tv [untitled] May 7, 2012 6:00pm-6:30pm EDT
6:00 pm
created. if you don't make american businesses competitive with their foreign counterparts. and when we keep just cranking up the tax rates on american made jobs, we will have less american jobs. and so what we're looking at are where in the government have we had waste? where is the government spending money it ought not to be spending money on? should prisoners be getting snap benefits? lottery winners? or should we make sure these programs go to the people actually eligible? and yes, we need to also get savings from the commodity programs. that's what the farm bill is all about. this doesn't replace the savings in our budget from the farm programs. this is in addition to the savings. and i hope we do have that kind of a bipartisan team assembled
6:01 pm
yet again this year when we go down the paths of the farm bill. if you look at the senate farm bill, some of these savings were used in the democrat, debbi stabenow used some of these as well. but we're saying do it for deficit reduction. we have a $1.2 trillion deficit this year. so we're going to have to get rig with t right with the notion that we're going to have to start saving some of this money for deficit reduction. every one of those amendments says don't save the spending. don't cut spending and raise taxes to get to the status quo. problem is, it's a $1.2 trillion deficit this year. so we can't operate off of that platform, that premise. these are common sense reforms. the people who are eligible for the benefits are the ones who should get them. it shouldn't go beyond that because it's a road in public
6:02 pm
support for the program. and when it comes to tax policy, let's get rid of these loopholes. we all agree on that. but let's do it so we can have a better tax system to create more jobs in a more competitive, fair system. ge paid zero. ups paid 34. let's bring ge up to 25. ups to 25. let's do that. now, let's also never forget the fact that is seven and a half days of debt will consume all of the savings over ten years that we're talking about with this very motion. with that, i'd like to yield five minutes to mr. stutsman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with the comments you just made and agree that the reductions in the snap proposal that the committee presented can be accomplished as well as i
6:03 pm
hope eventually, the elimination of the direct payments. i'd like to see direct payments go away. i believe it's a manipulation to the ag economy and to the market. i just want to compare a couple of things here. with the discussion about these cuts. this is a democrat farm bill passed in 2008. in 2008, mr. duncan mentioned the largest businesses get these subsidies. actually, that is not the case because in the 2008 farm bill which democrats passed put limitations on those specific payments to farmers. so the largest farmers aren't getting the subsidies and so if we go back and look at the overall spending of the farm bill, you have rough lly 78% of the overall farm bill going to the snap program.
6:04 pm
78%. 16% of the overall spending in the farm bill goes to the commodity title. now, the cuts that we're proposing is 4% over all cuts to snap f. you look at the cuts to the commodity title already in the reconciliation bill, in se que -- to the commodity title in comparison to the cuts to snap and the 4% cuts already have passed over in the senate in the senate ag committee, which is already working on a farm bill and will if passed or eventually the house ag committee will be working on a farm bill as well and we could make the same concept 4%, in which i think we should go higher than that. because if you look at where we're proposing to make these cuts, we are terminating the snap inkress from the arra, which it will save roughly $6
6:05 pm
billion over ten years, which this is the part of the -- medicare, obamacare funding and spending. also, we are restricting categorical eligibility. if you look, there are now 43 states in three territories that implement category cal eligibility. these households do not need to meet snap assets gross income tests, so we are giving people the ability to qualify for a program, plus they will get snap benefits on top of that. one of the other places that we're proposing to cut because we are constantly hearing that we are going to be taking food from children, this is not true. we're cutting performance
6:06 pm
bonuses to the states. the usda awards $48 million each fiscal year to state agencies that reduce error rates, improve administration of the snap programs in their states. so we're rewarding people for just doing their job. i think this is a very -- in the ag committee that has made the decision to cut 4% of the snap program, which can be found in areas taking overlap from the away. we can save $33 billion. i think we should also recognize the fact that as the snap program continues to grow over the past decade, we see fluctuations in employment. unemployment goes up, snap benefits double.
6:07 pm
and even triple and now that unemployment rates are dropping again, we are still not seeing any drop in the snap program. i think this is really an important issue we're talking about. i would oppose this motion because i think that as we work on the committee, payments will be reformed. i think we should continue to move forward with making these modest cuts to the program of snap. so mr. chairman, i'll yield back. >> mr. hills for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe you asked the right question earlier today. when are we going to start measures results by the outcomes they produce, not simply by the dollars we spend. in little of a year, i've conducted nearly 220 town hall meetings and i can tell you what the people of kansas want to
6:08 pm
know. where are the results from adding over $5 trillion to the deficit? as we look past the rhetoric, here's what my focuses are advocating for. they want a program where states spend $1 for beneficiary to receive over $1500 in annual food stamps benefits and we prepared a check that the district of columbia is one of those. for $1, to laheat beneficiary, change for up to $1560 in snap benefits. they'll send a $1 check out, get $1560 from the government. this makes people eligible when they are currently not eligible. these are not folk that is qualify for food stamps. this is a loophole that 16 states are participating in.
6:09 pm
these are loopholes we're trying close that allow lottery winners with hundreds of thousands of dollars. this is a program that just in 2002, we had 19.1 million recipients in america. some folks count compassion as measure of how many folk rs receiving assistance. does that mean today we are so much more compassionate america when we have 44 million americans receiving food stamps? it's trying make certain folk rs not receiving assistance. that they are actually receiving a paycheck. direct payments are going to go away. i've said that to my folks at home. they're also expecting people who do not qualify should not be receiving assistance. it's taken 39 weeks today in the obama economy, if you're a graduate from college, it will
6:10 pm
be about valentine's day next year on average when you're able to find a job. meanwhile, we're sitting here talk about continuing loopholes for folks not eligible for food stamps instead of focusing on getting our economy going again. we have the balance the budget. this bill does it in a reasonable manner. gets closer to doing that and cuts food stamps out of the farm bill. as my colleague did mention, most of the cuts will come out of direct payments. but when i talked to my farmer and other folks who are saying if a program has increased 267%, 267% in the last decade, and we can't find 4% to cut, they know we're not telling the truth. they know about programs just like this. they can hear about lottery winners and we're sitting here talking about taking the food out of the mouths of babes. using it as a political weapon when we've already increased from 19 million to 44.7 million
6:11 pm
and we're told here today than unless you want to go even higher that you don't care. no, i care about americans, if they have a job, about the 44 million families that need a job. let's get our economy going again. let's actually have some reasonable discussion about rolling in excesses because of the stimulus package actually focusing the borrowed money and the hard working money from hard working taxpayers and focus on some real saving, which i think are reasonable in this proposal and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i don't know if mr. riddles, i think the gentleman gentlemfr it up quite well. i yield back the rest of my time. by the way, recognized for five minutes to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of observations. one, i hesitate ever to disagree with the chair.
6:12 pm
but this is not an amendment that raises taxes. and avoids the deficit. this is an amendment that accelerates reform some say they're in support of. doesn't raise taxes. second, i hear this canard that you can't really do this. you have to wait for the farm bill because that's where we dole with direct payments. that's where we deal with food stamps. i mean they're all authorizes in the same legislation. so why is it that we're picking out the food stamp that that has to be the suggest not just you've already cut it 17%. if by some magic your budget becomes law which i hope it's not and i don't think it will. so why are you picking on food stamps here and assuming you have to deal with direct
6:13 pm
payments and crop insurance in the reauthorization. it's all the same bill. and there's a reason our friends didn't zero in on it. the same reason they were dancing around in the supercommittee trying to have a mini reaustinrization that put another entitlement in it. these are not going to go gently into the night. i wish that my friend from kansas was prophetic. this isn't going to be easy. i've been around this block as has the chairman and it's going to be hand to hand combat and if you think there's going to be massive cuts in direct payment, magically when the reauthorization comes, when they can't even do a little bit in reconciliation, you're wrong. you're wrong.
6:14 pm
now, i'm all for job creation. my lord, that's why i spoke out against your proposal to cut transportation funding 46%. in this budget. there are lots of things that we could do that would put americans to work in a hurry. and i hope some day we do them. but concentrating the fire power on the most vulnerable is the best way to go. we're missing an opportunity to build the constituency for real reform and by all means, let's deal states gain the system. they game medicare. look at what's going on in louisiana.
6:15 pm
reimbursements are outrageous. but i think we ought to be focusing on things like a dollar check for eligibility. or a prisoner being eligible for food stamps. that's fine. but that's not cutting benefits for 46 million people in order to deal with an occasional lottery winner. what are the odds there? i mean, how -- let's be real. i mean i hope there will be a time when the chair reveals what tax cuts he's, what loopholes he's willing to close. to be able to get into balance and have the major reductions for people who need it the least and then it's shadow boxing when we fess up to what it is unless you're in a romney fund-raiser and we hear what he's looking at cutting in terms of the tax
6:16 pm
benefits. but we don't have to go there. this is an area that i truly believe the majority of the committee could roll up their sleeves and work cooperatively with you mr. chairman and with me to reform direct payments. it's every bit as legitimate as slashing more out of this food stamp budget, which is in the same bill. so there's no reason we can't do it other than the reason the farm committee is going to be kicking and screaming before there will be any major reform. >> will gentleman yield? >> i would be happy to. >> i would say that a 260% instead of a 270% increase to me is not slashing, but i look r forward to working with you on this issue and i do think, we got rolled last time. last farm bill, two republicans, two democrats, put together a good team. we thought we had a shot and we learned our lesson. i like to think because we have
6:17 pm
some new arrivals on this committee, we're going to see a different outcome. >> i appreciate the gentleman's comments. i look forward to working with you. i hope that people will approve this amendment, protect the deficit reduction and start moving in a direction that is much more necessary and important and actually has more support. >> let's get to it, then. time's expired. the question is on the green to the motion offered by the gentleman from oregon. all those in favor say aye, nos have it. clerk call the roll. >> mr. garrett. mr. simpson. >> no. >> mr. simpson. no. >> mr. camp bell. mr. calvert. mr. eakin. mr. eakin, no.
6:18 pm
6:19 pm
6:20 pm
6:21 pm
>> 13-18. mr. campbell, no. mr. chairman, on the vote, the ayes are 13, nos are 18. >> few more moments, mr. aiken, i believe you have a -- >> yes, thank you. mr. chairman, i asked for unanimous consent that the record report that i was detained for medical reasons and had i been present, i would have voted in favor of sequester act of 2012 and against the motion offered by representative castor. >> without objection. if no one seeks recognition, that will complete
6:22 pm
recommendation. we will now adjourn. we now turn to mark up the sequester replacement act of 2012 to ensure we have flexibility, i ask consent that the chair be asked to declare recess at any time. we'll call this up. do a technical amendment. then we will recess because we have two votes coming up, then -- three votes coming up. then we'll come back and finish that bill this evening. i also ask consent that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with and read without objection so ordered. the bill is now open for amendment. the technical amendment at the desk and i now ask for its adoption. the question is on agreeing to the technical amendment at the desk. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes
6:24 pm
in the house budget committee taking a break so members can head to the house floor, the committee will reconvene after the votes are done and our coverage will continue on our companion network depending on the senate's schedule. coming up here on cspan 3, the atlantic council will hold its annual awards dinner and some of those being awarded include ban ki-moon for his leadership in global challenges an also england's prince harry, who along with his brother, created a foundation that supports people in the military. the ceremony is being held here in washington and you can watch it live starting at 7:00 p.m.
6:25 pm
eastern. before that dinner gets started, we'll show you a portion of today's white house briefing with jay carney. he discussed president obama's view on same-sex marriage and we'll show you as much of this as we can before that dinner begins. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the briefing room for your daily briefing. it's good to see you. i hope you had a terrific weekend and i have no announcements to make at the top, so straight to questions. yes. >> does the the election of president in france increws your concern so that the change in the european economy be shifted away from austerity forcing the economic situation there and
6:26 pm
drag the united states down with it, secondarily, what would the president's role be in any bridging? will he be directly involved in that? >> president obama called the president elect yesterday to congratulate him and indicated he looks forward to working closely with him and his government on a range of shared economic and security challenges. president obama's looks forward to welcoming him to camp david for the g8 and then to chicago for the nato summit and proposed that the two men meet beforehand at the white house. they each reaffirmed in the phone call, the endure iing alliance of the people in france and that is strong today as it was last week. as the president said the other
6:27 pm
day, our economy continues to face some head winds and the euro zone crisis is one of them. that is why he has worked directly with his counterparts in europe. why secretary geithner has worked with his counterparts in europe to advice and consult on the issue of how best to contain the situation in europe. european leaders have taken very significant steps in deal wg that euro zone crisis and the president and secretary geithner and others in the administration will continue to work with european leaders towards that end. i think that basically answers your question. >> not exact ly. one of the leaders who took those steps just got ousted. on record as to opposing several of the steps applauded security
6:28 pm
largely through austerity measures. does that make that head wind you referred to stronger? >> two points. first of all, we will not negotiate on behalf of european countries at the white house or between european countries here at the white house. secondly, i would say that the president has made clear frequently as he has that he believes a balanced approach towards fiscal consolidation that includes both fiscal consolidation and efforts to continue to boost the recovery is the right approach. he has taken an approach here in the united states that has been aimed at growing the economy and creating jobs. in the short-term as well as dealing with our challenges in the medium and long-terms. the recovery continues, but gets our fiscal house in order. >> one more on a different
6:29 pm
subject. this morning, the education secretary put himself on record of the vice president indicates something along the same lines. does this box the president in ahead of the election? have his views changed at all op this sukt? >> i have no update on the president's personal views. what the vice president said yesterday was to make the same points the president made previous. that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all americans. that's why this administration opposes the defense of marriage act and supports legislation to repeal it. the legislation has stopped defending the constitutionality. he was asked a personal question on his opinions and he offered them. we respect the right of all people to have an opinion. a personal opinion.
208 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN3Uploaded by TV Archive on
![](http://athena.archive.org/0.gif?kind=track_js&track_js_case=control&cache_bust=1403669884)