eligibility; or allowing hospitals and
providers to arbitrarily charge consumers higher prices than
Medicare can make health care unaffordable for older
Americans. These proposals do little to actually lower the
cost of health care, but simply shift costs from Medicare
onto individuals--many of whom cannot afford to pay more for
their care. We urge you not to include attempts to cut
Medicare benefits or increase beneficiary costs in the
upcoming budget proposal.
The typical senior, with an annual income of around $25,000
and already spending one out of every six dollars on health
care, counts on Social Security for the majority of their
income, and on Medicare for access to affordable health
coverage. We will continue to oppose changes to current law
that cut benefits, increase costs, or reduce the ability of
these critical programs to deliver on their benefit promises.
We urge you to continue to do so as well.
Medicaid, Long-Term Services and Supports and SNAP
Medicaid serves as a critical safety net for millions of
people in every state, including over 17 million poor elderly
and children and adults with disabilities, who rely on vital
Medicaid health and long-term care services. Efforts to
reduce or cap Medicaid funding could endanger the health,
safety, and care of millions of individuals who depend on the
essential services provided through this program.
Furthermore, caps could result in significant cost-shifts to
state governments unable to shoulder the costs of care
without sufficient federal support. Instead of arbitrary
caps, proposals should focus on efforts to improve Medicaid,
such as encouraging more individuals to receive services in
their homes and communities rather than costly institutional
care.
SNAP plays a vital role in feeding millions of hungry
Americans, including over four million older Americans.
Proposals to block grant the program, or impose work
requirements will make SNAP less responsive and accessible in
times of need; and without clear work requirement exemptions
for the elderly and disabled, would bar these individuals
from receiving SNAP benefits.
We ask you to reject the cuts proposed in H. Con. Res. 71.
We stand ready to work with you to develop proposals that
protect and improve Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and
SNAP.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann C. Jenkins,
Chief Executive Officer.
Joyce A. Rogers,
SVP Government Affairs, AARP.
____
Main Street Alliance,
Washington, DC, October 2, 2017.
Re H. Con. Res. 71, Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Resolution.
Members of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: Main Street Alliance, a network of
small business owners
[[Page H7770]]
throughout the country, strongly urges you to oppose H. Con.
Res. 71, the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Resolution. This budget,
if enacted into law, would cut $3.4 trillion from Medicaid,
Medicare, Social Security, education, employment and
training, food and housing assistance, and infrastructure
spending over the next 10 years. This will significantly harm
small business owners and their employees, damage local
economies, and decimate state budgets.
Millions of small business owners, their employees, and
their families rely on Medicaid and Medicare for access to
healthcare critical to their survival. The House Budget
Resolution would strip them of their health coverage. The
proposed budget would slash $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and
other health programs, and gut Medicare by $500 billion,
transforming both from systems in which beneficiaries are
guaranteed certain levels of coverage, to a capped amount per
enrollee. Work requirements would also be imposed on
Medicaid. This puts 69 million Medicaid recipients and 57
million Medicare beneficiaries at risk for a loss in
services, including millions of small business owners and
their employees.
Healthcare, education, food, and housing costs would
skyrocket under the House Budget, devastating local economies
and small businesses that depend on consumer demand from
customers in their communities. In addition to the deep cuts
to healthcare, the budget would cut $150 billion from the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which enables
nearly 22 million families to put food on the table, and
eliminate $90 billion from education, training, employment,
and social services programs, significantly scaling back Pell
Grants, which help nearly 8 million students afford college.
These draconian spending cuts would force vulnerable and
working families to pay more for vital programs, resulting in
a reduction in their disposal income and the amount of money
they can spend on goods and services. Small business owners
would see a decline in customers.
The House budget cuts would siphon trillions of dollars out
of state economies from 2018 to 2027. Because the block grant
funding scheme provides a fixed amount of Medicaid and
Medicare funding for states each year, the proposal would
also leave states on the hook for any and all unexpected
healthcare costs from recessions, natural disasters, public
health emergencies, or prescription drug price spikes, and
unaccounted costs like the aging of the population. The deep
reductions in federal healthcare, education, employment and
training, food and housing assistance, and infrastructure
spending would force states to make up the difference,
drastically cutting the quality of services offered. As state
budgets contract, employment would decrease and small
businesses would decline.
The impact of the House Budget Resolution on small
businesses will be felt in the loss of vital services,
reduced business, and contracted state budgets. We urge you
to protect Main Street small businesses owners, working
families, communities, and economies, and oppose the House
Budget Resolution. Reject any budget that enables tax cuts
for the very wealthy and large profitable corporations to
lose revenue, since it will force deep cuts in vital programs
that harm small business.
Signed,
Amanda Ballantyne,
National Director, Main Street Alliance.
____
League of Conservation Voters,
Washington, DC, October 4, 2017.
Re Oppose FY18 House Budget Resolution.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters
(LCV) works to turn environmental values into national
priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National
Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of
members of Congress on environmental legislation. The
Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters
nationwide, and the media.
LCV urges you to vote NO on H. Con. Res. 71. This budget
resolution includes a huge giveaway to oil and gas companies
by paving the way for drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, one of America's most iconic landscapes. It
threatens environmental and public health safeguards,
provides tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and
slashes programs and protections that benefit communities
across the country, among other harmful provisions.
The House budget resolution puts some of our most iconic
landscapes at risk. It contains reconciliation instructions
that aim to open up the pristine Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge and possibly other public lands and waters to
drilling. The Arctic Refuge is one of the largest remaining
intact ecosystems in the world. It has sustained the Gwich'in
people for centuries and is home to an incredible array of
wildlife, including caribou, wolves, polar bears, and nearly
200 species of migratory birds. We have a moral obligation to
protect this natural treasure and to transition to a clean
energy future.
Following in the footsteps of the Trump administration's
unconscionable budget proposal, the House Republican
leadership's budget resolution would make dangerous cuts to
programs that benefit the most vulnerable in our society
while benefitting polluters. Included in the resolution are
provisions that will lead to trillions of dollars of cuts to
health care and programs that provide basic living standards
for struggling families, as well as other substantial cuts.
Meanwhile, it would account for $1.6 billion of federal funds
to pay for a xenophobic and environmentally harmful border
wall. Rather than investing in safeguards for clean air and
water, protections for our national parks and other public
lands that drive our outdoor recreation economy, and growing
clean energy industries, this budget sells out those
priorities to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and
billionaires and for gifts to corporate special interests.
We urge you to REJECT H. Con. Res. 71 and will strongly
consider including the vote on this bill in the 2017
Scorecard.
Sincerely,
Gene Karpinski,
President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that it is clear
that, certainly on the Democratic side, we are very much dedicated to
trying to lift people out of poverty. That is one of the reasons why we
oppose this Republican budget that cuts $211 million from financial aid
programs to help people be able to get additional higher education.
That is one of the reasons why we have complained loudly about the
inadequate funding for job training. You want people to train for
employment, you need to make sure that those slots are available so
that people can get the training and the assistance they need.
The gentleman says: Don't worry about the debt because the
reconciliation instructions will instruct the Ways and Means Committee
to do a deficit neutral tax plan.
Well, I mean, there is lots of stuff in here that are assumptions
that aren't true, like, you repealed the Affordable Care Act. That
didn't happen and it is not going to happen.
And what we are told from the Tax Policy Center and the Committee for
a Responsible Federal Budget, according to their analysis, is that what
the Republicans are proposing in terms of their tax plan will basically
cost well over $2 trillion, and that will be added to our debt.
So I don't--we can debate fantasyland if we want, but the reality is
the reality, and this budget is a bad deal for everybody.
Mr. Speaker, this week, our Nation witnessed the deadliest mass
shooting in history. We have endured horrific mass killings in Newtown,
San Bernardino, Orlando, and now Las Vegas, among many others, all
without any congressional action. The killings happen every single day
on our streets, at public events, and even in our homes.
Mr. Speaker, my heart broke when the children of Sandy Hook were
killed, and I remain absolutely stunned that this Congress has done
nothing about it, nothing.
Now 59 people lost their lives in Las Vegas during what was supposed
to be a celebratory event, a concert, and this is only 16 months after
the last deadly mass shooting in Orlando. Gun violence in this country
is out of control, and all we have done is cater to the gun lobby.
The United States Congress is a legislative body, Mr. Speaker. We are
not a think tank or a church or a synagogue. Thoughts and prayers are
not what this country expects from us, and it is not what it needs from
us. The people of this country need us to act, to pass laws that
protect their lives and their children's lives.
As my colleague in the Senate, Senator Chris Murphy, has said: ``This
must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress
are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend that there aren't
any public policy responses to this epidemic. There are. And the
thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are
paired with legislative indifference.''
For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Mr. Thompson's bill, H. Res. 367,
which I am a cosponsor of, which would establish the Select Committee
on Gun Violence Prevention.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain what I mean when I say ``defeat the
previous question.'' We are here debating which bills will come to the
House floor this week, the agenda for the House of Representatives. The
majority chose to consider their misguided budget. Fine. We can do
that.
[[Page H7771]]
But what I am saying is that we should also take the first step in at
least setting up a committee to look at gun violence in America. So if
we say no to ending debate on this rule, by defeating the previous
question, we can then debate whether or not to create this committee.
This is the least we can do.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, it was almost 5 years ago
that this Nation witnessed the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook
Elementary School, where 20 first graders were murdered in their
classrooms, along with six of their teachers. Congress did nothing.
A church in Charleston, a White supremacist walked in and murdered
nine worshippers. Congress did nothing. And worse than that, Congress
didn't even address what is called the ``Charleston loophole'' that
allowed this deranged White supremacist to be able to buy a gun or
obtain a gun that he was buying without completing the background
check.
Orlando, Florida, the nightclub: 49 people murdered. Congress did
nothing.
The congressional baseball game, one of our own was shot by some
deranged murderer. Congress did nothing.
Las Vegas, just these past days, a country music festival: 59 people
murdered. The biggest mass shooting in the history of the United States
of America. Even as sad, it is the 273rd mass shooting in the United
States of America this year.
So what is Congress going to do? More of nothing? That is not
appropriate.
In the almost 5 years since Sandy Hook, we have been working on our
side of the aisle diligently to try and come up with some ideas, some
solutions to help prevent gun violence, and we have come up with some.
As a matter of fact, one of them is a bipartisan measure with a
bipartisan coauthor on my bill, Mr. Peter King from New York, and we
have four or five Republican coauthors on that bill.
Have we had a hearing?
No.
Have we had a vote?
No.
All we are trying to do with that bill is expand background checks to
make sure that criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can't buy
firearms easily; make it more difficult for these people, who we know
commit crimes with these guns, to get their hands on a gun. It is
within the confines of the Second Amendment. It just expands the
already existing background checks to include commercial sale of
firearms across the country. No hearings, no votes.
Instead, our friends on the other side of the aisle have their own
gun agenda. They want to legalize silencers. They want to remove the
restrictions on silencers. Police entities, officers, chiefs, and
sheriffs across the country have told us that this is dangerous. It
puts the people that we represent at risk, but that is their gun
agenda.
If you don't like the ideas that we have brought forward, please
bring something forward, other than deregulating silencers, that will
help with this epidemic that we are facing in our country.
Thirty people a day are killed by someone using a gun.
What are your ideas?
Nothing. Silence.
The only thing we have heard now is we hear from your leadership that
we are not going to discuss policy in regard to gun violence
prevention.
Well, that is why we came to Congress. That is why every one of us
ran for Congress, to work on policy. That is why our constituents sent
us to Congress, to vote on policy.
But on the heels of 59 people being murdered the day before
yesterday, what are we told?
That we are not going to do policy on gun violence prevention.
That is not responsible.
The bill that my friend, Mr. McGovern, talked about, my bill that he
is a coauthor on, would establish a Select Committee, Democrats and
Republicans, to sit down at the same table and try and find some
solutions to help prevent gun violence, and then move that to the House
for consideration. That is all we want.
We want these issues to be heard. We want to be able to do our job.
Our constituents want a vote on these issues that are important to the
safety of every single person in the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If you have not tuned in to this debate until just these past few
minutes, you might not know that this is the budget debate today. We
have been prepping for the budget debate today for about 10 months now,
and we are ready today not just with one budget, but with a variety of
budget choices. And what is wonderful about this process is it has been
such an open process.
You can come down to the House floor and air absolutely any idea that
is on your mind. That has not just been true today, Mr. Speaker, but
that has been true throughout this entire budget process. In fact, I
have a letter signed by literally hundreds of groups that support not
just voting on the rule to bring the budget to the floor, but groups
that support passing the budget as we passed it out of the House Budget
Committee.
Now, if my colleagues have any concerns about that, I hope they will
come and knock on my door, Mr. Speaker, because I promise you that one
of these groups is going to be from their part of the country.
Certainly, in Georgia, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce is on that
list. So our folks back home are supportive. If you are from Alabama, I
have got Alabamans on here. If you are from Baton Rouge, I have got
Baton Rouge. If you are from Battle Creek, I have Battle Creek, because
what we are working on here isn't a Republican budget, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1315
What we are working on isn't a regional budget. What we are working
on here is the national budget for the United States of America that
can be transformational for absolutely every citizen in absolutely
every corner of this country.
We have that opportunity. I think we are going to seize that
opportunity, but we can't do it until we move this rule to get to the
underlying bills. I encourage my colleagues to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I include in the Record letters from the UAW, the SEIU, The
National Treasury Employees Union, AFSCME, the American Federation of
Government Employees, and NARFE.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW,
Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), I am writing to strongly urge you
to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the House Fiscal Year (FY) 2018
budget resolution. The federal budget is a moral document as
well as a fiscal blueprint, and H. Con. Res. 71 fails
spectacularly on both fronts. This draconian budget would be
a disaster for our economy, the middle class and our most
vulnerable citizens.
The proposed budget forces working people and retirees to
pay for enormous tax cuts to the wealthy. Despite claims to
the contrary, by 2027, roughly 30 percent of households
earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would see an increase in
their taxes. H. Con. Res. 71 cuts $1.5 trillion from Medicare
and Medicaid and ends the programs as we know them. Medicaid
and Medicare are literal lifelines for many of our most
vulnerable citizens--especially children and the elderly.
Medicaid is the largest provider of nursing home and long-
term care.
This radical piece of legislation creates fast-track
procedures to implement the tax cuts that will overwhelmingly
benefit the wealthy and multinational corporations. The
average tax cut for millionaires would be $230,000 a year by
2027. It eliminates the estate tax, which currently only
applies to the top two tenths of one percent of estates,
giving the ultrawealthy $239 billion in tax cuts. By 2027,
80% of tax cuts will go to the top one percent.
It also uses these procedures to make at least $203 billion
in cuts to mandatory programs that are important for working
families and our most vulnerable citizens. In
[[Page H7772]]
total, this budget assumes $5.4 trillion in spending cuts.
Cuts of this magnitude would almost certainly lead to
slashing funding for Legal Services Corporation, federal
employee pensions, nutritional assistance infrastructure, and
unemployment compensation, to name a few. It also repeals the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and the Affordable Care Act.
This budget resolution takes America in the wrong
direction. We have tried ``trickle down'' economics several
times in the past; it did not work then and it will not work
now. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Instead,
they will come at the expense of hardworking every day
Americans--many of whom have trouble affording basic
necessities today.
We strongly urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71 and instead
work on a federal budget that invests in our country and
works for ALL Americans.
Sincerely,
Josh Nassar,
Legislative Director.
____
SEIU Stronger Together,
Washington, DC, October 4, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 2 million members of
the Service Employees International Union (``SEIU''), I write
to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the FY18 House budget resolution.
This budget would further rig the system against working
Americans by slashing resources that help families afford
basic needs like healthcare, food, and education--all to pave
the way for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. SEIU
believes The People's Budget is a better way forward for
working families. While the House Republican budget would
continue to leave working families behind, The People's
Budget makes American workers its first priority through
critical investments in health care, education, and
infrastructure.
The first goal of any elected representative should be to
improve the lives of their constituents. H. Con. Res. 71
fails to meet this standard. To pay for tax giveaways for the
wealthy and corporations, the budget resolution includes
reconciliation instructions that would significantly
undermine basic living standards for families. For example,
under the reconciliation instructions, committees are
directed to make cuts of $203 billion dollars over ten years
to programs that could include Medicaid, Medicare,
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and programs
for people with disabilities, which provide critical support
for millions of Americans.
By threatening Medicaid, this budget ignores the tens of
thousands of people who mobilized month after month to
soundly reject efforts to dismantle healthcare and cut
Medicaid. Efforts to reduce or cap Medicaid funding put at
risk healthcare for 74 million Americans--including children,
people with disabilities, and seniors. Hospitals could be
forced to close or cut services, further reducing access to
care, especially in underserved areas. States--which must
balance budgets and already face fiscal pressures--would not
be able to make up the lost federal Medicaid dollars and
would likely be forced to deny coverage. Furthermore, the
cuts would lead to significant job loss in the healthcare
industry, one of the fastest growing sectors in our economy.
In contrast, The People's Budget would focus on reforms to
increase access, affordability. and quality of health care by
building on the foundation of the Affordable Care Act
(``ACA''). In its entirety, it would move the nation's health
care system closer to achieving universal coverage, while
ensuring that working families would have affordable care. At
the same time, it would invest in developing innovative care
delivery models that control costs and increase quality. The
People's Budget would put America's health care system on the
right path forward.
The House Republican budget, however, would compound the
proposed Medicaid cuts with potential cuts to Medicare,
Social Security Disability Insurance, and nutrition
assistance. The budget doubles down on its harm to seniors
and people with disabilities and further shift costs to
states. The cumulative impact of the deep cuts proposed in
this budget would force states to make drastic spending and
job cuts, raise taxes, or both. This budget pressure would
likely also trickle down to local governments in the form of
decreased funding to cities and counties, creating a fiscal
crisis in communities across the nation.
While H. Con. Res. 71 would force Americans to make a false
choice between programs that are essential to their
communities and tax giveaways for the wealthy, The People's
Budget invests in American communities through a robust
infrastructure program and makes debt free college a reality
for all students--without sacrificing health care for
millions of Americans. The House Republican budget makes no
such commitment to education, and its steep cuts create the
potential for state budget crises that put education programs
and working families' futures in jeopardy. Trickle-down
economics have left America's middle class behind for
decades. It is time we turn the page towards an economy that
is designed for working families and aimed at improving their
lives.
The proposed FY18 House Budget Resolution is a disaster for
America's working families. By decimating programs that
provide healthcare, food, housing, and education to set the
stage for massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations,
this budget is an attack on our communities' quality of life.
We respectfully urge you to reject the proposed budget
resolution, and instead support The People's Budget which
would prioritize working families in building an economy that
works for everyone. We will add votes on H. Con. Res. 71 to
our legislative scorecard.
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Henry,
International President.
____
The National Treasury
Employees Union,
Washington, DC, October 4, 2017.
Dear Representative: As National President of the National
Treasury Employees Union, I represent over 150,000 dedicated
federal employees at 31 agencies. I am writing to ask you to
VOTE NO on the House Budget Resolution, H. Con Res 71.
The House Budget Resolution instructs the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform to produce at least $32
billion in cuts to programs under its jurisdiction, which are
federal employee benefit programs. While the Budget Committee
recommended sizable cuts to federal employee retirement, it
is important to highlight that this program has been utilized
in recent years to help pay for both infrastructure and
unemployment insurance. This was twice accomplished by
increasing the amount federal employees contribute toward
their retirement benefits, and occurred against a backdrop of
a multi-year pay freeze, further squeezing employee
paychecks. In recent years, federal employees have endured
compensation losses of close to $200 billion for deficit
reduction, from the above retirement changes and from reduced
pay increases in 2014, 2015, 2016, and in 2017. At a time
when private sector raises are averaging 3%, federal wage
increases continue to trail behind.
Federal employees play a vital role for taxpayers--ensuring
air, water and food safety, border and national security,
consumer protections, and preserving our national parks, to
name just a few of their functions and missions. Like all
Americans, federal employees face ever-increasing food,
utility, health care, and college bills, and have rent and
mortgage obligations. Families will fall further behind if
their take-home pay is slashed or if cost-of-living
adjustments, similar to those made to Social Security,
military retirement and to veterans' benefits to keep these
payments whole, are removed in retirement. These further cuts
will also degrade morale, make it difficult for agencies to
recruit and retain quality employees, and will erode income
security for retirees.
Additionally, I ask you to strongly oppose Representatives
McClintock and Walker's Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute that places a severe financial burden on federal
employees by eviscerating federal employee compensation, and
further unfairly attacks worker protections and labor
organizations.
On behalf of our nation's federal employees--who live and
work in every state and congressional district across the
country--serving as scientists, accountants, statisticians,
park rangers, and law enforcement officers, I ask you to
reject the cuts contemplated in the Budget Resolution, and
VOTE NO.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Reardon,
National President.
____
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, October 2, 2017.
Member of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the
fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget resolution approved by the House
Budget Committee and scheduled to be considered by the full
House. This budget plan would impose considerable hardship on
many Americans in order to slash taxes for the wealthy and
corporations and to boost defense spending.
The budget decisions made by Congress each year are vital
to ensuring that the economy is strong and that our
communities are safe and prosperous. Yet, this budget
completely undercuts responsibility for shared prosperity by
applying the same misguided priorities proposed by President
Trump. It sets woefully inadequate spending levels for
critical public services and cuts over a trillion dollars
from non-defense discretionary spending (NDD), in order to
significantly boost defense spending and provide massive tax
giveaways to wealthy individuals and large corporations.
The budget slashes $5.7 trillion over 10 years including
$1.3 trillion from NDD programs that have already been
compromised by austere budget caps. FY 2018 statutory caps
lower funding for NDD programs by 17 percent adjusted for
inflation below FY 2010, and the House budget cuts this by an
additional $5 billion. The additional cuts proposed in the
House budget would weaken public services that all Americans
rely on, create massive budget problems for states, and lead
to enormous job losses. It would force dramatic cuts in,
education, job training, federal employee pensions, and
nutritional assistance. Over 10 years, the budget cuts $4.4
trillion from entitlement programs, such as, Medicare and
Medicaid, including at least $203 billion in entitlement cuts
to be
[[Page H7773]]
made through the ``fast track'' reconciliation process. As a
result, safety-net programs that millions rely upon are once
again a target, further shifting enormous and unsustainable
costs to the elderly, disabled, students and states.
Rather than increasing revenues for investment that creates
jobs and spurs economic growth, the proposed budget creates a
fast-track process for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit
corporations and the wealthy. In fact, according to the
nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Trump/GOP tax cut would
largely benefit the richest 1 percent. The budget also relies
on the gimmicks of dynamic scoring and sham accounting,
hiding the true cost of unnecessary and harmful tax cuts.
The budget approved by the House Budget Committee would
hurt families, kill job growth and send the economy into a
downward tailspin. I strongly urge you to oppose. H. Con.
Res. 71, the proposed 2018 concurrent budget resolution.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.
____
American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which represents over
700,000 federal employees across the country, I strongly urge
you to oppose any FY 2018 budget resolution proposal that
includes reconciliation instructions to the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee (OGR) requiring cuts within its
jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by $32 billion for the FY
2018-2027 period, when the House considers various FY 2018
budget proposals during the week of October 2, 2017. These
cuts would target federal employee retirement benefits, as
that is the only substantial mandatory spending within OGR's
jurisdiction.
Such an approach would be consistent with the Senate Budget
Committee's FY 2018 budget resolution proposal that excludes
reconciliation instructions that would result in cutting
federal employee retirement benefits. Indeed, the Senate
version only includes reconciliation instructions to two
committees: the $1.5 trillion allowance for net tax cuts
under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction and a $1 billion,
10-year deficit cut instruction to the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee which could open up a portion of Alaska's
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration.
AFGE opposes the House Budget Committee's FY 2018 budget
resolution's reconciliation instructions to the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee to cut federal employee
retirement benefits by $32 billion for the FY 2018-2027
period. We believe this budget reconciliation instruction
would help rip away any sense of financial security that
federal employees currently have.
As you know, the House Budget Committee budget report
included recommendations that would:
Require federal employees, including Members of Congress
and their staffs, to make greater contributions to their own
defined benefit retirement plans.
Eliminate the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS)
supplemental annuity payments to federal employees who retire
before age 62, such as law enforcement officers and federal
firefighters.
Transition new federal employees to a defined contribution
retirement system. (The existing Thrift Savings Plan under
FERS is a defined contribution retirement plan.)
These proposed federal retirement cuts of S32 billion over
ten years would be on top of the $182 billion in cuts to pay
and benefits that federal employees have experienced since
2011. Those pay and benefit cuts included: a three-year pay
freeze (2011, 2012, 2013), three years of reduced pay
increases (2014, 2015, 2016), unpaid furlough days because of
the 2013 sequestration, and two increases in retirement
contributions for new hires (2012 and 2013).
It is important to view the House Budget Committee's FY
2018 budget proposal to cut federal employee retirement
benefits in the proper context. The federal employee
retirement systems (FERS and CSRS) have played no role
whatsoever in the creation of the federal budget deficit. In
addition, increasing federal employees' contributions to
their defined benefit retirement plans would decrease
consumer demand and thereby adversely impact the American
economy.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Kahn,
Director, Legislative Affairs.
____
National Active and Retired
Federal Employees Association,
Alexandria, VA, October 3, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Active and
Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), I write to ask
you to oppose the inclusion of reconciliation instructions in
any budget resolution that target federal retirement and/or
health benefits considered by the full House of
Representatives.
The House Budget Committee passed, and the House is
expected to consider, a budget resolution containing
reconciliation instructions calling for at least $32 billion
in cuts to mandatory spending under the jurisdiction of the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (OGR).
Such instructions directly target the hard-earned retirement
and health benefits of federal and postal workers and
retirees, as these benefits constitute the only substantial
mandatory spending under OGR's jurisdiction.
Proposals to meet the $32 billion in savings range from bad
to worse--from imposing a ``retirement tax'' on current
federal and postal employees by raising payroll contributions
towards retirement without any benefit increase to various
proposals that would dramatically reduce the value of federal
pensions for those nearing--or even in--retirement. These are
neither fair nor prudent policies, yet any budget resolution
containing reconciliation instructions for OGR endorses them
prior to any significant evaluation.
The upcoming budget resolution is being used to set the
stage for advancing tax reform that proponents argue provides
a break to hard-working, middle-class Americans.
Reconciliation instructions that target hard-working, middle
class federal and postal workers are diametrically opposed to
that goal and undermine a key argument as the basis of
comprehensive tax reform.
For these reasons, I ask you to oppose any budget
resolution that contains substantial reconciliation
instructions to the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
Sincerely,
Richard Thissen,
National President
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague from
Georgia, thanks for reminding us that the Republicans have been working
on the budget for 10 months; but according to your own Republican
Budget Committee website, the budget was supposed to be presented and
finished by April 15, so you are a little late.
In any event, I also want to remind the gentleman, because I know he
is on the Rules Committee, so I know he knows this, that the rule sets
the agenda for the House. Yes, if one of the things that the
Republicans want to bring up is their terrible budget, that is fine.
You can do that. But the rule can also be an opportunity for us to
bring up the bill that Mr. Thompson has offered, to set up this
commission to deal with gun violence. We can do both.
You can walk and you can chew gum at the same time. This is not a
radical idea. But this is our only way to be able to bring something to
the floor, because the leadership of this House has said no to
everything. They have said no to everything. We can't get hearings. We
can't get votes. We can't get debates. We get nothing.
Don't be startled by us trying to defeat the previous question. It is
a perfectly legitimate way to try to expand the agenda, and I hope that
some of our Republican friends will vote with us to defeat the previous
question. We can still do the budget, but we can also do the Thompson
bill as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms.
Blunt Rochester).
Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and fellow member
of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. McGovern, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 71, the
Republicans' proposed budget. This plan would make extreme and
irresponsible cuts to domestic spending programs and weaken our
Nation's social safety net.
We should be proposing a budget that provides for real economic
growth. We should be strengthening programs that help young Americans
access higher education, increasing infrastructure funding, and
investing in our Nation's roads and bridges. We should be focused on
vision, aspiration, a budget reflective of our great Nation and the
great things we can do.
This budget instructs my friend from Massachusetts and my committee
to find $10 billion in cuts to agriculture programs over the next 10
years. This decrease will affect our ability to fund essential USDA
programs across our country in every congressional district. These are
programs that farmers, schoolchildren, families, communities, and
Americans rely on.
Where will we be forced to take the money from? Rural development?
conservation programs? our already insufficient nutrition programs?
resources for schools?
At a time when spending on fighting wildfires has surpassed previous
records, will we cut that budget?
This budget and accompanying tax plan does not put us on strong
fiscal
[[Page H7774]]
ground either. Many people don't realize the significance of the
agricultural industry in Delaware. Our State is filled with family
farmers that produce specialty crops, commodities. Delaware has the
highest number of chickens per capita--300--of any State in the Nation.
Many of these farmers rely on the very programs that we will be forced
to undermine if these cuts are realized, and that hurts all Americans.
Access to food is not just a farmer's issue; it will affect rural
communities, urban communities, and all of us. This is not a
responsible way to govern.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts
that I have no further speakers remaining. I would be happy to close
when the gentleman is prepared.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
I just want to tell my colleague from Georgia, if he hasn't read what
we are trying to propose here, we are suggesting that they bring up the
Thompson bill to the floor under an open rule, and even get a motion to
recommit, but under an open rule. Take us up on this offer because we
have had no open rules in this Congress. Try it; you might like it. It
might be contagious. We might see more open rules where Democrats,
Republicans, liberals, and conservatives can offer their ideas. We
suggest they bring it up under an open rule.
I would urge all of my colleagues to think about that before they
cast their vote on defeating the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I began by saying the frustration I have with this place
is that we either do nothing or we make things worse for people. Going
back to this issue on creating a commission to deal with gun violence,
there are a lot of things I would like to do, but maybe this is a way
to get some bipartisan buy-in to actually try and figure out how to
respond to this epidemic of gun violence.
There have been 26 bills on gun safety introduced in this Congress
sponsored by Democrats and Republicans. I include that list in the
Record.
Gun Safety Bills in the 115th Congress
1. H. Res. 367 Establishing the Select Committee on Gun
Violence Prevention.
2. H.R. 2841 Title: Disarm Hate Act
3. H. Res. 361 Supporting the goals and ideals of
``National Gun Violence Awareness Day'' and ``National Gun
Violence Awareness Month''.
4. H.R. 57 Accidental Firearms Transfers Reporting Act of
2017
5. H.R. 62 Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act of 2017
(200 additional ATF Agents)
6. H.R. 1982 To authorize funding to increase access to
mental health care treatment to reduce gun violence
7. H.R. 370 Amending the Rules of the House of
Representatives to require that a standing committee (or
subcommittee thereof) hearing be held whenever there is a
moment of silence in the House for a tragedy involving gun
violence
8. H.R. 630 National Statistics on Deadly Force
Transparency Act of 2017
9. H.R. 445 Buyback Our Safety Act (gun buyback program)
10. H.R. 1079 Campus Gun Policy Transparency Act
11. H.R. 163 Gun Manufacturers Accountability Act
12. H.R. 2033 Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act
13. H.R. 3013 Help Communities Fight Violent Crime Act
14. H.R. 1111 Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2017
15. H. Res. 90 Expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that gun violence is a public health issue
and Congress should enact by the end of the 115th Congress
comprehensive Federal legislation that protects the Second
Amendment and keeps communities safe and healthy, including
expanding enforceable background checks for all commercial
gun sales, improving the mental health system in the United
States, and making gun trafficking and straw purchasing a
Federal crime.
16. H.R. 1475 Title: Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2017
17. H.R. 1612 Title: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2017
18. H.R. 1708 Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2017
(insurance for gun owners)
19. H.R. 1832 To authorize the appropriation of funds to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting
or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence
prevention.
20. H.R. 2380 Handgun Trigger Safety Act of 2017
21. H.R. 1832 To authorize the appropriation of funds to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting
or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence
prevention.
22. H.R. 1478 Gun Violence Research Act
23. H.R. 3613 Safer Neighborhoods Gun Buyback Act of 2017
24. H.R. 3361 SECURE Firearm Storage Act
25. King-Thompson Background Check Bill (closes gun show
and Charleston loopholes, not yet reintroduced)
26. No Fly No Buy (not yet reintroduced)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, people have their ideas. Some of them are
maybe not so good ideas; some of them may be very good ideas. But let's
begin to talk about what our response should be. That is at least doing
something. That is better than a moment of silence or offering your
thoughts and prayers to people who were victims in this terrible latest
massacre.
We have got to do something, and nothing is no longer sufficient. We
can't keep on doing that. People are horrified that Congress seems
indifferent. We can't even have a hearing on this issue, never mind a
debate on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
we can bring up the Thompson bill, and maybe we can start coming
together and coming up with some ideas that might save some lives. That
is the least we can do.
Mr. Speaker, to my other point that we either do nothing or you guys
do things that make life worse for people, it brings us to the budget.
This budget basically, in my opinion, is a cruel budget that targets,
disproportionately, those who are poor and those who are in the middle
class.
It is astounding to me where some of the savings are sought. The idea
that you would cut SNAP by $164 billion, a program that provides food
to people; a program where 67 percent of the people on the benefit are
children, are senior citizens, or people who are disabled; a program
where those who can work, the majority of them work, but they earn so
little in the workforce that they still qualify for that program. You
want to take that benefit away, a benefit that is $1.40 per person per
meal.
Come on. What are people thinking when they make those kinds of
suggestions?
By the way, we all know what this is. It is basically a pretext to
move forward on your tax cut plan, which benefits Donald Trump, Donald
Trump's family, and Donald Trump's friends.
This idea that somehow this would be deficit neutral is laughable.
The OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, stated: ``If we simply look at this as
being deficit neutral, you're never going to get the type of tax reform
and tax reductions'' that you guys are looking for. That is the former
colleague and the OMB Director.
So we all know what is going on here. But people ought to think long
and hard before they cast their vote for this Republican budget.
Budgets basically indicate what we value, what we think is important.
I have got to tell you, I just don't believe that if people read this
budget, that a majority of my friends, we have disagreements on lots of
issues, but I just don't believe that deep in your heart you actually
believe this stuff. I mean, this is offensive.
We ought to be talking about lifting people up and not putting them
down. We ought to be talking about all of the citizens of this country
with respect and treating them with dignity. We ought not treat people
who are in poverty as if somehow they are invisible, and that is what
this budget does.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down this Republican
budget. I urge them to defeat the previous question so we can bring up,
under an open rule--under and open rule, which nobody in this Congress
has seen--a bill that would allow us to create a commission, a
bipartisan commission to examine gun violence.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what I love most about budget day is the fact that we do
get to talk about our competing ideas. I do reject some of the
implications that we have heard that what we are talking about is
whether we love people or not. That is actually not the debate today.
I want to stipulate that I know the men and women of this Chamber on
a personal basis, and each and every one of them that I know personally
loves and cares for their constituency back home. The debate that we
have is not whether we love people; it is how to love people best.
[[Page H7775]]
Do you love people best by giving them a check or giving them a job?
That is a legitimate debate.
Do you love people best by leaving their children with them or taking
their children away from them? That is a legitimate debate.
I believe in families. I believe in the dignity of work. I want to
have those debates.
I think we do ourselves a disservice when we describe what is going
on here today on the floor of the House as anything other than our
absolute legal and governmental responsibility to pass a budget for the
United States of America. Wherever you sit on the continuum, the
political continuum, the economic continuum, the regional continuum,
there is a budget for you today.
If what you believe, Mr. Speaker, is that the problems we have in
this country are because taxes are not high enough, there is going to
be a Democratic substitute coming out of the Budget Committee that will
raise taxes about $2.4 trillion. If you think taxes are too low, we can
raise them $2.4 trillion. That budget never balances. That budget never
stops borrowing from our children and our grandchildren. That budget
never stops mortgaging America's future. But it is a legitimate debate
because folks are taking those funds and they are investing them in
America. They are prioritizing that investment over balancing.
If you believe $2.4 trillion is not enough, Mr. Speaker, we will have
a budget from the Congressional Black Caucus today that will raise
taxes by $4.2 trillion. We can raise taxes by $4.2 trillion. Again,
that budget never balances. It spends all that money and more, but it
is a legitimate debate about where those dollars come from and where
those dollars are going. I am glad we are going to be able to have it.
If raising taxes by $4.2 trillion isn't enough for you, Mr. Speaker,
we have the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget on the floor. It
raises taxes by just over $10 trillion. Again, the budget never
balances. It spends all of that money and more and continues to borrow
from our children and grandchildren, but it is a legitimate debate and
it is a conversation worth having. I am proud that the Rules Committee
made that debate in order.
To describe what is happening on the floor of the House today, Mr.
Speaker, as anything other than what is exactly expected of this
institution is to do us all a disservice.
I talked about making taxes higher. Let me talk a second about making
taxes lower.
I talked to some friends back home; I talk to constituents; I talk to
folks for whom I work, and some of them might say: ``Rob, I have enough
to feed my family, and if it means paying down the debt and deficit, I
am willing to pay a little bit more.'' Other members in the community,
Mr. Speaker, say: ``For Pete's sake, I am trying to grow a business
here, Rob. I am trying to employ your friends and neighbors. I am
trying to keep the community working. I am plowing everything I have
back into the business. If I don't have to pay as much in taxes, I am
going to be able to hire more people.''
The Republican budget, Mr. Speaker, takes a shot at once-in-a-
generation tax reform--once in a generation. This isn't what we talked
about last year or the year before that or the year before that. This
is a conversation we have not had since Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill
had it in 1986. This is a conversation that we have not had since
America slipped from number one in the world to almost last in the
industrialized world in terms of tax competitiveness. This is a
conversation that America has longed for and that we can deliver today.
Mr. Speaker, let's have these debates about what our priorities are.
Let's have these debates about whether or not we can do better. At the
end of the day, let's agree that we, in fact, can do better, that our
bosses back home expect us to do better, and that by supporting this
rule and supporting one of the underlying budgets, we, in fact, will do
better.
I encourage my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, support this rule, begin this
debate. Let's pass this budget. Let's fulfill our promises. Let's make
the difference that we all came here to make.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 553 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the resolution
(H. Res. 367) to establish the Select Committee on Gun
Violence Prevention. The first reading of the resolution
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the resolution are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the resolution and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules. After general
debate the resolution shall be considered for amendment under
the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions
in the resolution are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the resolution for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one
motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the resolution, then on the next legislative
day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order
of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the
resolution.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Resolution 367.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
[[Page H7776]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 189, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 551]
YEAS--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Amodei
Bridenstine
Doyle, Michael F.
Kihuen
Long
Loudermilk
McCarthy
Palmer
Pelosi
Poe (TX)
Rosen
Scalise
Titu
{time} 1351
Messrs. GRIJALVA and HOYER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. FITZPATRICK changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 188, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 552]
AYES--232
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
[[Page H7777]]
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Amodei
Bridenstine
Doyle, Michael F.
Hultgren
Kihuen
Long
Loudermilk
McCarthy
Rosen
Scalise
Schrader
Scott, David
Titus
{time} 1359
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________