As an American, I stand here united with America voting ``yes'' on this bill to save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Budget Control…
As an American, I stand here united with America voting ``yes'' on this bill to save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Budget Control Act of 2011,'' the Reid Bill, which is a legitimate attempt to resolve our debt-ceiling crisis unlike the previous debt-ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which has attempted to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-changing sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share.
We must work together to save the American people and do what's right. We are working under one flag and one nation; there are times in which we are 50 states, and times when we exist as a single, united, nation. One single state did not defend the nation after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end segregation and establish Civil Rights. There are times when the stakes are too high, when we simply must unite as states and act as one. We must today work under one flag and one nation to protect our economy and our people.
We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated recently before the House Committee on Financial Services, ``We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut.'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.'' The Reid plan offers the compromise that the American people want, demand and need. I stand here with so many of my colleagues calling for the protection of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs that protect the interests of the American people.
In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. I support this bill and efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues. I will not support any bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles.
This plan will result in a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit, $416 billion of which would automatically occur when the President submits a written certification to Congress that the debt ceiling needs to be increased. The remaining $784 billion in borrowing authority would be subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval, and Congress would have 55 days to act to reject the increase. Under this bill, after that initial increase, the President would be authorized to seek another $1.2 trillion increase once the debt limit is within $150 billion of the debt ceiling, with the entire $1.2 trillion subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval within 15 calendar days.
The plan I support today establishes statutory caps on discretionary spending that would apply for ten years. These caps would operate similarly to caps established with bipartisan support in the 1990s. If Congress exceeds the caps, across-the-board cuts would enforce the limits. Further additional savings in FY 2012 by security spending would be capped at $606 billion, or $3 billion below this year's level. Security spending would be $19 billion below the Republican budget. This plan finds even more savings by limiting funding for ongoing wars (the so-called ``Overseas Contingent Operations'') that could be provided outside the discretionary spending caps.
Some of my Republican colleagues have been critical of the Reid bill's proposed savings on war funding. However, winding down the wars, which this year will cost about $160 billion, will produce very real savings, as both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office acknowledge. In fact, the Republicans endorsed this approach when they voted for the House GOP budget earlier this year.
My home state of Texas ranks 43rd in education, and last (50th) in the nation in people over 25 who only have a high school education. This bill will protect the hopes and dreams of people who are striving to improve those numbers. It safeguards Pell Grants and maintains the current maximum grant at $5,550. Our country has such a firm belief in education, so much so that we as a people have provided free education to all students until the 12th grade, but after that moment with high school diploma in hand a higher education should not become a battle between the haves and the have nots in our society.
This plan would end graduate and professional students' eligibility for subsidized Stafford loans, as proposed in the President's FY 2012 budget.
Graduate and professional students would be able to receive unsubsidized federal student loans, and would continue to be eligible to apply for deferment, forbearance, or other loan repayment assistance. The $18 billion in savings are used to address projected shortfalls in the Pell Grant through FY 2013.
Madam Speaker, the bill will reduce waste, fraud and abuse by promoting efforts to improve enforcement in several areas. The anti- fraud efforts promoted by the Reid bill include: continuing Disability Reviews and SSI redeterminations; Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement; health care fraud and abuse control; and Unemployment Insurance improper payment reviews. According to CBO, these steps would save $11 billion over 10 years.
The Boehner proposal plan and all the plans proposed by my Republican colleagues they have all just cut, cut, cut without taking into full consideration the serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Their bills have essentially been a rehashed version of the same bills that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed to reject. It asks cuts from domestic spending while demanding nothing in revenue from the nation's wealthiest. The proposals offered by my Republican colleagues has been nothing more than a ransom note, irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few months so that in just a short period of time, the American public will be hit again for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits. Anyone who believes that those plans will not result in a serious cut to Social Security should consider this . . . Social Security represents 20 percent of all federal spending, making it unrealistic to think such large cuts in mandatory spending will not affect Social Security benefits. The Reid plan, before us today protects Social Security.
I believe that the plan before us is an example of shared sacrifice. It removes the entire burden off the backs of seniors, the middle class and our nation's most vulnerable citizens. The Reid plan will not result in dramatic reductions in safety net programs for vulnerable Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. This would be and should be unacceptable, and each is avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder a fair share of this burden.
There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill places us back on the right track. We should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences.
In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011, or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state.
In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year.
Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.
Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in 2010.
Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending.
Childhood hunger continues to be a real and persistent problem in the Houston/Harris County area. The number of people participating in the Food Stamp Program in Texas has increased by 82 percent since 2000. However, only 60 percent of those eligible for food stamps in Texas participate in the program.
In Harris County, only 75 percent of children approved to receive free lunch participated, and only 39 percent of children approved to receive free breakfast took advantage of the benefit. Participation numbers are similarly low for those students approved to receive reduced-price lunch and breakfast. During summer months, participation in these federal nutrition programs drops significantly. In Texas the summer participation rate was only 8.1 percent of low income children.
In 2008, when the recession first hit, 22.9 percent of Texas children were living in poverty, the fifth worst rate in the nation. As a result of the economic downturn that began in late 2008 in Texas, and parents losing their jobs, the child poverty rate increased to 24.4 percent in 2009. That is 163,000 more children falling into poverty, or 1.6 million Texas children overall.
Many people assume that Texas was not hit as hard by the recession as other states because our unemployment rate is still below the national average. While our unemployment rate is low compared to the U.S. (8.2 versus 9.8 percent, respectively, in November 2010), it is still nearly double where it stood in November 2007 (4.4 percent). In fact, Texas' unemployment rate has been around 8 percent for the last 16 months, which is extremely high given Texas' recent history.
Nearly one in three Texas children has no parent with a full-time, year-round job, making them particularly vulnerable.
When a household falls into poverty, children are exposed to increased parental distress, inadequate childcare arrangements, and poor nutrition. In past recessions, it took many years for employment and incomes to rebound, and low-income families rebound more slowly than others.
72 percent of Texas' working families in poverty have at least one parent without health insurance.
Public benefits such as health care or nutrition assistance help families bridge the gaps in difficult economic times and are critical in reducing the effects of a recession. Cutting these supports will hurt child and family well-being and damage the Texas economy by taking money out of the private economy for critical local businesses such as grocery stores and medical providers.
The supplemental nutrition program, WIC, helps low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children eat well and stay healthy. WIC provides nutrition education, nutritious foods, referrals to health and human services, breastfeeding support, and immunizations (at some clinics).
More than 802,000 Texas children ages 0-4 (40 percent) received support through WIC. When you look at infants alone, 67 percent received WIC supplements, compared to only 35 percent of children aged 1-4.
The program has grown by more than 176,000 kids between 2000 and 2009, with an increase of 66,000 children from 2007 to 2009 alone.
During the recession, more families needed greater assistance with basic expenses. SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) provided benefits to over 3 million Texans, more than half of which are children (ages 0-17).
In January 2011, more than 2 million Texas children received assistance from SNAP, an increase of nearly 700,000 kids since January 2008. Furthermore, because of added funds from the ARRA, monthly benefits rose 13.6 percent, giving added assistance to families at a time when they needed it most.
The dramatic rise in applications for SNAP initially overwhelmed the already beleaguered state workers who enroll families in these federal benefits. In November of 2009, 43 percent of SNAP applications were not being processed within the federally mandated 30-day time period, leaving hundreds of thousands of families each month waiting for food assistance.
More than 2.8 million Texas children participate in the school lunch program, and close to half of them also receive breakfast. More than $1.3 billion of federal funding is used to support these programs during the school year. Many counties in Texas also run summer nutrition programs so that kids who depend on school lunches have access to good nutrition when school is closed for the summer.
Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not fitting for America.
Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican colleagues even consider fighting to pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance
As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing our debt ceiling, I have heard the
concerns of many of my constituents and the American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that we have already agreed to and promised to pay.
Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements of funding a major war in the modern era.
To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations without prior congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit.
Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased it over l00 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be artificially avoided until August 2.
Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt obligations.
We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or investor could make. For investors around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.
In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well.
The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised.
This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the radical agenda of the Tea Party, which irresponsibly pulls the chair out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the wealthiest.
This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.
Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund.
If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question.
Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay.
Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The opponents of this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to decision-making. This bill will allow America to compete with a surging China.
Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on.
Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of citizens.
The markets have made it clear that a short-term extension and Reid's plan is a long term solution which averts serious consequences.
As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in the housing market.
Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda.
Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre,'' and I am inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's own bill.
Texas has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation as the highest percentage of residents uninsured. More than 5.8 million Texans--including 1.5 million children--lack health insurance. Texas' uninsured rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to all Texans. One in every four Texans lacks health insurance coverage, and that number is one in every three in large cities like Houston and Dallas. According to the Gallup poll, an average of 26.8 percent of Texas residents was uninsured.
With only 75% of the residents being insured, this means that one in four residents within the state is unprotected and could be in financial stress in case of a medical emergency. This extremely high percentage of residents lacking health insurance coverage is one of the biggest challenges the Texas Department of Insurance and Department of Health face.
Here's an idea that wouldn't cost Texas a dime but would save millions of dollars every year: Remove all barriers restraining nurses from practicing to the full extent of their education and training. No state needs primary care providers more than Texas, which has a severe shortage. Texas ranks last in access to health care and in the percentage of residents without health insurance. Of Texas' 254 counties, 188 are designated by the federal government as having acute shortages of primary care physicians. Of that number, 16 counties have one and 23 have zero. If every nurse practitioner and family doctor were deployed, we still couldn't meet the need. Texans are desperate for health care.
I have worked effortlessly with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to gain bipartisan support for successful passage of an
amendment to the landmark healthcare reform bill that made sure no hospital is forced to shut its doors or turn away Medicare or Medicaid patients. Existing physician-owned hospitals employ approximately 51,700 individuals, have over 27,000 physicians on staff, pay approximately $2,421,579,312 in payroll taxes and $512,889,516 in other federal taxes, and have approximately $1.9 billion in trade payables. With approximately 50 physician-owned hospitals, Texas leads the nation in the number of physician-owned hospitals. The Texas economy could lose more than $2.3 billion and more than 22,000 jobs without these important hospitals.
American families spend almost twice as much on health care--through premiums, paycheck deductions and out-of-pocket expenses--as families in any other country. In exchange, we receive quality specialty care in many areas. Yet on the whole, Americans do not get much better care than countries that spend far less. Americans do not live as long as people in Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe. This should clearly indicate that health care reform was needed. The landmark bill signed by President Obama will provide coverage to millions of people who currently lack it.
They live in a world that is not the world that the American people live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits to survive.
These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet due to the nature our political process, they have held up the entire government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent second recession.
If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section four, which states ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.'' The argument can be made that if Congress will not resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the interest of our nation must act. The President would then have to consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling, on his own, through executive order and if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by the August 2, 2011 deadline. As a body we should not place the President or our country in this position.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who would be helped by this bill. I urge my colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of Americans live in; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the financial system into chaos,'' and ``destroy the trust and confidence that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest liquid assets in the world.''
Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts into the traditionally non-political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a this bill that makes good on our debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit.
There is in these difficult times no tea party, no Democratic Party, no Republican Party. There is only one party--there is only one party-- the party that is the embodiment of one nation--America and we should stand for Americans and one America--I vote ``yes'' to save America from default and to honor the full, faith and credit.
