step in two directions. one, turning back the second round of defense department cuts, not the first round, but second round, the round that leon panetta described as devastating to the defense department, and setting us on a path to bend that cost curve going forward by tackling mandatory spending programs for the first time in almost a decade. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to strongly support this rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from georgia, my friend, mr. woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i rise in very strong opposition to this rule. it is totally closed. and it denies democrats led by mr. van hollen the substitute. we are not asking for dozens of amendments or something that

hasn't been done in the past with regards to reconciliation bills. all we are asking for is one vote on a substitute. one vote. on what we believe is a better alternative to the republican bill. last night in the rules committee every single republican, every single one of them voted to deny democrats that opportunity. mr. speaker, as one who does not believe in arbitrary and thought fest across-the-board cuts, there is a way to balance our budget, i want to support mr. van hollen's substitute in order to avoid the implementation of the budget control act see quester. -- sequester. in my opinion to allow this to go into full effect would be bad for the country. we are here in this awful mess because the so culled supercommittee failed to reach agreement last fall on a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction plan. due in very large part to the absolute refusal of republicans to put revenues on the table.

bowl simpson, and the gang of six all had deficit reduction proposals that sought to be challenged with both spending cuts and revenues, sought to be fair. they realized you can't -- you cannot solve long-term fiscal problems by slashing and burning the last century of social progress in america. but today my republican friends have brought to the floor a reconciliation bill that actually makes sequestration look good. what's going on here is very simple, very troubling but very simple. they are protecting the massive pentagon budget and demanding no accountability by exempting it from sequestration, and finding even deeper cuts in programs that benefit the people of this country. the bill before us would create a government where there is no conscience. where the wealthy and well connected are protected and enriched and where the middle class, poor, and vulnerable are essentially forgotten.

i have never seen anything like this. it is outrageous. it takes my breath away. my friends won't cut billions in subsidies from big oil at a time when oil companies are making record profits and gouging americans at the pump. they won't address the inequities of the tax code which allows billionaire warren buffett to play a lower tax rate than his secretary. the revenues on just these two policies alone will result in billions and billions and billions of dollars in deficit reduction, but the republicans have protected big oil and the billionaires. however, my republican friends take a meat axe to snap. formerly known as food stamps. this is a program to help poor people afford food. my friends on the other side of the aisle should heed the words of president john financial kennedy, i quote, if a free society will not help the many who are poor, they cannot save the few who are rich. mr. speaker, we are one country. we should care about one

another, especially those who are most vulnerable. that's not a weakness or something we should be ashamed of. rather it's something that makes us strong and great. as my friends know, i spent a lot of time and effort in congress on the issues of hunger and food insecurity and nutrition. tens of millions of our fellow citizens don't have enough to eat. and every single one of us, democrats and republicans alike, should be ashamed. and that's why i am so outraged by the $36 billion in snap cuts. this notion that snap promotes a culture ever dependency, snap is a golden ticket to prosperity is jeong. some on the republican side have even claimed that snap enslaves americans. give me a break. in fact, even in 2010 when unemployment was close to 10% and jobs were scarce, the majority of snap households or the nondisabled working age adult were working households. working households. working families are trying to

earn more. no one wakes up in the morning dreaming to be on snap. but these are tough economic times. some people have no choice. but we know that snap enrollment and spending on snap will go down as the economy improves. as families see their incomes rise and no longer need snap to feed their families. don't take my word for it. this is directly from the congressional budget office. of course last night in the rules committee we heard the tired line that there is a lot of abuse in the snap program. we heard that there are countless numbers of people receiving benefits who do not deserve them. that, mr. speaker, is simply not true. it is common and -- it's a common and unfortunate misconception that snap is ripe with fraud, waste and abuse. many think it is being traded for alcohol and other things, it cannot. the usda is cracking down on it.

snap is both effective and efficient. the error rate in snap is not only at an all-time low, it has the lowest if not the lowest of any federal program. if only we could find a program in the pentagon that had such a low error rate. last night we also heard about categorical eligibility, a process in which a low-income person is automatically eligible for food stamps if they are already enrolled in another low income assistance program. categorical eligibility, it's important to state this because there is such misconception here, but categorical eligibility makes it easier for poor people, those who are already approved for other low-income assistance programs to receive snap benefits. but it also makes it easier on the state to have to administer these programs. this saves time and money and paperwork because the people who are already eligible for similarly administered benefits to not have to reapply for snap and states do not have to waste

hours processing paperwork for people already eligible based on incomes. it does not mean that people who don't qualify -- who don't qualify for snap get those benefits. to the contrary people still have to qualify for the program to receive food, any claim this is a fraudulent practice or ripe with abuse is just another falsehood and smear against one of the most efficient federal programs, the demonization of snap and other food and nutrition programs by republican friends it must come to an end. we have an obligation in this country to provide a circle of protection for the most vulnerable. cutting $36 billion means that more than 22 million households will see a cut in their benefit, this means 22 million families will have less food tomorrow than they do today. . two million people will be cut from the snap program altogether.

my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like to hear this but sometimes the truth hurts. if this bill before us becomes law, it will take food out of the mouths of children in america. all in the name of protecting tax cuts for wealthy and increase pentagon spending. the republican reconciliation bill threatens medicare, it threatens children's programs, it threatens educational programs, programs that support our infrastructure. in short, if this were to be adopted into law it will threaten our economy as a whole. and the bill not only protects the pentagon budget, it increases it by billions of dollars. does anyone here honestly believe that there's not a single dollar to be saved anywhere in the pentagon? if you do you're not read be the newspapers. it's there in front of us every single day. the abuse that goes on. no mid defense contract. i can go on and on and on. we will continue to have the strongest military in the face of the earth, but at some point national security must mean

more than throwing billions of dollars at unnecessary nuclear weapons or a pie in the sky star wars program that will never materialize, but national security has to mean taking care of our own people. it means educating our children. it means that infrastructure that isn't crumbling around us. it means clean air and clean water and a health care system that works. those should be our priorities, but sadly those are not the priorities in the bill before us today. now, of course, senator reid says the bill is dead in the water in the senate and the press conference yesterday, the senate majority leader said, and i quote, as long as republicans consider a more reasonable approach, one that asks every american to pay their fair share, the sequester is the only path forward, end quote. that's a pretty clear statement that the senate will not consider this bill. quite frankly, it's the right thing to do. a reasonable approach is what the american people want. yes, they want it to get our fiscal house in order. they want us to reduce the deficit in a fairway so the

wealthiest among us pay their fair share. but mostly the american people want jobs, something that house republicans leadership continues to ignore. the american people know the best way to bring this deficit down is through job creation. they want the economy to improve. they want their lives to get better. this bill does not do that. mr. speaker, let me concloud by quoting president dwight eisen hire in a speech he made in 1953. i quote, every gun that is made, every war ship launched signals a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed, end quote. i'm afraid, mr. speaker, that president eisenhower wouldn't recognize today's republican party. we should reject this closed rule and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: to say to my good friend as the republican budget

chairman said to him yesterday, i appreciate his passion on this issue. what brings us to the very best decision that we can make in this body, mr. speaker, is having folks who work hard day in and day out, educating themselves on the issues. they can bring the very best case for the american people to the floor. and that's why i would ask my friend whether or not he believes it actually helps that debate to get involved in some of those rhetorical feats of mind, i guess we'd call him, because he knows as well as i know under the law of the land in 2002 food stamp benefits, snap benefits would have gone up about 40% over the last 10 years. and democrats and republicans came together over the last decade and increased those benefits 270%. 270%, mr. speaker. now, this proposal suggests that instead of going up 270%

we allow those benefits to go up 260%. that's the draconian cut. i mean, we see that in the same rhetoric in the student loan program, mr. speaker. everyone in this body knows the law of the land was the student loans rate at 6.8%. a below market rate of 6.8%. they were lowered for a very small fraction of the student population for a very temporary period of time to 3 kp 4% and the law has it back to 6.8%. they talk about that as a doubling instead of returning to common law. and, mr. speaker, to continue to suggest as he knows is not the case that republicans are unwilling to focus on the defense department, let me say it plainly. i believe there is waste and fraud and abuse in the defense department and i stand here willing to work with you to

eradicate it all. i supported ranking member van hollen's amendment to put defense on the table. the budget that this house passed, the only budget that's passed in all of washington, d.c., reduced defense spending by $300 billion in recognition of exactly that. and, mr. speaker, again, the rhetoric just gets a little overheated from time to time. candidly i think it gets in the way of us doing business. when i say to you that secretary of defense, leon panetta, on august 4, 2011, if these defense cuts happen, and god willing that's not the case, but if it would happen, it would result in a further round, because we already cut once. in fact, we cut twice. a further round of a dangerous across-the-board defense cuts that i believe, leon panetta, secretary of defense, would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families. i would say to my friend, how

does it advantage us to make this a republican-democratic issue, when the democratic issue of the -- when the secretary of defense said this would be hurtful to our troops and their families? how does this make a democrats and republican issue when leon panetta, the o.m.b. director, said this would be dangerous across-the-board cuts to troops and their families? when president clinton's chief of staff, leon panetta, former o.m.b. director, former budget committee chairman, says i believe allowing these cuts to go forward would do real damage to our security, to our troops and to our families. do we have real choices to make? i do. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i would yield.

mr. van hollen: the democrats have a substitute amendment that would replace the sequester in a different way. it would prevent the across-the-board cuts from happening to defense and the nondefense programs. so there's an agreement that that meat ax approach is the wrong way. we have an alternative. the gentleman just talked about how we have this great debate on ideas on the floor of the house. i have a simple question, why aren't we going to get an up or down vote on our idea, on how we would replace the sequester in a balanced way? mr. woodall: reclaiming my time and i thank the gentleman for his commepts and his offering of that substitute. the reason is three-fold. number one, that substitute doesn't comply with the rules of the house. we made a decision in this body that we were going to not continue to ask for more and more and more out of taxpayers' pockets but that we were going to try to do our own business here in terms of oversight on all of the money that's already being borrowed and spent and sent out the two. number two, that is the rules we adopted in this congress, mr. speaker.

but under the rules adopted in the last congress in which you were the budget chairman, you know your substitute would also not have been in order under the pay-go rules that you instituted. under a republican house, the substitute is not in order. and under a democratic house the substitute would not have been in order. but number three, and i would argue most importantly, i would is a toy -- i would say to my friend, we have a trust deficit with the american people. it doesn't surprise me. when we talk about the five-year impact of the reconciliation plan that we passed out of our budget committee and i hope this house will pass today, we're talking about a net effect on deficit reduction, the process for which reconciliation was created of $65 billion over five years. over the next five years, $65 billion is not going to have to be borrowed from our children and our grandchildren. under the gentleman's substitute, over that same period of time, spending is actually going to go up by

almost $37 billion. this is a process that is designed to reduce borrowing and spending, to reduce the burden we're placing on our children and the gentleman's substitute increases the burden that we'd place on our children. mr. van hollen: if the gentleman will yield? i don't want to take up all your time. mr. woodall: i will. mr. van hollen: i want to make our point that what our substitute does is dollar for dollar replaces the sequester, which is what our republican colleagues have said is the object of this effort which is to make sure we don't have the meat ax approach and i would just note that the gentleman said that one of the reasons we're not fg to have an opportunity to -- going to have an opportunity to vote on ours is it doesn't comply with the rules. in bringing the republican bill to the floor today, i'm reading right here on the report, the committee report, you waived three rules. you waived three rules. and yet you can't allow an up or down vote on a substitute amendment. you know -- you know you have it within the power to allow

our side -- mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. i would say what we have within our powers, the power to stop the borrowing and the spending. i'm reading here from today's "congressional quarterly" because folks get confused and we talk about the reading clerk and things gets confused. reading from "congressional quarterly" it says here democrats left open a responsibility through a motion to recommit which is allowed under the rule. my friend on the rules committee knows that to be true. my friend on the budget committee knows that to be true. i look forward to bring your substitute to the floor for a vote. i think that's the right of the minority. i'm glad we preserved the right of the minority, mr. speaker. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: just to re-emphasize the point that mr. van hollen made. you know, the rules committee has the right to be able to waive the rules to bring any piece of legislation to the floor. and mr. value holen rightly

pointed -- van hollen rightly pointed out in the report on this rule, the republicans implemented waivers because their proposal without these waivers would violate the rules. and so, you know, my friend talks about, you know, this shouldn't be a partisan discussion. i would just say to my friend, the reason why this is a partisan discussion is because the republicans have made it such. by denying us the right to come to the floor and offer our substitute, not as a procedural matter, but as a real substitute. you have politicized this debate. you have shut us out and that is why there is frustration. i just want to say one other thing, again, because i am so sick and tired of the demonization of programs that benefit poor people in this country, especially the snap program. my friend was talking about all this money that we invested in snap as if somehow we were giving these very generous benefits out. just for the record, in 2002,

the average snap benefit was $1 per meal per day per person. $1. you know, with all the improvements we have made, today it's about $1.50 per meal per day. and it's going to go down next year because of cutbacks we already made in this program, unfortunately, to offset other things over the past few years. but that means in a 10-year period that we have increased this benefit by 50 cents per meal. i don't know about my friend but, you know, $1.50 doesn't go very far today. so what we're talking about trying to help people get through this economic crisis, that's what we're talking about. so this is not some extraffic get, overly generous benefit. that's what it is. and rather than cutting waste in the pentagon budget, which we all know exists, you protect

the pentagon budget. you know, rather than going after subsidies for oil companies and going after, you know, billionaire tax breaks, you protect all that. and where do you go to find the savings, programs that help the poorest of the poor. i mean, it's outrageous. mr. speaker, at this point i'd like to yield three mint to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from massachusetts and thank him for his leadership on efforts to ensure that those families who are struggling most in our country continue to have access to food and nutrition and that children in our country continue to have access to health care and that's what this debate is all about because we do have an alternative. there's no disagreement on two things. number one, we need to reduce our deficit in this country in a credible way.

number two, the meat ax approach to the sequester is not a smart way to do it. so how should we go about reducing our deficit? well, we proposed to do it in the same balanced way that every bipartisan commission that has looked at this issue has recommended, through a combination of difficult cuts, and i would remind everybody that just last august we cut $1 trillion through a combination of cuts as well as cuts to tax breaks for special interests and by asking the wealthiest people in this country, people making $1 million a year, to contribute a little bit more toward deficit reduction. . mr. woodall: would my friend yield? mr. van hollen: yes. mr. woodall: it raises $3 in taxes versus the spending cuts. can you tell me --

mr. van hollen: i'm glad the gentleman asked the question. simpson-bowles, they proposed an approach which was about $3 in cuts to $1 in revenue depending on the accounting rules. we already enacted $1 trillion in cuts. 100% in cuts. you voted for that, i voted for that, 100% cuts. what this does is for the next one year we do another $30 billion in cuts, a little over, and $80 billion through closing loopholes. for example, we say the big oil companies don't need taxpayer subsidies to encourage them to drill. they have already testified, their chief executives, they don't need that. they are making plenty right now. we also say that millionaires should pay the same effective tax rate as the people who work for them. and if you take that approach, frankly with $1 trillion in cuts

we have already made, we are still cutting a lot more than the bipartisan groups recommended compared to the revenue. so our ratio of cuts to revenue is much higher because those bipartisan groups, they recommended that $1 trillion in cuts. we adopted that on a bipartisan basis. what they are not doing, what you're not doing is taking the other part of their recommendation, frakely -- frankly, which is to say let's close some of these outrageous tax loopholes for the purpose of deficit reduction. and because 98% of our house republican colleagues are signing this pledge saying they won't take one penny of additional revenue -- mr. mcgotsche: an additional two minutes. mr. van hollen: you won't ask one penny more for people making over $1 million a year to help us reduce our deficit. not one penny. the math is pretty simple after that. because you ask nothing of them, your budget whacks everyone else.

that's why your budget ends the medicare guarantee. that's why you cut $800 billion out of medicaid. and that's why in your see quester -- sequester program here, you whack the programs that help the most vulnerable struggling families. let's talk about what the nonpartisan congressional budget office said about what your proposal would do. 22 million households with children would see their food and nutrition support cut under the snap reductions. 300,000 kids will no longer get the school lunch program. 300,000 kids will lose their health coverage under the children's health insurance program. those are the decisions you have to make because? you don't want to ask the oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidy. we say, the american people would make a different choice, we have that different choice in the substitute amendment. that substitute amendment would prevent those cuts to the defense department, would prevent cuts to n.i.h. and

biomedical research, but it would prevent those cuts without whacking seniors and children's health programs. it would do it in a balanced way. we say we don't need the direct payments to agricultural businesses. these are payments that go to ag businesses whether they are making money or not. the spigots on. we cut those. you don't in your proposal before us today. why not? instead, you cut the food and nutrition programs. so, we think the right approach is the balanced approach that every bipartisan group that's gotten together has recommended. and because 98% of our republican colleagues have signed this pledge saying they are not going to ask the folks at the very top to put in one penny, one dime more, you are smacking everybody else. we don't think that's the right way to go. we agree we should reduce the deficit and we reduced -- we eliminate the sequester but just in a different way. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts

reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to say we just disagree on what balance is. what our proposal for brucks is to reduce spending over $65 billion over five years. and your proposal is to spend an additional $35 billion over the same five years. we disagree what balance is. we are moving in the wrong direction under your proposal. right under our proposal i a-- i'm proud to serve with my friend. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mrs. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to support the rule. mr. speaker, i am very proud to represent the guard base home to the michigan red devils, the 107 fighter squadron. the 107, mr. speaker, flies a-10's. they recently returned from a redeployment to afghanistan where they performed so bravely, made us proud. the 107th was one of the air

guard units scheduled to be eliminated under the president's budget proposal. fortunately, the house armed services committee will present a defense re-authorization bill here next week which resources that and saves the 107th, along with protecting the air national guard across the entire country. this house is going to do the right thing for the great american patriots of the air national guard by prioritizing spending within our budget. not by spending more money. so i would certainly urge our cloogs in -- colleagues in the senate to join us. and, mr. speaker, we need to remember that the cuts that caused the obama administration to target the air guard were before the sequester, before the sequester. if the sequester is allowed to go into effect, the impact on the community that i represent, for example, would be immense. and the defense corridor we are building as part of our economic revitalization would be stopped dead in its track. not only would the national guard again be put at risk of massive new cuts, but military contracting across the board would be faced with additional

cuts. in mccomb county alone, a county i'm proud to represent, this would mean $200 million in additional cuts, mr. speaker. and obviously would count -- cost countless jobs in the defense related corridor. this house has taken steps to stop the devastation of our air national guard and now it's taking steps to stop the deaf significance of our defense base and needless loss of jobs with commonsense reforms. so i would urge all of my colleagues to join me in reconciliation today in the defense re-authorization bill coming to the floor next week. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: at this time i'm proud to yield to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this

bill which chooses to slash programs that help struggling families get whack on -- back on their feet without closing a single tax loophole or limiting a single special interest subsidy. our bunt -- budget should reflect our values even as many in the faith community have argued, it should advance the moral responsibilities of the nation to provide for the common good. i note that the catholic bishops just sent a letter concluding that, and i quote, the proposed cuts to programs in the republican budget reconciliation fail the basic moral test, end quote. i'm pleased that the bishops are speaking out, as he they should. 40% of the total cuts here come from cutting assistance to low and moderate income families, including food stamps, medicaid, the children's health insurance program, social services for vulnerable children and elderly

and disabled people. but instead of eliminating the agricultural subsidies where people don't have to plant a seed and they get paid, this budget would cause more than 200,000 children to lose their school lunch. would cut the food stamp program by $36 billion. that means 46 million americans, one half of whom our children would see their benefits cut and two million americans would lose them entirely. this at a time when one in seven seniors faces the threat of hunger, and one in five children right here in america a land of plenty face a similar risk. they are going to bed hungry in the united states of america. we know the impact of hunger and malnutrition. lower performances at school, poor growth, an immune system less able to fend off illness. instead of ending subsidies to big oil companies, this budget eliminates the social services block grant which provides childcare assistance to low

income working mothers, addresses child abuse, provides care for the elderly and disabled. about 22 million people, half of them children, will lose services. instead of ending tax breaks that allow corporations to ship jobs overseas, this budget cuts medicaid, slashes the children's health insurance program, forces 350,000 americans to forego health care coverage provided by health care reform. instead of asking millionaires to pay the same tax rates as middle class families, this budget makes children who are u.s. citizens but immigrant parents ineligible for the child tax credit, harming two million families and 4.5 million children who are united states citizens. they end the medicare guarantee for seniors in this nation. these cuts have a catastrophic effect on the most vulnerable in our nation and for what? all to protect special interest subsidies, tax breaks for the richest members of our society. by friends it's $150,000 for the average millionaire in a tax cut. that's what we are talking about

in this piece of legislation. it is wrong. budgets are about choices, values, and this bill exposes exactly what this majority is all about. we need to pass legislation that strengthens, rebuilds the middle class of this country, creates jobs, invests in rebuilding our infrastructure, supports manufacturers, and supports fairness to our tax code. this reverse robin hood agenda of the house majority fails in every single regard and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. when i hear my colleagues talk, it sounds as if we have a choice about doing one thing or another thing. and i will say to my colleagues, when you are borrowing $1.4 trillion a year from your children -- just a moment. i will be happy to yield to my

friend. when you are borrowing $1.4 trillion a year from your children, when you are mortgaging the future of this country, it's not a choice of either spending cuts or revenue changes. we got to have both. we've got to have both. and to describe it to the american people as if we can do one or the other and get ourselves out of this mess, we cannot. we absolutely cannot. i would ask my friends, and i would be happy to yield to my colleague, when this house brought to the floor a tax cut bill that gave every member of congress a tax cut at the end ever 2011, they said we don't have to pay -- we only have to pay 4% of payroll taxes instead of 6%, i voted no. i said there is not a member in this body that needs a tax cut. i said we have too big a problem in this nation to give tax cuts to members of congress. i voted no. did anybody else vote no with me? did anybody else vote no with me? i will not be lectured about how

it is that tax cuts are distributed in this country when we have opportunities to cut them on this floor, to eliminate them on this floor, and my colleagues continue to vote yes. we could have added a provision that eliminated those tax cuts for the rich. we did not and should have. i would be happy to yield. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the fact of the matter is there are choices and the majority refuses to make those choices. let us cut. let us cut the taxes for people who -- let's not provide the tax cuts for people who are making over $250,000 in this nation. let us come back from afghanistan in an orderly way. mr. woodall: thank you very much. ms. delauro: let us cut the agriculture subsidies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady will suspend. the gentleman from georgia has the time. mr. woodall: i thank the speaker for his help there. i'm sorry i needed it, but i

appreciate him offering it. we passed a budget in this house. a comprehensive budget in this house. and to hear my colleagues talk, you'd think this is the only bill we are going to pass for the rest of the year. to hear my colleagues talk you think we are not going to bring a farm bill to the floor and go after ag subsidies. to hear my colleagues talk you think we are not going to bring a tax bill to the floor and try to raise revenues in this country. to hear my colleagues talk, this is it. this isn't it. this is the bill that responds to the chairman joints chief of staff, general martin democracy, who said this year about the cuts we are trying to prevent today, i will tell you that i am prepared to say that sequestration will pose an unacceptable risk. that's what we are here to talk about today. how do we mitigate an unacceptable risk. how do we mitigate against the challenges that former clinton o.m.b. director, former clinton chief of staff, current secretary of defense leon panetta says threaten our

national security? and again we are going to have a choice, mr. speaker. . we brought a very powerful proposal to the floor today. very powerful proposal. for the first time in over a decade, we're trying to get a handle on that out-of-control portion of spending in this budget. just a little bit, mr. speaker. just a little bit. and, again, we just have a different idea of what balance is. we have a different idea of what deficit reduction is. my idea over deficit reduction over the next five years we reduce the deficit. my colleagues' idea of deficit reduction is we spend over $40 billion above what we were going to spend anyway. it's a difference of opinion. i am glad we are bringing this vote to the floor. i look forward to the debate. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: no one is arguing sequestration should go into effect. we don't think that is good for our country. but we think the republican reconciliation bill is worse for the country because the cuts in so many programs that hurts our people. there is no balance in there. there is none in your reconciliation bill. it's all cuts to programs that actually help the people of this country. and then finally, i just say, we have an alternative to sequestration. mr. van hollen brought that before the rules last night. the rules committee republican, every single one of them, voted no. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: i think i'll let this thing cool down a little bit, but the gentleman on the other side of this debate is quite wrong. there's no balance in this particular bill at all. there is no balance. the cuts are devastating. meals on wheels for seniors. medicare programs, medicaid programs for seniors, and if

you take a look at the rest of the issues, school lunch programs, kids are going to go hungry. there's no balance. there is no tax proposal in this. there is no bat -- balance at all. i have one more problem that's not being resolved. the national flood insurance bill was part of this reconciliation and it has a gaping hole. as the corps of engineers has gone through the nation's levees and downgraded those levees, creating an enormous problem for agriculture for this nation and certainly in california where many of the levees have been downgraded, it's now impossible for farmers and the agricultural community to obtain loans to continue to produce and to enhance their agriculture production. in amendment, i hope could be put in the bill, would simply require an immediate study by the department of agriculture and the federal emergency management agency to undertake a study on the impact of the

downgrading of the levees and the resultant inability to get flood insurance and the impact that has on the agriculture communities. keeping in mind that agriculture in a flood zone is one of the very best ways to reduce the risk. i would hope that the majority would consider as this thing moves along to fold into the national flood insurance program an opportunity for the farm flood program that i've introduced which would allow farmers to obtain national flood insurance and then the lending that the banks could make available so they can continue to build the necessary facilities for their agricultural production. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, there are no tough choices here. i talk to the gentleman whose seat i took the other day. i said, john, when you are up

here as a congressman you made it look fun. folks were always saying thank you, thank you, thank you, for all the strength that was going on here. -- for all the spending that was going on here. when you increase the public debt in this country by 50% over the last four years, you are out of giveaway decisions. all we have here is tough decisions. that's all we have. i know my friend from massachusetts speaks about passion and conviction. his advocacy for the neediest among us is an inspiration on the floor, and in committee and on, i don't fault him that for a bit. but i say to my friend, hadn't we given that payroll tax cut for members of congress, we could have provided that food stamp increase that you discussed earlier to an additional two million individuals in this country. two million individuals in this country had we forgone that tax increase here in. we didn't. we chose to go along with the program and cut away, spend away.

we can't do that. we have to stop that. and i would say to my friend, because it's hard. i have the same families struggling in my district the same you do. the foreclosure rate in my district is higher than your district. the number of folks going homeless in georgia because of foreclosure is higher than in massachusetts. when you talk about the additional 1.8 million folks, 1.8 million folks, mr. speaker, according to the c.b.o., are going to lose their food stamp benefits under this bill. there's no question about that. but here's the thing, mr. speaker, and this is important. this bill doesn't cut anybody from food stamps. this bill says the only people who can get food stamps are people who apply and qualify for food stamps. hear that, mr. speaker. the c.b.o. tells us, and my friend from massachusetts quotes that 1.8 million people are going to lose food stamp benefits. but the only change this bill makes is that you actually have

to apply for the benefits to get the benefits. so that means 1.8 million people in this country are losing -- mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. wood wod if -- mr. woodall: if you want to change the food stamp rules, if you want to lax it, then let's not demonize it. let's not say we're throwing poor children out in the streets. we have a successful food stamp program and why don't we just -- mr. garamendi: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i yield to my friend from california. mr. garamendi: the fact is 1.8 million people will not get the supplemental food that they get from food stamps. they are going to be hungry, that's a fact. now the fact -- the rest of the fact is the application process has been supported by the federal government and by the legislation so that the states can reach out to those people that are hungry and that are

qualified -- that are able to qualify for food stamps. that's gone in this bill. so the ability to reach out and to bring into those programs and beyond that -- mr. woodall: reclaiming my time from my friend. i would say reaching out and bringing folks in the program who do not qualify for the program. the rules for the program are clear, mr. speaker. if you qualify for food stamps, i am the first one who wants you to have them. if you qualify for the snap program, under snap program rules, you should get food stamps. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: yes. mr. mcgovern: the government accountability office says the error rate in the snap program is less than 3%. what is he talking about when people getting benefits -- i'd like to know the numbers of that. how much? mr. woodall: this is important, mr. speaker. i hope people are paying attention back in their office. the gentleman is talking about the error rate. the error rate. folks who mistakenly got food stamps because in the application process they got the application process wrong. they shouldn't have qualified

but they gave them to them anyway. what the c.b.o. says is entirely different. what the c.b.o. says is 1.8 million american families, if they walked into the office today and applied for food stamps today, would not qualify for food stamps. it's not an error. it's not a mistake. it's that the rules of the game have been changed to say we just want everybody, we just want everybody to have a part in the program. when the gentleman says the paperwork nightmare for states, i happen to agree with the gentleman. there is a tremendous paperwork challenge for the states. this does not solve that. all we're saying go through the application process. to suggest we are trying to take benefits away from people who need those benefits is disengine with us. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i'm prepared to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from georgia has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has 6 1/2 minutes

remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: half a minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: the gentleman is wrong. just wrong when he talks about the abuse in the snap program. that people are somehow getting benefits that they are not entitled to. and the demagoguery that is going with categorical -- it helps people who are eligible get the benefits. no, i am not going to yold to the gentleman. he gets up on the floor and talks about it this payroll tax cut for members of congress. that was a payroll tax cut for the -- for everybody. now, if he wanted to exempt members of congress, that would be minuscule. that would do nothing to provide any benefit to anyone. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i would say to my friend, i wish he would show me the code sections here that if in the snap program and say under the

snap program the income criteria we had yesterday, that's changing and so folks aren't going to get those benefits tomorrow. that's not here. all this bill does is to say you need to apply and you need to earn those benefits on your own merits. when the gentleman talks about paperwork, he knows good and well the c.b.o. took that into consideration. when the c.b.o. says 1.8 million families are no longer going to qualify, it means some folks are going to get off of categorical eligibility because that is the gaming of the system and they are going to go back in and apply for the benefits and get them but 1.8 million will go back in and apply and get denied because they don't callify for benefits. -- qualify for benefits. mr. speaker, if we need to change the eligibility criteria, if we have folks in need who can't qualify, let's change the eligibility criteria. but in the name of good government, when we are going in programs and say we have rules of the game, we just want people to have to follow them, to somehow define that as being

mean-spirited, it galls me. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me yield myself a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: what galls me is that the republican majority is balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in this country, the poorest of the poor. the gentleman talks about c.b.o. c.b.o. says that cutting $36 billion from the snap program means that more than 22 households will see a cut in their benefit. it means that 22 million families will have less food tomorrow than they do today. in fact, two million people will be cut from snap altogether. that's not me making up numbers. that's c.b.o. that's where i get this from. i think that's cruel and inhumane during the worst economic crisis that we've faced. yes, we have to balance a budget and we have to make tough choices but why does it always have to be on the backs of the most vulnerable? why can't donald trump may a couple more dollars in taxes? why can't we end the subsidies to big oil?

why can't we have warren buffett pay the same tax rate as his secretary? that's all we're saying here. your reconciliation bill represents your priorities. what we're arguing is your priorities are wrong and bad for the country. we have an alternative. you won't let us have an opportunity to debate that alternative on the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i'd say to my friend from massachusetts, and i'm prepared to close if he has any more speakers. i would yield to my -- i'd reserve and enjoy my friend from massachusetts to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. i'll offer an amendment to this closed rule to let the house work its will and give mr. van hollen's substitute an up or down vote in the house. i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, you know, i think what we're talking about here today are two different visions for this country. the republicans have their vision. that is outlined in their reconciliation package. mr. van hollen i think has adequately summarized what the democratic priorities are. the difference -- main difference in their proposal there is no balance. it's a meat ax approach to everything. cut, cut, cut, cut regardless of what it means to the people of this country. what we're trying to do and quite frankly what other bipartisan commissions have recommended is a more balanced approach. we cut spending but there's also some revenues to be raised. and at a time in our country where we have a tax code that allows warren buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, it seems that we can have -- it's time for a little fairness and that's all we're asking for here. that's all we're asking is for a balanced, fair approach.

we're prepared to make the tough choices. those tough choices means cuts. i say to the republicans, you'll have to support closing tax loopholes and raising taxes. on the wealthiest individuals in this country. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent at this time to insert in the record a letter from the u.s. conference on catholic bishops. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: and i want to read one paragraph from that letter to congress. i quote, the catholic bishops of the united states recognizes the serious deficits our country faces and we acknowledge that congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs. however, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine the needs of the poor and the vulnerable people. the proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test. the catechism of the catholic

church states it is the proper role of government to make it accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life -- food, clothing, health, work, education and culture suitable information, the right to establish a family and so on. poor and vulnerable people do not have a powerful lobbyist to advocate their interests but a they have the most compelling needs, end quote. mr. speaker, that paragraph sums up what i feel and what so many of us feel about what my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing. . yes we have to make tough choices, but why are always the tough choices on the backs of middle income families and the backs of moore? there are people in this country who are hungry. we are the richest people on the planet and we have hungry people here. what is our response? not to help a way to figure out how to deal with this scourge, their response is to take a meat axe approach to snap. which will cut benefits. that's what c.b.o. said.

it will cut benefits. people will have less food tomorrow than they have today if this were to become law. i think that's a horrible choice. that's not a choice we should -- we shouldn't be discussing on the floor. let's make the programs more efficient. let me tell you the snap program is more efficient than the pentagon. the waste, fraud, and abuse at the pentagon, the wasteful weapon systems at the pentagon. i will tell you, i don't care what leon panetta says, there's savings to be found in the pentagon budget. we ought to go after that. we ought to make sure that donald trump pays his fair share in taxes and ought to close these corporate tax loopholes that allow corporations to get away with paying no taxes. middle income families can't do that. this is about fairness. that's what we are looking for. fairness and balance. this is a tough time. rather than following the european model which my friends seem to love of as you taret and

cut, cut, cut -- and austerity and cut, cut, cut, we should invest in a robust highway bill to put people back to work, investing in education making sure our young people are compared to compete in the 21st century economy. and yes, investing in a social safety net and investing in programs that provide a circle of protection to the poor and most vulnerable. there is nothing wrong with that. we should be proud of the fact that we are a country that cares . let's not give that up. that's a strength. it's not a weakness, it's a strength. and i said to my colleagues, my biggest problem with the republicans is it fails that test. what it does is it goes after the most vulnerable in a way that i think is cruel and wrong. mr. speaker, you urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i thank my friend from massachusetts for joining me on the floor today. the floor today. i think he chose exactly the