[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 76 (Thursday, May 10, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3913-H3918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the 
schedule for the week to come.
  (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the 
House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 
p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. 
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning 
hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet 
at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected 
no later than 3 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next 
week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business 
tomorrow.
  Next week is National Police Week, so several bills will focus on 
supporting the work done each day by our men and women in law 
enforcement. That includes H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act, 
sponsored by Representative  John Rutherford. This bill would make 
inflicting or attempting to inflict serious bodily harm on any police 
officer a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
  The House will also consider H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition 
Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Conaway.
  Ronald Reagan said, ``American farmers are the backbone of our 
country,'' and both myself and the data would agree.
  Food and ag industries drive more than 43 million jobs, over a 
quarter of all American jobs, and U.S. farm exports generate more than 
$300 billion in economic activity.
  This important bill will reauthorize farm and nutrition assistance 
programs for 5 years, while making reforms to modernize key programs 
and better support rural America.
  Since my friend often asks about items beyond the week to come, I 
would like to make this a bonus colloquy for him, and preview several 
items that are possible during this work period.
  This includes H.R. 5674, the VA MISSION Act of 2018, sponsored by 
Representative Phil Roe. This bill would fundamentally transform the VA 
and the way American veterans receive care for the better.
  I want to applaud Chairman Roe for his hard work on this legislation, 
which recently passed his committee on a bipartisan vote of 20-2.
  Next, H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs 
Act. At $15.4 billion, the bill represents the largest single 
rescissions request in history.
  More importantly, this bill allows Congress to give our Federal 
budget a much needed spring cleaning to the benefit of hardworking 
taxpayers.
  Third, H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act, sponsored 
by Representative Mac Thornberry. This bill supports the historic 
investments we have made to rebuild America's

[[Page H3914]]

military and ensures our brave men and women have the resources they 
need to keep us safe.
  Finally, the House may take further action on Dodd-Frank reform, 
including potential action on the community bank regulatory relief bill 
passed by the U.S. Senate.
  I look forward to both Chambers taking additional policy actions in 
this space in the coming weeks as we continue to improve access to 
capital for American families and businesses.

  As soon as our schedule is finalized, I will be sure to inform all 
Members.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information and 
for the bonus of a little longer-term view of what we might be 
considering on the floor of the House.
  One of the things I didn't hear on that, and perhaps I asked the 
majority leader about this before, is whether the majority is expecting 
to offer on the floor or consider a budget resolution this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has asked before and as 
we have worked time and time again, the committee is working on a 
budget, and as they get through, we will bring it to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, although it was not on this list, I wonder if 
we might expect a budget resolution to be offered at some point in time 
in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Even though I gave him a bonus colloquy beyond the week in front of 
us, that does not mean if I don't mention something, that that item 
would not come forward. So as the Budget Committee works, I will keep 
the gentleman apprised of where they are and when the timing is for us 
to bring it to the floor.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Of course, April 15 is 
the day set forth. Many times we did not meet April 15. Clearly, last 
year we didn't meet April 15 by many, many months, but I appreciate the 
gentleman's answers.
  Let me say that I will be joining Sunday night at the National Law 
Enforcement Memorial here in Washington, D.C., the ceremony to honor 
those who have given their life in service to our country as law 
enforcement officers. We ought to pause not just next week, but every 
week, to recognize the extraordinary service given to us by what I call 
our domestic defenders, both our police and firefighter personnel, and 
emergency medical response teams.
  It is appropriate that we say thank you. They obviously have a very, 
very tough job. They get a lot of flack from time to time, but without 
them, we could not maintain the system of order that we have in this 
country that allows democracy to proceed. So I want all of us to join, 
not just next week, but next week particularly, to recognize. We will 
have, of course, a ceremony on the west front of the Capitol.
  We just had a ceremony the other day, which the Capitol Police 
conducted, remembering the loss of life that we experienced here in 
this Capitol to Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson in defending the 
Capitol and those who reside therein and who visit this Capitol.
  Mr. Speaker, on the farm bill and on rescissions, the farm bill, as I 
understand it, again, I think pursuant to what the Speaker said after 
we passed the tax bill in which we gave 83 percent of $1.5 trillion to 
the wealthiest in America, the farm bill is now trying to fill that 
$1.8 trillion hole that was constructed by the tax bill by reducing 
benefits to those most in need in this country.
  I would not so much ask a question of the majority leader, Mr. 
Speaker, but simply to observe that I would hope we would not try to 
fill that very, very deep hole that we have dug by passing that tax 
bill by taking it from those who are most in need.

                              {time}  1145

  I notice that, as well as the farm bill, the rescission bill was 
referred to by the leader as coming to the floor as well, and that 
seeks to cut a very substantial amount from the contingency fund for 
child health insurance.
  The majority leader will make the point, well, that is money that is 
not necessarily expected to be spent. In fact, he wrote to CBO asking 
them a question. The CBO said they didn't think any children would be 
dropped off because if the contingency is not realized, no children 
will be dropped off. If, however, the contingency is, and there are no 
contingency funds available to do that, then, in fact, children will be 
at risk, unless we pass additional legislation.
  I think it is unfortunate the majority is pursuing a policy now, both 
on the farm bill and on the rescission bill, that seeks to undermine 
the safety and security of those who are nutritionally underserved in 
this country.
  It is amazing, in the richest country on the face of the Earth, we 
have people--one out of five children is going, Mr. Speaker, to bed at 
night hungry. We ought to be moving in the other direction.
  This bill has, historically, been a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Lucas 
and Mr. Peterson, in the last reauthorization, brought a bipartisan 
bill to the floor. Very frankly, it was turned into a partisan bill on 
the floor, Mr. Speaker, when an amendment was offered and voted on by 
much of the leadership on the majority side, which would have cut $40 
billion from food stamps for those who are hungry Americans among us.
  This is less than that, but I understand that the Heritage Action, 
Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity are opposed to the bill 
because it is not a deep enough cut, either in farm programs or in 
nutritional programs.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we hope that these will not be 
policies that we will pursue as a House of Representatives, or as a 
Congress, and, very frankly, we think the farm bill has little chance 
of passing the Senate. I would say zero, but that perhaps is a little 
bit too strong, but certainly little--so that we will be spinning our 
wheels to send an ideological message to constituencies, I suppose, 
that want to undercut the ability to ensure that people have food that 
are hungry in our country.
  As to the rescission bill that the majority leader mentioned, Mr. 
Speaker, rescissions are pretty common. Rescissions are common and 
mostly done by the Congress of the United States, and we do it 
annually. In almost every appropriation bill that we pass, or omnibus 
that we pass, not so much CRs, but they have been present in CRs as 
well, that we have rescissions.
  The Congress has also gotten, as the majority leader will point out, 
rescission requests from the executive department. Largely, those have 
been not agreed to by the Congress. Only in one instance has one 
President had even a majority of his requests acceded to, and that was 
President Clinton.
  But the fact of the matter is, for the most part, rescissions have 
been pursued by the Congress of the United States, appropriately so, 
doing its job. And, of course, President Bush asked for no rescissions. 
President Reagan asked for a lot of rescissions, but President Bush 
asked for no rescissions--I refer to the second President Bush--nor did 
President Obama, notwithstanding when the Republicans were largely in 
charge of the Congress of the United States. And we exercised our 
judgment and did, in fact, do rescissions in the appropriations 
process.
  Now, we have not had a budget. It is the middle of May. It is a month 
after the budget was to come forward. Our side does not see a budget 
moving, but perhaps the majority leader is correct, the committee is 
considering that, and that would be another place where the Congress 
could take initiatives and a decision to rescind various amounts of 
spending.
  Last week, Mr. Speaker, I said if there was spending that was neither 
necessary nor had been authorized over long periods of time, then I 
would have no objection, personally, to that rescission, and would 
think that we could initiate that action. But I would hope that, in 
both of these instances, we would not take actions which would 
adversely affect those who are challenged in America, either because of 
health reasons or nutritional reasons.
  I would secondly say, and lastly--the majority leader, I am sure, 
wants to make some comments--60 percent of the budget that we passed, 
which our Republican friends apparently think

[[Page H3915]]

was too much, was defense. Not a single red cent is included in the 
President's rescission from the defense side of the budget, only the 
nondefense discretionary funding, the people part of the budget.
  Now, I am a strong supporter of national security, Mr. Speaker, and I 
have been for the 37 years that I have been in this House. But I do not 
delude myself that every bit of money that has been appropriated--
trillions of dollars over the last 4, 5, or 6 years--has either been 
spent or is not subject to, perhaps, the Congress saying, well, we put 
that money on the table but it hasn't been spent.
  But apparently the President can't find a single red cent for that, 
but he can find places where we can undermine research for innovation, 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  I understand the leader is going to say that CBO says not a single 
child will be dropped. That may be true; but if we drop the contingency 
fund, which has been available and has been used year after year, 
either directly for health insurance or for related programs for 
children, then we will be at risk of hurting people whom I don't think 
anybody in this body wants to hurt. So I would hope that, before those 
bills are brought to the floor, we would keep those matters in 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those many 
questions.
  I have got good news for the gentleman. If his concern is the 
contingency fund for the Children's Health Insurance Program, no need 
to fear. In the life of the entire program, the most that has ever been 
used, accumulated completely, is $300 million; that is why we set aside 
$500 million.

  Go beyond the long history of it. CBO tells us they don't expect any 
of it to be used, but we want an insurance, just as we wanted this 
program to survive; that is why it got extended more than 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't have to remind my friend he voted against that. 
But we care about the Children's Health Insurance Program; we care 
about the taxpayers.
  The good news is, in this rescission program, none of that money can 
be spent. And if you are concerned about it and worried about maybe you 
would make that vote, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the other side, she 
voted to take that same amount from CHIP in the omnibus to spend 
somewhere else, because you can't use the money, and we have already 
extended it 10 years, and no child is going to be harmed by this. CBO 
says it, all the way through, and we keep the contingency fund there.
  But you won't rescind the money that you now have the authority to 
even spend on the program to give back to the taxpayers? That is what 
is interesting to me because I listened to you closely, and we have had 
this discussion before about rescissions. It was just in our last 
colloquy.
  I remember when we talked about rescissions because that used to be 
common practice. President Bill Clinton did it 111 times. President 
Ronald Reagan did it 214 times. And both Presidents, Mr. Speaker, had 
Congresses that were from other parties some time during their 
administration.
  So when you and I talked about it, because you had voted for 
rescissions before, I wanted to make sure I got your input before ever 
talking to the administration because I would like to have your help on 
this. I think the American taxpayers would like to have everybody's 
help on this.
  So I asked you in that colloquy, I was hoping that you would support 
this bill from our last one because you said, in our last colloquy: ``I 
wouldn't irrationally oppose a rescission which said we've had money 
laying in an account that has not been spent for 1, 2, or 3 years. We 
shouldn't just have it sitting in that account.''
  Because in our colloquy, Mr. Speaker, the concern on the other side 
from my friend was we were going to break a trust; that we were going 
to take money from that omnibus that he felt a lot of people negotiated 
in, but, unfortunately, that trust he couldn't vote for.
  You even interrupted me to say you believe that rescinding those 
funds was a reasonable thing to do. I agree that it is a reasonable 
thing to do.
  So this administration, I think, may have listened to our colloquy, 
Mr. Speaker, because if you look at this rescission package, the 
largest one ever done, common practice from President Ford up until 
Bill Clinton, you asked for funding that has sat for the last 1, 2, or 
3 years. But even in this one, we identified programs that have sat 
there for 7 years.
  There has not been a loan in a program since 2011, and there is more 
than $4 billion sitting there. Taking you at your word, you would jump 
at this. I should have asked you to cosponsor it.
  Now, I hope all Members will put the politics aside and be able to 
support this because this is really what the taxpayer is looking for. 
This is really what this House has a history of doing.
  I know you have brought up a few other issues in there, and I know, 
when you talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program, the CBO 
has said that ``rescinding the unobligated balances would . . . not 
affect outlays, or the number of individuals with insurance coverage.''
  There are so many times I hear CBO quoted here, so I hope we would 
quote it here as well. In other words, this will have no effect on the 
CHIP program.
  Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, in the omnibus, those who voted for 
it, and the leader on the other side did, it did the exact same thing 
with a higher number. So it was unobligated then and okay to do it. I 
am just not sure why it wouldn't be now if you send it back to the 
taxpayers.
  Now, I do want to, also, Mr. Speaker, know because we have worked on 
this CHIP program for quite some time. Now, the Republicans passed the 
longest and most generous CHIP extension in the program's history.
  Now, for the record, my friend did vote against it, not once, not 
twice, but three times in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote an AP article from Andy 
Taylor, because you just can't make this stuff up.
  ``Just weeks ago, Democrats supported almost $7 billion in cuts to 
the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, eager to grab easy 
budget savings to finance new spending at the Department of Health and 
Human Services. But some Democrats howled over the Trump proposal 
anyway.''
  Let me get this straight. Is it okay to rescind the CHIP program, Mr. 
Speaker, when Nancy Pelosi wants to spend more? But when President 
Trump wants to save the taxpayers money, with no effect on the CHIP 
program at all, is that what Armageddon is?
  Now, I don't want to play politics, and I know you have mentioned a 
lot, and you did mention the tax bill, and you did mention April. There 
was more good news in America. It wasn't just that unemployment is at 
3.9 percent. You know the last time--the whole time I have been elected 
in Congress----
  Mr. HOYER. 2000, as I recall, when Mr. Clinton was President.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Yes, 18 years ago. Do you know that the claims for 
unemployment are at the lowest point it has been in more than four 
decades? That is more than 40 years.
  Do you know, just in the last year, 2 million more people have jobs? 
Did you realize the millions of people who actually got bonuses; or 
just in one company, 1.2 million Americans have a longer maternity 
leave?

                              {time}  1200

  And did you see the revenue into America's Government last month? It 
was the largest surplus in the history. The most revenue coming in.
  So all of those colloquies we had of the fear of this tax bill, the 
one that allowed Americans to keep more of what they earned, the one 
that we promised would create more jobs, the one that would bring more 
prosperity, facts don't lie. America is in a very good place, and I am 
thankful that we had that debate.
  Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, the others on the other side, there wasn't 
one of them who could agree with us. But I think today they can agree 
with the numbers of what it says and what it means; that we know for 
any American who has a child that is 18 years old and ready to go away 
to college, they don't have the fear that they are going to have to 
come back and live with their

[[Page H3916]]

parents. They are going to enter one of the strongest economies to find 
a job, of course, in their lifetime, but maybe almost in one of the 
best times we have seen in ours.
  So, yes, I am excited about this. I am also excited about the idea of 
bringing a tradition back that saves the taxpayers money, one that, Mr. 
Speaker, my friend has voted for before, one that protects the CHIP 
program by setting aside, on a contingency basis, more than what has 
ever been asked for in the history of it, $500 million when only $300 
million it has, and even though they say not one dollar would be 
spared. So we have the reserve there for it.
  I am excited that the administration listened to our colloquy, took 
my friend's wisdom and advice that he would look at any accounts that 
sat there 1, 2, and even 7 years that was unobligated, to be able to 
save the taxpayer money. And I look forward to when that is on the 
floor so that we can vote on it together and show the American public 
that we are serious about saving taxpayers money.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He 
mentioned a number of facts.
  Economically, I think all of us can be happy that unemployment is 
down. The gentleman then mentioned that there are less unemployment 
requests being made.
  Is the gentleman aware that, in 2016, we created 400,000 more jobs 
than we created in 2017? Is the gentleman aware of that fact? That is a 
fact.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman realize that there are 2 million more 
people in the workforce in less than a year?
  Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that more than 5 million 
people got a bonus that, Mr. Speaker, some people on the other side 
thought was crumbs?
  Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that the 3.9 percent 
unemployment rate, many Americans have not seen that in almost two 
decades?
  Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that we just watched last 
night our President at Andrews Air Force Base bring back three 
Americans that were held in prison in North Korea, and for the first 
time since that conflict has gone on there is an opportunity to end 
that war?
  So, yes, I think some of our best days are right now; but with the 
potential of what we have not only with our tax bill, but, if we get 
our farm bill moving where we help individuals to get into that 
workforce, because that unemployment is so low, I do believe the best 
days are in front of us.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I presume the answer is the gentleman did not 
know that there were 400,000 more jobs created in 2016 than were 
created in 2017. I didn't get the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me ask, however, if the gentleman is convinced that there is not 
a single nickel that can be rescinded from the Defense Department 
budgets over the last 10 years, trillions of dollars of money, and that 
only the nondefense side of the budget is subject to rescissions, Mr. 
Speaker, is the gentleman of the opinion that there are no sums 
available from the defense budget to try to fill the $1.8 trillion hole 
created by the tax bill?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember what the gentleman said. The gentleman is 
very concerned about the trust that we would have because of the months 
that went into the omnibus, that we would break this trust, even though 
those who negotiated, still some did not vote for it. But in that 
omnibus, because defense had been cut more than 20 percent, because 
when I wake up this morning and I see rockets flying from Syria into 
Israel, when we watch the world become unsafe, it is not 20 percent 
safer. We made an investment into military.
  The gentleman does not want any cuts to go into that process, but my 
question to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is there any cut in the 
rescission the gentleman supports, because I took him at his word.
  I said to the administration: I just had a great conversation in a 
colloquy that the gentleman on the other side said of course he would 
look at anything that was 1, 2, 3, or further years that was 
unobligated.
  That is the only thing that is in the rescission. The easiest way not 
to save taxpayers money is to find something that is not in the bill 
that you just really need.
  The gentleman laid out in a colloquy what he wanted in a rescission. 
It did not deal with the omnibus because the gentleman is worried about 
the trust. The gentleman said he would look at anything from 1, 2, 3, 
or further. That is the only thing in here.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend: Is there anything in the rescission 
bill that he could support by giving the taxpayers more money back?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, of course the answer to that question is yes.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the majority leader, the Congress 
has rescinded billions of dollars through the years, and I have voted 
for rescissions that have been sent down by Presidents of the United 
States and there may well be rescissions that are sent down that I 
could support.

  I do not intend to support rescissions, Mr. Speaker, that I view as 
undermining children's health. I know what the majority leader says: 
nobody is going to be hurt.
  Now, interestingly enough, in that answer, he does not answer my 
question except we all want a strong defense. Nobody on this floor has 
longer supported Israel's right to be safe and defended than I have.
  The issue is I asked the majority leader this does not include a 
single red cent of rescissions from the trillions of dollars to the 
Defense Department, not because I want to undermine the Defense 
Department any more than he says he wants to undermine children's 
health, but this is not about rescissions, per se. What it is about is 
the flack that the majority party is getting, that the President is 
getting from the Club for Growth, from Heritage Action, from Americans 
for Prosperity, saying: Your budget was too big. The omnibus was too 
big. We don't like it. Show some fiscal discipline.
  So in an effort to show fiscal discipline, who do they go after? The 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  He can say it all he wants, but he well knows, and the appropriators 
will tell him, Mr. Speaker, that that money has been used on an ongoing 
basis by the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee and by the Appropriations Committee to backfill 
in places where there were clearly shortages on services to children 
and families.
  The gentleman may want to say whether or not he believes--because 
outlays are not affected, he says--that, in fact, this rescission will 
lower the nondefense discretionary baseline in 2019. That is what I 
think the real purpose is, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the majority 
leader has not answered the question about whether there is a single 
cent to save the taxpayer money--we all want to save the taxpayer 
money--out of the Defense Department side of the budget or whether that 
is simply sacrosanct and not worthy of oversight by the Congress or by 
the President.
  That was my question. It was not answered, and I regret that.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly will yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has any idea, because I 
know he has served on the Appropriations Committee, please offer up, 
like any Member can, what he would cut or what he wants to find as 
savings. I will look in any department anywhere to find a savings.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman show me where in the CHIP 
program--because, one, you cannot use these funds; two, the contingency 
base is more than what has ever been used in the history of it--show me 
where the Children's Health Insurance Program, because no one is saying 
it. No one can show that it is. Please point it out to us.
  You do not have the authority to spend this money. We put a 
contingency fund, set aside, and looked at the history of the program. 
The most that was ever used was $300 million, so we keep $500 million 
in reserve.

[[Page H3917]]

  If the gentleman could explain to me why, then, for those who voted 
for the omnibus on your side of the aisle, would you make a larger, 
same amount, and the argument then to take that money in the omnibus 
but not now, why is it different?
  Why is it different when the taxpayers will save money into an 
account you cannot spend, you don't have the legal authority to, and it 
is just sitting there, and it goes to the criteria of what you laid 
out, 1, 2, 3, or 4?
  The great thing about a rescission, this doesn't have to be the only 
one. So if you want to work with us and you find areas that you want to 
find savings to the taxpayers, I will make myself available to have 
those meetings.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is the majority leader aware of the fact, 
when he says that the rescission was cut or the CHIP was cut, is the 
gentleman aware of where that money went when it was cut, or--I would 
say it in a different way--reprogrammed to other items in the omnibus 
or in the Labor-Health bill in previous appropriations? Is the 
gentleman aware of the difference between the cut and the reprogramming 
of money for a different objective related to the appropriation that 
was included?
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, because if you listened 
to what I said earlier, it went to HHS.
  But this is the point: Then the gentleman is acknowledging that you 
could not use that money for the CHIP program, so it is still sitting 
there. You do not have the authority for it. It is exactly what you 
said to me in a colloquy, just our last, that you will look at any 
account that is sitting there 1, 2, 3, all the way to 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't understand the argument, if no child could be 
harmed, if the Republicans put it for 10 years, the longest it has ever 
been, you can't use the money, and we leave a contingency fund there.
  If the gentleman wants to find a reason to get to ``no,'' I 
understand that. But I am of the belief I want to find a way to save 
money, and I don't know what points the gentleman tries to bring up and 
say it is political. No.
  The whole time I have been in this House, I have always held to the 
belief: It doesn't matter; we can find in any program waste. But this 
rescission program is about money that is sitting in accounts that you 
laid out that you said you would be more than willing to look at, and 
that is what we have done, and I hope you would be able to keep your 
word and vote for it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has not answered either one of 
my questions, A, whether there was a single red cent available in the 
Defense Department for rescission, because that money has been laying 
there 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years. Is there a single red cent 
there? B, he did not answer the question whether or not this rescission 
will adversely impact the discretionary baseline for the 2019 budget.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Did the gentleman yield to me? 
On what point?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I did yield to the gentleman about the single 
red cent, because all of this deals on the nondefense side of the 
budget, which is, by the way, the smallest part of the budget.
  The gentleman keeps saying we need to make sure we do these cuts. He 
wasn't as concerned, apparently, about balancing our budget when he cut 
$1.8 trillion, $1.5 trillion--$1.8 trillion when you include the 
interest. I know they say it is going to pay for itself. I have been 
here a long time. They have said that before. It never has paid for 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will not answer those two questions: Is 
there not a single red cent in the Defense budget; are they looking at 
the Defense budget to see whether or not we put money on the table that 
is either no longer necessary or has not been used for a significant 
period of time--that seems to be his rationale--or, secondly, whether 
or not it is going to have an adverse effect on the budget deal that 
was reached in terms of where the nondefense discretionary spending 
base will be for the 2019 budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I will answer any question he has or any other reason why he finds 
a way you can't save taxpayers money, but let me answer your questions.
  Since we don't touch FY18 funds, it does not affect FY19 baseline.
  Secondly, I said earlier, the gentleman is a Member of this Congress. 
Rescissions do not have to be a one-time offer. If you have any ability 
or any ideas, I am more than willing to work with you. I am more than 
willing to work in the future not just on that line, but others as 
well.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HOYER. Is the gentleman aware that there are $95 billion of 
unobligated funds in the Department of Defense?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McCARTHY. That is great. Will the gentleman offer an amendment to 
the bill?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader--he wants to 
do these rescissions. Congress usually does these. They do them in the 
appropriations process, and that is fine. Presidents have also done 
that.
  My question to him was: If you want to see rescissions, and--as he 
has quoted me over, and over, and over again--funds that are not 
necessary, not needed, not going to be spent, obviously, we will 
consider rescissions for those.
  However, what I have asked the gentleman is, you make the assessment. 
Very frankly, the first time we make a rescission suggestion on 
defense, he will stand up, or others on his side will stand up, and 
say: See, they are against defense.
  I am strongly for our national security, and I always have been. But 
I think it is perverse in the farm bill to look at people who need 
nutritional help. This CHIP program, if there is $500 million as he 
claims, and he is probably accurate--I don't want to assess the 
gentleman's saying something inaccurate--but clearly, these funds have 
been used for other issues almost annually by the Appropriations 
Committee. Mr. Cole would say that. Mrs. Lowey would say that.
  I would expect, Mr. Speaker, for both the President and the majority 
to propose where those $95 billion in unobligated funds might also add 
to his desire to make sure that taxpayers get some money back that is 
not being used.
  I yield to my friend and then we will conclude.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman used Congressman  Tom Cole's 
name, saying that he would say something. Congressman  Tom Cole is a 
cosponsor of the rescission bill.
  He is an appropriator, just as Congresswoman Kay Granger, Congressman 
 Tom Graves. They are all on the Appropriations Committee, and they are 
all cosponsors of this bill because they want to continue to look to 
ways that you can save taxpayers money.
  I know we have gone around and around here. The question really ends 
to a philosophy. Can we find a place that we can save the taxpayers 
money, or can we only find the time that we will take that money when 
you can't spend it and spend it someplace else? I believe we could take 
money that you cannot spend and give it back to the taxpayer.
  The gentleman brings up other areas. My door is open. I don't want 
this to be the only rescission. I look for any department, any area in 
government that we could find savings that are left over, that are 
sitting there. Or let's make it more accountable. Let's find savings in 
the current process as well. I am all for that.
  But the one thing, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to is voting ``no.'' 
That is the easiest thing to do on this floor. I can always find a 
reason why I am against a bill because something else was not in it.
  What is in this bill today is what my friend said in the last 
colloquy. His argument against having a rescission package was all 
based upon the omnibus. So he laid this out. Then we meet that 
criteria, and then he is going to lay another reason out.
  You cannot point to anywhere, CBO or any other place, where it states 
that the CHIP program is harmed. I am sure he was concerned about that, 
Mr. Speaker, when he voted against it three times, when he extended for 
10 years.
  This isn't about CHIP. It has nothing to do with it, because the CBO 
says it is all protected. We put a contingency

[[Page H3918]]

fund in there greater than what was ever used in the history of the 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, what the real story here is: Can you take money and give 
it back to the taxpayers and save money, or do you always have to spend 
more in Washington? I think when the bill comes to the floor, the 
American people will get that answer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned numerous times 
that I voted against some of the bills that were offered on this floor, 
and he is right. He tries to make it as if I voted against the CHIP 
program. He knows that is not an honest representation, Mr. Speaker, 
any more than the chairman of the Armed Services Committee voting 
against one of those bills with me being against defense.
  I was against it, frankly, because the Speaker and the majority 
leader made a representation in September that we are going to solve a 
problem we have yet to solve. And I am sorry about that. I think it is 
wrong not to have solved it, and we were told we were going to have a 
solution to it.
  But the fact of the matter is, what I am saying is, the Republicans 
talked and talked mightily about deficit reduction and giving money 
back to the taxpayer. But if you break their bank, the money is going 
to be taken from our children.
  And so they passed a massive, $1.5 trillion tax bill, massive, and 
then they come here with nickel-and-dime programs and say they are 
going to give money back to the taxpayer.
  I am for giving money back to the taxpayer. I am not for doing it by 
creating additional debt for their children and their grandchildren. I 
think that is not only an intellectually bankrupt policy, but an 
immoral policy. But we are not going to resolve it today. I understand 
that.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman just said nickel-and-dime programs. This will be the 
largest rescission in the history of this country. It is not nickels 
and dimes. It is the taxpayers' money. If it is nickels and dimes to 
the taxpayers, I want to save those, just the same. But this is 
billions.

  The gentleman tries to make an argument that doesn't hold. Mr. 
Speaker, the gentleman argues that CHIP could be in jeopardy. The CBO 
says that is not true. The press writes that it is not true. I cannot 
find anywhere that this program would be harmed.
  I listened to my friend on the other side explain why he voted 
against CHIP three times. His explanation is because he said there was 
a promise on the other side for some other bill to come to the floor. I 
can take him at his word, but my only question back to him would be: 
Then why does he vote for any bill? Shouldn't he vote ``no'' on every 
bill that is on the floor then, if that is the protest?
  I don't understand why he would take it out on the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. I don't understand why, when we had the opportunity 
and we were able to achieve it, he voted ``no'' to get the longest 
extension in a decade.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the American public will see through what is 
politics and what is policy and what is opportunity. Yes, we did pass a 
tax bill and, unfortunately, it was just one side that voted for it.
  Yes, our unemployment is the lowest it has been in more than 18 
years. Our unemployment claims are the lowest they have been in 44 
years. Two million more people are now in the workforce.
  If you go back, 9, 10 years, the participation rate in America was 
over 65 percent. Unfortunately, just a few years ago, it got all the 
way down to 62.7, the lowest it has been since 1978. But the good news 
is, it is on its way back up.
  The good news is, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans got bonuses 
where they could fix their car, maybe buy that new washing machine. The 
better news is, Mr. Speaker, that the revenues into government are even 
higher--part of what the argument was on passing the tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it was even an excitement to watch President Trump 
sitting at Andrews Air Force Base watching three Americans get off an 
airplane that have been in prison in North Korea, released on the hopes 
that the war and the battle of North Korea against South Korea can end, 
and that the President has announced that he has a location and time 
for that meeting.
  Yes, the world looks brighter. But there are still places around the 
world that are not safe. And, yes, we did make an investment into the 
military that I am very proud of. I actually voted for that bill. 
People will say a lot of people negotiated. Some that negotiated didn't 
vote for it in the end.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I try to listen to the other side and I take what 
they say very seriously. When I heard in our last colloquy that a 
rescission bill had to be made on those funds that have sat there for 
1, 2, 3, and even 7 years, that is what we did. And I look forward to 
working on further bills in any department that anyone in this body 
would like to work on.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this administration will have the largest 
deficit increase of any administration in history. They haven't been 
here very long, so that is a prediction I make, and I am absolutely 
positive I am correct.
  They are now trying to bring that down, as I have said, by going 
after investments on the domestic side of the budget, both in the farm 
bill and in the rescission package. There are clearly rescissions that 
are justified and that the Appropriations Committee and administrations 
have made on a regular basis. When administrations have made them, 
almost invariably, the majority of the rescissions requested by the 
administrations--Democrat or Republican--have been rejected by the 
Congress of the United States.
  But I am hopeful, as the majority leader says, that we can reach 
bipartisan agreement on rescissions that, in fact, make sense. I would 
also hope we could reach some bipartisan agreement on solving issues 
that confront this country.
  The farm bill is a perfect example where it historically has been a 
bipartisan bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a partisan bill this year, as they 
made it the last time when Chairman Lucas reported out a bipartisan 
bill and pleaded with his party not to make it a partisan bill. They 
made it a partisan bill and, of course, it failed in the Senate. It 
wasn't even brought up in the Senate. The Senate did its own bill.
  So I would hope that the words of the majority leader about wanting 
to work in a bipartisan fashion will be realized with respect to all of 
these issues, including rescissions. And I would hope that we could 
perhaps have some rational policies to try to stem the extraordinary 
deficits that will inevitably be caused, as they have been in the past, 
by a tax cut bill that gave 83 percent of its benefits to the 
wealthiest in our Nation.
  Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________