Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand in support of this legislation, it is important to acknowledge that it not only addresses the needs of the residents who are cleaning up after Harvey, but it ensures that we will also avoid a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States.

What is important about this moment is the following: We are adhering to what is known as the national principle, and the national principle means that, if there is an earthquake in California, we rise to the aid of the people of California. If there is a hurricane in Texas, we rise to the aid of the people in Texas. If there is a tornado in Springfield, Massachusetts, as there was a few years ago, we all come to the aid of the people of Springfield, Massachusetts. If there were horrific forest fires in the State of Alabama, as happened a few years ago, we all come to the aid of the people of Alabama.

Now, why is that important? Because we don't check gender, and we don't check race, and we don't say: Is it a blue State or a red State or what is the political affiliation of those who are affected?

Instead, we say: The national principle ensures that this is about the American family in moments of great challenge and great difficulty, and we don't use the opportunity to remind people of what the budget might look like at that moment. Instead, we come to their assistance and we figure out how to pay for it later on.

So on this occasion, there is a very important consideration that is married, and it includes the idea that, with the Trump administration and congressional Republicans and Democrats on this side, we are going to not only do what we are supposed to do in terms of raising the national debt, but we will come to the assistance of members of the American family, as I, a moment ago, described.

Now, let me point out something else as well. We need to stop playing games with the national debt limit. We had tax cuts here in 2001 and 2003 that cut Federal revenue to 15 percent of gross domestic product, despite the fact that the historic postwar norm average is closer to 17.5 percent. Actually, in some of those years before that, it rose to 18.5 cents on the dollar--a reasonable expenditure. But instead, as those numbers slipped to 15 percent, the argument became somehow that it was about future payments.

The argument over the debt limit is about expenses incurred, what we have obligated ourselves to with veterans benefits, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq. And even though I voted against the war in Iraq, we need to come to the aid of those veterans and those veterans hospitals, and we need to come to the assistance of those 1 million new veterans who were created because of it. And again, not asking questions, is it a blue State expenditure? Is it a red State expenditure? It is about the national principle.

The idea that we would cast doubt on the full faith and credit of the United States to earn a few political points and to try to convince people that this is about future spending, it is not about future spending. This is about the credit card having come due for, in most instances, reasonable expenditures, not the least of which includes the obligations we have to Social Security, Medicare, and our senior citizens.

So this agreement that we have rendered today is a reasonable and sensible bipartisan achievement, and we should use this as an example and as a template for what we might do going forward to address many of the challenges that are going to confront the American people.

And be assured of this: Whether it is in Florida or it is in Houston, the expenditure requirements here are going to bulge, and we should not be dismissive of that. So raise the debt limit and come to the aid of the American family today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source