tv [untitled] May 7, 2012 5:00pm-5:30pm EDT
regardless of political affiliation or philosophy, to get behind the many worthy local efforts to support, might be through a religious institution or community foundation, to support local efforts. but so as important as those efforts are, so many of those groups are relying on federal funds to meet some part of their mission. one of the groups that contacted us was easter seals. they do wonderful work with children with disabilities. and easter seal affiliates throughout the country say that to provide quality services that support the independence of people with disabilities, this is a program that they rely upon. and i think it's true, whether it's the national foster care coalition or the arc or the american haelt care association,
or the child welfare league, one organization after another that realizes what the impact will be that realizes what will happen if this is eliminated. there may be better ways to do it. i suggested to my colleagues -- that if it was too broad we automatic to put additional standards in. but it looks to me like that most states are making at a time of great budget difficulty, are making effective use of these funds. and i think it would be a serious mistake to eliminate them at this time while at the same time claiming that the solution to our national problems lies in block granting more programs. indeed, one would think from looking at the block grant effort today for some programs and the elimination of block grant that has been in effect since ronald reagan's day with
bipartisan support, the real approach here is first block grant and then cut. like repeal and replace. and the effect on so many families and individuals is a very very harsh and unamerican one that we don't have to do. there are other ways for all americans to get together and support the budget restraint we need without putting so much of it on the most vulnerable citizens. i yield back. >> time expired. has anyone wish to claim time in opposition? mr. chairman, i oppose this motion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think what we should do is look at these programs is go back and see what brought them about. look at their history. and if we look at the history of this program, it goes back to the 1950s. and it originally was set up, the eligibility -- let's talk
about eligibility in the program, was set up -- eligibility was limited to current welfare recipients. and then when we moved into the 1970s, we saw that the eligibility was broadened then, and it went to former and potential welfare recipients and then in the 1980s, it was eliminated so that anyone is eligible. so as we look at this program and we see how it has evolved over the years, we must look at where it started, where it is going and has it really accomplished what we wanted to accomplish. so we see eligibility is one thing that we need to take a look at. if it started with certain eligibility criteria but now it's moved into a place where there is no eligibility criteria, there's something that has to be evaluated whether it is proper at this point in time and especially given the number of dollars that we have for all these social net programs. we have 29 different types of
social services in this program with $1.7 billion per year. so let's look and say, if it is providing programs, what is providing those programs. let's just read off some of these programs that are in existence. so we have medicaid is already in assist dense, but these dollars are being used to supplement medicaid, head start, again another program. if we look at, let's take a look at head start also started in 1965, it was created to provide education and social services. it still is now doing that. it's now funded as $7 billion a year. so we have a program in place, head start, which was very much like what was being funded at that time. and now these dallas and this program are supplementing that. another program, ssi, started back in 1974. and it of course was set up to provide cash assistance to individuals with disabilities.
it now cost $50 billion a year. that service is in place. but we see services out of this block grant that supplement. i can go down foster care and adoption, which as my colleague miss bass from california i as well. has $7 billion a year. but there's a component of this that also supplements that. the child care block grant. for those who need child care and can't afford child care, it also -- this supplements that. right now $5 billion a year is in that fund. and i can go on with a number of other of those, and i think what i said in the previous motion was that we've got to take a look at all these programs and say are we duplicating? are we doing what we really want to do? is there coordination? are the dollars being well spent. let's go over to a program that is near and deer to my heart, i
have worked in and been a part of and that's meals on bheels. meals on wheels has 80% of its convictions that come from private folks. just 8% is using government funds. 2% are dues, 4% come from conferences and 6% from other areas. so obviously this is a program that is not going to fall apart as is represented here if it doesn't have these dollars. but these are duplications and they need to be looked at. i challenged my state when i was still in the senate to take a look at all of the children's programs and say how much money are we spending? because at one point in time i asked in nie committee could everybody tell us where the dollars are being spent on children if there's any duplication or how much are we spending on many prevention programs is that really where are needs are? i think we have to look at these programs and make that decision about if we're doing what we need to do with the limited dollars.
in addition to that, there is no state partnership in this. these dollars go to the states, and unlike other programs where states have skin in the game, there is an effort when you have skin in the game to make sure you're watching over those more carefully. and that is another area that i think we have to be concerned about. let's look at the history here. because in the 1950s, when this first began, states had to match federal dollars 50/50. then in the 1970s, it was changed. it was lowered to 50% from the federal level, 25% from the state level. now there is no state match at all. it's been eliminated entirely and there's 100%. so again there's no skin in the game. and then i want to go to the accountability piece which is really something that is near and deer to my heart. every dollar that we spend, we shu be sure that we have accountability for it. and in this program there is no accountability because states have to report how they plan to spend the money. they have to tell us to whom they're going to spend the money
and for what services but there's no accountability to say they're working that we have measurements 6789 what are the tools that we're using? is there evidence-based outcomes to say yes, they're working properly. when we take a look at these grants, i think it's very important to say that these grants need to be evaluated in all of these various areas as i've said. accountability, whether states have skin in the game, are they working, are they doing what they were originally intended on doing. and then i want to point to a history here again of the clinton administration argued for cutting the ssbg frants in 1999 due to its lack of accountability. and i quote, social services block grant, the budget targets funding can -- the social services block grant supports a bloud range of social service programs without stat friday performance goals or measures of progress. as a result the budget reduces
funding for this program to help provide funding for other prior priority programs. and so even the clinton administration recognized that making sure the programs are effective, they have measurement tools, they're being pry yoer tiesed is very important. i have two other references, but i'm going to let some of my other colleagues weigh in on this, so i'd like to give mr. chavez five minutes. my colleague from utah. >> close enough. i also rise in opposition to this. and you know, ronald reagan's name was evoekted earlier and i think it was his name in general who said republicans look to every day as july 4th where democrats look to every day as april 15th. every single time i see these
proposals. all these proposals, motions and amendments today are all about we can solve this with tax increases. the regulation to all of our problems is not through more tax increases. we're not just one tax increase away to prosperitity in this nation. i think that's the fundamental challenge that the democrats are suffering for. there is a total lack of leadership from the president of the united states. last year he introduced a budget. it went before the senate it was defeated 97 to nothing. and this year mr. mul veiny brought it up. we defeated it 14-0. there has not been the leadership to suggest that the democrats are serious about cutting the deficit. what i like that the budget committee has done is reducing and cutting spending. a little bit. it's just a little bit. we deficit spend as a nation about $4 billion a day.
we're spending more than $600 million a day in interest on our national debt. i wish we didn't have that debt. this was pointed out earlier. imagine all the things we could invest in or could do or better yet let americans keep their money to make their own decisions and have more freedom and prosperitity and more opportunities to build a better future for themselves. of course there's a sigment of our population that needs help. of course there are people who can't take care of themselves. i recently went to the utah school for the deaf and blind. it tore my heart out. but it was a program working within my state. these people will never be able to take care of themselves. of course we want to help those people. but there never seems to be on the other side of the aisle an end to that discussion. so we're talking about a very, very small amount of money. i quite frankly think we need to
look at the overall med budget and get more realistic because we are putting these problems on the backs of kids and grandkids and i think it's unpalatable over the long course of time. now, specific to this reduction or this motion, the social services block grant i think is story of massive duplication within the federal government. i plotted president obama when he said during one of the state of the unions that he wanted to get rid of things that were duplicative in their nature. you go down and look at this list, $1.7 billion supporting 29 overlapping government programs including one category which is called other, that's one of my personal favorite. there was a 2000 gao report cited the social services block grant as one of 69 programs that was dealing with day care. now remember, day care has
increased in its spending from 3.5 billion in 2000 to over $1.5 billion in 2011. 200 programs in 20 agencies dealing with special services that again this is a duplicative program. and then back in another gao report, fiscal year 2009 the federal government spent $18 billion through 47 different education and training programs, nine federal agencies, not including the services block grant. one of ten of these programs had ever been evaluated for effectiveness in the past seven years. i think there is some common ground. i think when we talk in general about broadening the base, that's something that republicans and democrats can agree on. my fear is i think the republicans want to broaden the base and lower the rates, so we can become more competitive, create more jobs, have more
competitive opportunity in the country. but the democrats want to broaden the base so we can expand and grow the government. somehow 24 cents spend in this nation doesn't seem to be enough. i hope we can move it towards common ground. now one thing that i think, if the democrats were sincere about this approach, they always point to and i'm sure the polling does well, let's get big oil, let's make sure they have tax increases on gas, yeah, let's raise the price of gasoline. yeah, that's what americans are seeking. let's look at the subsidies that are going out. let's remember that in fiscal year 2010 oil and gas got subsidies in the amount of about 2.8 billion but the so-called renewables, the green stuff, got subsidies of $14.7 billion.
so if we're going to talk about this, then let's also have a discussion about all those other subsidies that are going out there to try to prop up some of these others that aren't as palatable. and also one of the things that i have a challenge with in this particular motions just going after the so-called big five. let's not create an evenness. if you're number six, then you're going to get even more. let's just go after the big five. we have to remember who benefits from this, and who won't. i want people in their own mind to think that if you're going to make the investment, you're going to manufacture, you're going to take the risk, what is an acceptable rate of profit? some people would probably say zero. but if you think in your own mind what percentage is an acceptable amount of profit and you go back and use the article that was pointed out earlier, you'll find that the oil companies that were cited in
this had an average profit of 7.7%. for some people that may be unacceptable. but compared to a lot of other parts of cooperate america, that was a lot less. take it compared to ge or microsoft or some of these others. there steeples to be desire to pick on somebody who is hiring people, who is employing people. i wish we didn't have to rely upon other nations for our resour resources, but you look at the administration's proposals here, they don't want a pipeline, they don't want to drill off the coast, they don't want to drill in my own state of utah. it's a real problem. and you look at who actually owns this and you have to understand if you have a mutual fund, or an ira, or a pension plan of which 61 million u.s. households have, these are the people, these are the ones that actually own this stuff. and i don't think in these hard,
depressed, difficult economic times, it is the right time to have a tax increase and raise the price of gas. it's going to affect everything and anything throughout our economy. this is not the time to be raising the price of fuel. so i appreciate mr. chairman that we're actually talking about in our budget proposed and we're moving forward to cutting spending because it is an imperative in this country. but i would argue against this motion. because we're not just one good tax increase away from solving outline the problems and the people that were cited here. with that i'll yield back. >> i'd like to yield five minutes of my time to 34r flores from texas. >> thank you, miss black. >> why don't we start request main street solutions that are economic solutions where everybody has more opportunity, where our local communities and our states are healthier economically, so that those communities can go bab back to
the support systems that work better. and that's where our families are healthier economically, our local communities are healthier, our local resources have more to support those in need, our churches are stronger, it's almost as if the democrats seem to think that the only good dollars are dollars that come from d.c. the american people know this isn't true anymore. they don't trust the federal government. they see ample evidence in the few weeks that you cannot traft the federal government to do anything right. it seems that the only bureaucrats that are unelected and unaccountable and lie to the gsa are now totally irresponsible. that's not how they want this stuff cycled. if we want to address these needs, let's focus on getting the private sector paychecks those these one out of every six americans that have become poor under the obama economy can go back to work and have a paycheck
so they don't have to worry about these support systems. and contrary to mr. doggett's aserks about exxon, their tax rate is one of the highest in the world at 42%. where does it step? let's do exxon today, apple tomorrow and the middle class the day after that. let's just raise taxes on every employer and that way we can have fewer working americans and more people that become dependent on welfare solutions. this has been framed as a choice between exxon and jennie. and this is the way the democrats like to make this argument. they want to divide us. alternatively, the path to prosperity says why don't we both for both jennie and exxon? both be prosperous. both thrive economically, and that way julia, doesn't have to
spend her entire life subject to support by the federal government. she can use her own resources from reciting her own opportunities to take care of herself and a family. thank you, i yield back. >> thank you. i'm just going to finish out by one additional statement. i talked about coordination and duplication but here is something i thought was significant in a most recent gao report in 2011. and this is what the gao stated, that the ssbg is one of many fragmented programs focusing on the low-income individuals, and that, quote, our work has shown that this patchwork of programs to be too fragmented and over li complex for the clients to navigate, for the program operators to administer efficiently and for the program managers and the policy makers to assess program performance. these programs are so fragmented
and are so much duplication out there that it is confusing to the very people we are trying to help. we need to coordinate the programs and again make sure that our dollars, our hard earned tax dollars are doing what we need them to do and that is a safety net. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes to close. >> thank you very much. i sthi what americans need to know about this debate is our republican colleagues are telling us the only way we can move forward is telling us more tax breaks at the top and that the needs of those who are most vulnerable in our society can be better handled by the states and by main street. and we have in this motion a program that has given the states additional resources, that was signed into law we president reagan, that has had
bipartisan support up until this month. and now they say there are problems with the program. they want more effectiveness. they want better measurements. they think the states ought to be having some skin in the game by putting in matching funds. they suggest other improvements that might be made with reference to other federal programs. those may all be very good ideas. as i said at the outset, i think sometimes these block grant programs are blockheaded. that's the way i feel about block granting of medicaid that is being proposed in the same resolution. but the typical situation here, if you find a problem in government, the republican answer, when they say reform, they mean repeal. that's what they propose today. they're not looking to get more accountability or better measurements or more effectiveness.
they have a real simple answer to the bipartisan program that began with president reagan. eliminate it. cut it out. terminate it. that's what they do in today's resolution. and the suggestion is well, we could rely on private entities to take care of some of these problems. let me read to you what catholic charities told this committee. they say, and i quote, every day thousands of individuals who are disabled children, preschoolers, homeless, elderly or at risk of being abused or receiving services because of social services block grant funding. we reject, and the we is not me, it's catholic charities, we reject the notion that those most vulnerable among us should feel the greatest impact of future reductions. and i think we should reject that. catholic charities, private contributors, they do some great work.
but they need this to be able to accomplish their purpose. the suggestion was that, well, we need to tighten the eligibility requirements. they've gotten out of control. i can tell you, if a child comes in as the victim of abuse and we have seen too much child abuse across our state and we've heard a lot about it in our country, we don't need to ask how much their parents make. we need to reach out and care for that abused child and try to help them get their life back together. that's some of the work that this social services block grant does in state after state that ought to be supported. the suggestion is that well, you know, we're just going to overtax people to pay for these vital services for the vulnerable. the effective tax rate for exxon from 2008 to 2010 was 17.6%. we're not talking about whatever
might have been in the statute. the statute is just there to give their lawyers a way to find a way around it. and they've done a very good job of doing it. they don't pay the rate of an independent service station. they pay special rates and i can tell you from the price i've had to pay at the gas pump, all these tax incentives sure haven't kept gas prices reasonable up till now. the suggestion is some of these folks need to have more skin in the game. i know they intended a little different reference there, but i can tell you that donald and johnny and mary, they got skin in this game. their lives are at stake in this game. the meals on wheels program says they will be devastated if these cuts are made. it is a choice. i think this whole bill is misnamed. it's upside down, too. it's not recollect conciliation,
it's wreck conciliation. because it will wreck one life after another, whether it's preventative health care or it's jennie and the food she relies on. i think we should reject the wreck and adopt the motion. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his team. all those in favor say aye. those ofoesed say no. the nos have it. the roll call vote is frd. >> mr. garrett? no. mr. simpson? >> no. >> mr. simpson no. mr. campbell. >> no. >> mr. calvert? >> no. >> mr. calvert no. >> >> mr. achen? mr. coal? mr. cole, no. dr. price, no. mr. mak clin to being, no. mr. chaf easy, no. mr. stets man. mr. stets man no?
mr. lang forward? no. miss black? no. >> mr.ible? mr. floor he is? >> no. >> mr. mul veiny? no. mr. huls scam? no. mr. young? mr. young no. mr. amosh? >> no. >> mr. okey da? >> no. >> mr. mr. guinta? no. >> mr. whitle. >> no. >> mr. whitle mr. van holland. >> yes. >> mr. aye. >> miss schwartz aye. >> miss captor aye. mr. doggett aye. >> mr. >> aye. >> mr. yar moth.
>> mr. pass car el? mr. honda mr. ryan mr. ryan aye. miss wasserman schultz? aye. >> miss more. miss caster aye. mr. shuler? mr. shuler aye. miss bass? miss bas aye? miss bonamici, aye. mr. chairman? no. mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 13, the nos are 21. >> the nos have it. the motions not greed to. are there any other motions? >> i would offer motion to instruct number four. >> the clerk will designate the motion and the staff wig. >> a motion protect food and new
trags support for struggling children and families while cutting taxpayer direct payments to agricultural interests. >> miss bloom ur is recognized for 25 minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the ironry is we're involved with this exercise largely in attempt to shield an area that many of us think that actually could be adjusted if we were focusing on it and working together, defense. but we are looking at sparing that and instead focusing on other areas. now, i would offer up an amendment here that would not add to the deficit, but it would deal with our needs in a more reasonable fashion. and frankly, i speak for a variety of people that are in your districts all of our districts, that the last place that we need to make additional cuts deals withnu
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN3 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on