Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the proposed fiscal year 2013 cuts to the Air National Guard.

Let me preface my remarks by acknowledging that this country does have a serious debt problem that requires that everybody tighten their belt. It requires, in my view, that we have more revenues so that we can have a sustainable budget where everybody does their share, from taxpayers to every Department in the government. The Air Force has to be included.

But under the Budget Control Act, the proposal that the Air Force has made to address the cuts that would be required there is to single out and focus its knife on the Air National Guard. Now, that would affect 5,100 guardsmen who would lose their position. It would also demobilize scores of aircraft.

Now, as I mentioned, the Air Guard is not by any means entitled to be exempt from the challenge of coming in compliance with the Budget Control Act. Here's the issue: when any Agency--whether it's the Air Force, the Army, whether it is the Department of Education--makes its recommendations to comply with the Budget Control Act, it should be doing so on the basis of what makes most sense to strengthen that Agency, not to weaken it.

The studies that have been done with respect to the Air Force demonstrate that the Air Guard is extraordinarily cost effective. The Air Guard is getting the job done for less money than any other part of that Guard. Obviously, the full Air Force is extremely important. But why in the world would you focus on the Guard when the Guard is doing the job in a highly professional and successful way--widely acknowledged by all studies that have been done--and is doing it for less money?

So, number one, when studies have shown that guardsmen and reservists cost far less than Active Duty members and you're trying to meet budget constraints, don't demobilize the efficient and effective.

Number two, as our force shrinks as a whole, the Air Guard is key to the military term called ``reversibility,'' that is, they can serve as a critical operational and strategic reserve should a larger force be needed in the future to meet unforeseen circumstances. That is an essential requirement of military readiness.

Third, the Air Guard can deliver--the Air Guard has delivered. Their record in Afghanistan and Iraq has proven that the force can mobilize quickly and accomplish the mission with great professionalism.

Mr. Speaker, I don't doubt that these are very difficult and challenging choices for the Air Force command to make, and cutting the defense budget always involves very difficult choices. But these cuts that focus as significantly as they do on the Air Guard, which has proven to be efficient and effective, in my view are unwise.

I look forward to working with the House Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to address my concerns.

Gas prices are killing the American consumer. They're doing real damage to small businesses.

In my State, Cabot Creamery, which has fixed price contracts to deliver cheese, very important to farmers, very important to that business, price of gas going up a dollar, it's like another $135,000 off their bottom line.

There are long-term issues we've got to address, but you know what? There's stuff we can do in the short term. The futures market has been flipped upside down. It should be serving end users like airlines, fuel dealers. Instead, it's been taken over by speculators.

Goldman Sachs study says about $23 on the price of a barrel of oil is attributable to speculation. That's about 56 cents when you go to fill up your pickup truck, about an extra 15 bucks just for the speculation premium.

Past Presidents have used the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to spook the speculators, to send a shot across their bow that they're going to be on the wrong side, the losing side of these trades. Let's use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to give some relief to our consumers and to our small businesses.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about two wonderful Vermonters from Dummerston: Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda.

They met in college in Michigan more than 30 years ago. Takako, from Japan, was studying English on a student visa; and after completing school, Takako returned to Japan but stayed in touch with Frances. Eventually, Takako returned to the U.S., and she and Frances married. Quite a love story.

Now Frances and Takako face their biggest challenge yet. Takako is being threatened with deportation. Frances and Takako are a same-sex couple. Their marriage is recognized in Vermont, but it's not recognized under Federal law; and without that recognition, Frances and Takako are not eligible for the same immigration benefits as other married couples.

Madam Speaker, these are good people. They have a good relationship. They're good Vermonters. They deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, on February 1 of this year, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that American forces would step back from a combat role in Afghanistan as early as mid-2013. This is a year faster than had been announced only months previously. He also added that U.S. troops would move into an advise-and-assist role to Afghanistan security forces. I know that most everyone who has joined me on this floor this morning would want a faster transition. To be frank, we wish we could have avoided much of this 10-year nation building altogether. I rise today to express my strong support for the administration's decision to reduce our military footprint on an accelerated timeline.

Mr. Speaker, our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, will do and do do whatever it is we ask of them. Indeed, the sacrifices that our soldiers and their families have made have been extraordinary. Just this morning, with Congressman Donnelly, I met a family who lost their dad, and his son is here who was serving with him in Afghanistan. There is nothing that we can do to adequately express to them our enormous appreciation for their sacrifice.

If we did not have men and women who, at the call of the Commander in Chief, would put on the uniform and report for duty and do what the Commander in Chief and this Congress authorized, we would not have the United States of America. But the obligation we have to the citizens from our districts that are willing to make that sacrifice is to give them a policy worthy of their willingness to make that sacrifice.

It is time that we do all we can to accelerate our withdrawal from Afghanistan. The reason is this: That's what our national security requires.

There was a very valid reason to go into Afghanistan. It was the home of Osama bin Laden. The Taliban gave him sanctuary. Al Qaeda had free hand. Our policy was right when it was started, but it transformed itself into a nation-building policy where our partner has become a corrupt Afghanistan Government that is unreliable, that is squandering taxpayer money, that is not cooperating with the American military.

The question is: Should the American taxpayer and the American soldier be required to do nation building in Afghanistan, particularly when the threat of terrorism is real, but it is not a nation-centered threat? It is dispersed around the globe. The new American policy of counterterrorism, as opposed to counterinsurgency--that is, going after terrorists where they are as opposed to nation building where some may be--is the right direction for this country to go.

Mr. Speaker, the policy announced by Mr. Panetta to accelerate that withdrawal is overdue and it is timely at this point. I strongly support it and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I thank the gentleman.

Keystone is not the energy future that advocates claim it is. But if in fact the Keystone pipeline is built, then this amendment says that that oil in fact should be used in the United States to reduce our dependence on oil. It appears right now that if this pipeline is built, it will be for the purpose of transporting tar sands oil from Canada down to Houston for refining and then export to Latin America and China. That's very much what is on the mind of many people.

You can't have both--have that pipeline be essentially a conduit for export and claim that it's going to reduce American dependence on overseas oil. This amendment speaks directly to that it and it allows those who claim that Keystone will allow us energy independence to guarantee in law that that will happen.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland.

There are two constitutional principles; there is one practical problem; and there is one democratic ideal. The most important constitutional principle is the power of the purse that must be retained by Congress. No one could give a better affirmation of why that's important than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, except for the author of the Federalist Papers who the gentleman quoted.

Does this violate Congress' power of the purse? It reserves to the Congress the right to overturn by majority vote a recommendation by the executive that focuses on a single item of spending. Now, that may make life somewhat more difficult for those of us in Congress. It may make it particularly more difficult for the appropriators who have to deal with the incredible complexities of the large and multifaceted Federal budget; but in my view, it does not in any way violate the constitutional right that this House has over the power of the purse.

The second constitutional provision is the right of the executive to exercise a veto. And that is part of the checks and balances where the executive, a Republican or Democratic President, is given the power to say ``no.'' And then it imposes on us a burden of coming up with two- thirds votes in order to overcome it. A veto is not a practical tool. If the effect of that veto is a budget that keeps government going, that pays for our troops, that pays doctors who are providing Medicare services, that everything goes down with the ship, we're forcing the President to make what, in fact, is a radical decision to tear the whole thing down or to let some things go.

The practical problem we have is the budget. And again, Mr. Rogers is right: process reform is not going to get us from where we are to where we need to be. The problem is the problem. But this is one budget reform that can't help because what it does ultimately lead to is the application of that great democratic principle of transparency. What this means is that if you or I voted for a budget and the President highlighted a few items where the President said, Hey, what's going on, we would have to stand up here--you and I--and vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' and then be able to defend that vote to the people who elected us.

One of the challenges that I think we all know we have is that the confidence that people have in this institution is very low. So anything we can do--and transparency is the way to do something quite effective--we should do.

So this simply means that at the end of the day, these budget bills that are complicated, that are big, that few Members really have an opportunity to review, when the President reviews them and identifies a few things that he wants to send back, we have to say ``yes'' or ``no'' in the full light of day.

The major reason why this motion to instruct is timely is the answer to this question. What will we know after February 17 that we don't know now? There is going to be no new information. So what would justify the delay?

What we know now, number one, is that Republican economists and Democratic economists say that this is a very fragile recovery, that we're all happy that the unemployment rate is going down, but we're all concerned that it's unacceptably too high. And when you have Republican and Democratic-aligned economists saying unanimously to take this money out of the economy at this time would stall the recovery, we all agree that we can't do that. So that's not going to change between now and February 17.

Secondly, we know that on the pay-for, we have clear lines of division on this. If you have a pay-for that basically takes with one hand what was given in the other, in other words you cut spending on things that help middle class families in order to pay for a 2 percent reduction in their payroll tax, that zeroes out the stimulative effect.

So from a macroeconomic point of view, it does no good for the economy, when all of us assert that our goal is to help the economy.

The second question is political tactics, and the political tactic of this Congress has been brinksmanship. On December 10, when we just about turned the lights out on government, it was a last-minute agreement that finally kept them on. It included a tax provision that extended the high-income tax cuts, added $800 billion to the deficit, and created some significant anxiety in the markets as to whether this institution could do its job.

Fast-forward to August of 2011 and to the fiasco--that's the only word that can be used--of this House of Representatives actually having a debate about whether it was legitimate for the people of this country to not pay their bills. That caused enormous anxiety in the markets. By the way, that hurts the economy.

In December of last year, we were in the payroll tax fight, and this is where I think we get to the heart of the matter. There is a difference of opinion on the payroll tax. The Democratic side is essentially for it, and it was very clear the Republicans were against it, and there was kicking and dragging when the Speaker came back with the unanimous consent and overrode the action that had previously been taken.

So the reality of the situation we're in now is that the other side is saying, yes, yes, yes, they're for a payroll tax reduction; but their actions say, no way, no way, no way.

It's time to act.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There is a reason that this institution of Congress is so discredited among the American people. The reason is quite simple. Instead of facing the problem, we come up with ways to avoid it. These two bills-- dynamic scoring, which basically has as a premise that any tax cut is going to increase revenues, and baseline reform, which essentially says that inflation is not a factor in depleting resources to meet a need, whether it's the Pentagon or it's health care--we think that somehow that is going to solve the problem with the debt, which is a serious problem in this country.

Do you know what? It's time for Congress to acknowledge the obvious, which is that the problem is the problem. These runaround reforms about the process avoids the direct, head-on confrontation that is the debt, and the debt is a function of too much spending and too little revenue.

Bottom line, if you are a household, if you're a local government, if you're someone who is responsible, when you have a debt problem, you're going to look at everything; you're going to put

it all on the table. There are 100 Members of the House of Representatives who signed a letter and said, Hey, let's put everything on the table--revenues and spending. It's the only way we're going to get a solution.

This approach is avoiding that. It's locking down on the notion that any tax cut is going to increase revenues. It's locking down on the notion that revenues cannot be part of the solution, and it's locking down on this notion that if you wipe away inflation as a factor in what we need to do to maintain level funding that somehow we'll still meet the needs.

We had a war in Iraq and Afghanistan--two wars that weren't paid for, both on the credit card. We had the Medicare prescription drug program on the credit card. Whether you supported those as a Democrat or as a Republican--and we had people on both sides of the aisle who did-- you've got to pay for it. We didn't pay for it. We're paying now the consequences of it.

As to the so-called ``reforms'' about the process, it's always legitimate to figure out the process--how can we do it better? How can we get better information?--but not when it means we avoid the problem.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 12 on H. Res. 522, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

We have a serious challenge here. We have people who need long-term care. We have very serious fiscal constraints. And the question before us really is, do we repeal the program altogether when there is a serious long-term program, as if by legislative magic a repeal suddenly makes the serious and acute problem vanish altogether. We know that doesn't happen. It may address a fiscal issue, but it doesn't solve the fiscal issue and enormous emotional pain that individuals who are trying to take care of their senior parents will face. So the problem doesn't go away if this legislation is passed. It simply means the pain will continue and probably intensify.

So the real challenge for Congress is that when there is a problem that we acknowledge is real and rising for the American people, and the folks who need long-term care are in red States and blue States, they're in your district and they're in mine, the real question is whether we address that as actively and as aggressively as we can, taking responsible steps to make certain that we can pay for what we promise.

The worst thing that we can do in my view is pass legislation that has almost as its predicate the notion that by repealing the commitment that this Congress made 2 years ago, the problem doesn't exist. It does, and we all know that. You've heard the statistics--10 million Americans currently need long-term care. That is a tough challenge for those families. Over the next decade, that is going to rise to 15 million. It is a rising challenge, and the longer we defer, the more difficult it will be for us to address it. Sixty-two million Americans, good Americans, generous Americans, serve as unpaid caregivers to elderly family members. How long can that be sustained?

While nearly 70 percent of Americans will need some level of long- term care in their lifetime, only 8 percent are able to buy long-term care insurance. That's where we do need a public policy program that's going to match the resources required with the need that's rising.

The CLASS Act was designed to make progress, giving older Americans and their families some sense of security. It's not perfect. The most vigorous proponents of that legislation acknowledge it's not perfect. But what that we pass on the Republican side or the Democratic side can any of us claim is perfect?

What we have to do together is try to make an imperfect bill better. But what we can't do is abandon the very serious challenge that those 10 million Americans in need of long-term care have.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, the course of action that is being proposed by the Republican majority is two things: One, it's reckless and irresponsible; and, two, it's cynical and very political.

First of all, why is it reckless and irresponsible? It is because this country has never seriously considered defaulting on its obligations, saying ``no'' to paying its bills. What great country would ever seriously suggest to its citizens that it will stiff its creditors, with all of the economic chaos that would ensue?

Also, the reason that we have to raise the debt ceiling is not so we have permission to spend more money. It's to meet obligations that have been incurred. Many of those obligations, incidentally, are for expenditures that I opposed but you supported: the war in Iraq; the extension of the Bush tax cuts; the Medicare prescription drug part D that was never paid for; the extension of the Bush tax cuts a year ago December when it was going to add $800 billion to the 10-year deficit, but even then, in order to accommodate that, you wouldn't raise the debt ceiling. So that's the irresponsible part of this proposal.

Obligations incurred are obligations that must be paid. I was against the Iraq war. I didn't want to spend that money. Had I been here, I would have voted against the Bush tax cuts because I thought it was bad policy. But, as a Member of Congress, those were congressional obligations, I believe, that we and I have an obligation to stand behind.

But secondly, the reason I believe this is cynical and political is two things: First, these budget requirements are ones that were incurred, in many cases, at the advocacy of our Republican majority. Secondly, this process that we're now doing is one that was designed to allow people who wanted to stand up and vote ``no'' against extending the debt ceiling the opportunity to do so so that they could claim they were against it, even though it was designed as well to guarantee that the debt ceiling would be raised, just putting the full burden of making that happen on the President of the United States.

I'm glad that he's willing to bear that responsibility. But I question whether the American people are fooled by a congressional maneuver whereby the majority is saying that we want to say no, that we're against raising the debt ceiling, even though we've guaranteed a process by which it will happen.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time this year, Congress has failed to reach a consensus on a significant issue that will affect the lives of every American and imperil our fragile economic recovery.

Today, we are on the brink of imposing the consequences of this dysfunctional Congress on those who can least afford it. If we do not act today, taxes will go up on 160 million middle- and low-income Americans. If we do not act today, hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose the safety net of unemployment coverage in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. And if we don't act today, the doctors who are caring for senior citizens will have their pay slashed, placing in jeopardy their ability to provide that care. This is an unacceptable situation to the American people.

We should be here as long as it takes to get this done, and we should be voting yes or no. Is the majority more committed to gridlock than progress? Once again, for the fourth time in a year, the answer appears to be yes. The people we represent deserve better.

I rise today in support of the Iran Threat Reduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in dialogue and I very much believe in diplomacy; but despite an unprecedented effort by President Obama in his speech to the Iranian people for outreach, the Iranian Government was unreciprocal in any kind of response. Instead, what we've seen is that they are pursuing the development of nuclear weapons full speed ahead. Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency further confirmed in a report detailing efforts by the Iranian Government Iran's nuclear aspirations to acquire the skills needed to weaponize highly enriched uranium.

This is extremely dangerous. Iran has had a longstanding relationship with Hezbollah, which continues to condone violence as a political tactic; and Iran is continuing to be the major bulwark of support for the brutal crackdown by the Syrian Government on the democratic aspirations of its people.

I urge my colleagues to support the Iran Threat Reduction Act.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, on August 28 of this August, Hurricane Irene left a path of destruction from the Carolinas to Vermont. The districts of 55 of our colleagues were hit and hit hard. And that storm did damage without regard to partisan affiliation or income distribution. If you were in the path of that storm, you suffered.

The 55 Members of Congress who were affected by it created the Hurricane Irene Coalition, Republicans and Democrats, and we are united in the single goal of getting the aid to our people back home that they need to get back on their feet.

Hurricane Irene, Mr. Speaker, saved its greatest fury to the end, when it descended upon Vermont. It was the biggest damaging storm that we've had in 100 years. We lost 700 homes of hardworking Vermonters, many of whom had no flood insurance, 260 roads and 30 bridges were impassable, 13 communities were entirely cut off.

The good news was that the Vermont response is extraordinary. People came together. They started a school on the town green in Pittsfield when they were unable to go north or south because the road was cut off. Then when the main artery was reopened so school buses could pass but they couldn't get out on their road, they got their chainsaws out and cut a half-mile path through the woods so the kids could get to school. That's the kind of spirit that we find in our districts, and I'm very proud of Vermont, and all of our colleagues are as well.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to express a statement of gratitude. I've had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Rogers. I've had the opportunity to visit with Mr. Latham, with Mr. Olver, with Mr. Kingston, with Mr. Dicks, with Mr. Cantor, where they've given me the opportunity to tell them the specific story of Vermont and hear my request that Vermont be treated as Vermonters have treated others.

I rise in support of this motion to instruct so that this Congress can do what it's always done. It's come forward to help people in this country who have been on the bad end of a tough storm.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.