Legislative Program
Floor Speech
(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. 2000, as I recall, when Mr. Clinton was President.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly will yield to my friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HOYER. Is the gentleman aware that there are $95 billion of unobligated funds in the Department of Defense?
I yield to the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source