Mick Mulvaney

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 25, currently under consideration.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, last year at this time I came before this body and I offered as an amendment, as a possible replacement, the budget offered by the President of the United States. It failed overwhelmingly. In fact, I think it failed to receive a single vote. I did that in order to promote a debate, and I think we had that debate. I think that was healthy. Remember, a budget is more than just a spending document. It is also a vision document. I had hoped to be able to do the exact same thing this year, to bring forth the President's budget to discuss not only the spending levels in that budget, but also the vision contained in that particular budget. Imagine my surprise then when this week came around and we waited for the President's budget and it was not offered. It was not offered for the first time in modern history. This is the first time in modern history that a President has failed to offer a budget before the United States House of Representatives took up the topic. It's the very first time since the Budget Act of 1921. I don't know how we're supposed to discuss the President's vision for the Nation as contained in the budget when it's not here. I think that's wrong. It's required by law, Mr. Chairman. The law requires the President to submit a budget before today. I believe this is now the third or fourth time he's been late during his Presidency. It's inexcusable. It's inexcusable, regardless of the party of the President, not to follow the law and not to offer a budget. So it's with great regret, Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to offer to you today for discussion before this body the vision for this Nation contained in the President's budget because no such documents exist. I actually tried, by the way. I offered a 34-page document full of question marks, but appropriately that was ruled out of order as not being able to be brought forward to the House. Again, it is with great reluctance I'm not able to offer the President's budget. Why am I here? I'm here instead to offer as a substitute the budget that passed the Senate Budget Committee last week. It's the first budget to be taken up by the Senate, I believe, in 4 years. I would like to think it's a direct result of the bipartisan action that this body took several weeks ago in passing No Budget, No Pay. The Senate assures us, Mr. Chairman, they were going to do a budget anyway. I took them at their word. And I'm glad that this body was able to pass out No Budget, No Pay in order to give them the additional incentive to do that. What have they done? What has the Senate offered us? What did the Senate pass out of committee last week on entirely partisan lines? They offered us a budget that increases taxes by $900 billion over the tax window. In fact, that's the smallest amount. That's the amount they admit to. If you take the Senate committee at their word, they also want to undo the sequester and add an additional $100 billion worth of stimulus money, and they want to do that without impacting the deficit. You can safely assume, I believe, that it's $1.5 trillion, not $900 billion, but $1.5 trillion in new taxes out of our colleagues in the Senate on the Democratic committee. They increased spending by $265 billion over the baseline over the next decade, and they also spend $4.9 trillion more than does the Republican budget that we'll offer later today. Their spending, as offered in their budget, grows by 4.7 percent annually, one of the highest rates of growth other than the last several years in the history of the Nation. The deficit, according to their budget, in the year 2023, will be $566 billion. In contrast, the budget that we will be offering will be surplus in 2023. It will finally allow us to start paying down the debt; and there are no significant reforms at all in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. How you can have a vision for this country going forward and not at least discuss possible and reasonable reforms to those programs is beyond me, but somehow it passed out of the Senate committee. Defense is cut by an additional quarter of a trillion dollars over the sequester cuts that we've already had and over the reductions that the Defense Department voluntarily took upon itself during the last budget process. Now, I've come before this body before, Mr. Chairman, and encouraged this body, in a bipartisan fashion, to look to the Defense Department as possible ways to save money, under the belief that there must be some money in the Defense Department that can be saved in a responsible fashion. What the Senate has done goes so far beyond that that it's hard to fathom--an additional quarter of a trillion dollars in defense spending reductions over the next 10 years. Finally, perhaps most tellingly and most importantly, the Senate budget never balances--ever. It never balances. What does that say? They have no plan for ever repaying the debt. You cannot repay the debt until we start moving to surplus, and any budget that never goes to surplus never pays down the debt. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you borrow money from people and are never intending to pay it back, you're not borrowing it from them--you're stealing it from them. That's exactly what this budget contemplates: borrowing money and borrowing money with no intention--a stated position of no intention-- to ever be able to pay the money back. I'm glad they did it. I'm glad to think that they did it of their own accord without ``no budget-no pay'' hanging over their heads, and I applaud them for at least taking the first step in the last 4 years to put forth their vision of spending and of what the future of this country should hold. At the same time, I think it's incumbent upon us to have this debate and then to send a very strong message to the Senate that their ideas are not the right ideas for this country. I hope we get a chance to debate this further. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. MULVANEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the last time I was at this table and was accused of doing something for a political stunt or a gimmick was for No Budget, No Pay. So I'll take those criticisms because I think we were able to move in the right direction with that particular bill. I would simply ask my friend if he's more bothered by this political stunt or by the stunt being perpetrated by the President of the United States for not offering a budget. We had time to do one. He had time to do one. The President clearly had time to do one and is intentionally not delivering it to us, and I think that does a disservice to the entire process. Finally, all of that said, I want to thank my friend from Maryland for reminding us once again that only in Washington, D.C., can a cut never cut, can a freeze never freeze, and a balanced approach to a budget never balance. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and mark the passing of Sergeant First Class L.C. Rice, one of my constituents, a highly decorated veteran, and a true servant of our nation. SFC Rice was born in Greer, SC, in 1923, the son of the late Bunyon Clinton Rice and the late Tenie Jane Beaver Rice. L.C. Rice grew up during the Depression, so after completing the lower grades, he went to work. In January 1941, SFC Rice joined the Navy at the age of 17. He was a machinist mate stationed on the USS Pennsylvania at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on the morning of December 7, 1941. His ship was in dry dock when it was attacked, and all weapons and ammunition had been removed. SFC Rice spent that day ``which shall live in infamy'' rescuing the wounded and collecting the dead. Next, SFC Rice was sent on a secret mission to deliver the cruiser USS Milwaukee to the Russians. His family could not be told where he was, and he was gone for so long they believed him missing in action. Later, he was stationed on a ship off the coast of Normandy, which was torpedoed and sank beneath him. Although he was hit by shrapnel, he swam through the debris and made it to shore, rescuing others along the way. Once on land, L.C. was given a rifle and helped fight against the Nazis. During World War II, he served both in naval and ground combat in both the Pacific and the European theatres. SFC Rice also participated in the Pacific Island campaigns and was part of the atomic bomb tests at the Bikini Atoll in 1946. For his service to our nation, SFC Rice was awarded the Purple Heart. After his service in the Navy, SFC Rice joined the Army's 82nd Airborne and became a master parachutist, drill sergeant and jumpmaster, completing more than 1500 jumps. He served two combat tours in Korea and won a bronze star for bravery. SFC Rice was instrumental in forming the Army's ``Golden Knights'' official parachute team, and was one of the first military advisors sent to South Vietnam during the Vietnam War to train their soldiers. SFC Rice also trained soldiers at Fort Jackson and Fort Bragg. SFC Rice retired from active duty in 1963 and from reserve duty in 1973, after 32 years of military service during three separate wars. SFC Rice is York County's most decorated soldier. After retirement, L.C. devoted nearly all his time to the Rock Hill VFW, the American Legion, the Honor Guard, and to veterans in general. SFC Rice was interred with full military honors on February 15, 2013, in Rock Hill, SC. L.C. Rice was the widower of Jeanie Rice and Edna ``Jan'' Biles Rice. He was the last survivor of 11 children, six sisters and four brothers. He is survived by 11 nieces, 10 nephews, and many loyal friends and devoted caregivers. L.C. Rice was an American Hero. He was truly on the front lines of the generation that saved America and the World. We will remember L.C. not only for his bravery and service to our country, but more importantly, as a dear friend. My thoughts and prayers are with L.C.'s family and for all those who knew him and share in the pain of his loss.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you for the opportunity to the chairman and the ranking member. I want to make it very clear what this amendment is and what this amendment is not. This amendment is not about delay. This amendment is not about offering a poison pill to the underlying bill. This amendment is not about preventing money from going where it is very desperately needed. I want that to happen. I want these folks who need this money to get it. I live in an area that is hurricane-prone. I have lived through hurricanes myself. I have lived through floods myself. I have waded through chest-high water full of snakes and human waste to get into my own business. I've been able to take advantage of and to use, to rebuild a small business, a small business disaster loan. I want the money to go where it needs to go. I'm here for one reason and one reason only today, Madam Chair, and that is to talk about how we can pay for it. That's it. There was a time when we didn't have to have this conversation. There was a time back during Hurricane Hugo in the late 1980s where we didn't have to talk about how to pay for disaster assistance because the deficit was only $3 trillion. But we've so badly mismanaged our money after that, that by the time we got to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, that we actually did start talking about offsetting and paying for disaster relief and paid for and offset about 40 percent of it. But we didn't learn. We didn't learn from those mistakes, and we've continued to mismanage our money and to run up our deficit to such a point now where it's $16 trillion today, and it is incumbent upon us to have the discussion about whether or not we have the money to do this and whether or not it's important enough to us to pay for it. I wish very much that we weren't here today, I wish very much that we could pass this and easily borrow the money without any questions whatsoever, but we've wasted that opportunity. We've mismanaged our own finances to the point where we are now no longer capable of taking care of our own. Think about that for a second. In the United States of America, we do not have enough money to take care of our own citizens who need it. There's no rainy day fund. There's no savings. What ability we had to borrow money we blew through several years ago with trillion dollar deficits. We don't have enough money saved up to take care of our own people, and that's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. It is important to me that this money goes to the folks who need it very badly. It's so important to me that I think we should pay for it. I think we should be willing, as a body, to come together and say, Look, there are things that we do not need this year, things that we can do without this year so that the people in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut and the other States who so badly need the money can have it, without us having to go hat-in-hand to other nations of this world and say, Would you please lend us money so that we can take care of our folks who need it so badly? I hope the amendment passes. I hope the amendment passes so that I can vote for the bill. I want this money to go where it is so desperately needed. But the time has come and gone in this Nation when we can walk in here one day and spend $9 billion or $17 billion or $60 billion and not think about who's paying for it. This is important money. It's important to you, it's important to me, and it's important to everyone in here. But it's important enough for us to pay for it ourselves. For that reason, I encourage passage of this amendment and passage ultimately of the underlying bill. With that, I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 45 seconds to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY. In closing, Madam Chair, I would just say I don't like across-the-board cuts any more than anybody else does. I offered other alternatives. They were ruled out of order. But I would put it to my colleagues, just tell me what you're willing to do without. Are we willing and able to do without anything so that these people can get this money this year? That's the question that I want to debate. That's what I'm looking for for my colleagues across the aisle. Are there no savings, are there no reductions that we could put in place this year so these folks get this money? With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 4 I missed rollcall No. 4 on January 3, 2013. I was with my family and unable to make it to the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5, I missed rollcall No. 5 on January 3, 2013. I was with my family and unable to make it to the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 6, I missed rollcall number 6 on January 3, 2013. I was with my family and unable to make it to the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and mark the passing of Mrs. Joan Schlaudt Wheeler, one of my constituents and a matriarch of the Cherokee County, South Carolina Republican Party. Mrs. Wheeler was born in Cleburn, Texas, in 1927 to Edo Schlaudt and Marjorie Nail Schlaudt. Mrs. Wheeler was a very intelligent woman who valued education as one of the most reliable assets a person can possess. She graduated from Montreat and Converse Colleges, and worked as a teacher in York County, South Carolina. She particularly loved history and government, so her life-long dedication to public service came as no surprise. For more than 20 years, Mrs. Wheeler was active in community concerns and local politics, fighting for her convictions even if at times they were unpopular. She fought to stop the damming of Broad River, led a group to stop wasteful school spending and halt a public school building program, and worked to stop a landfill in the McKowns Mountain community. Most notably, she was an alternate delegate to the Republican Convention in 2000, and served as the chair of the local Republican Party for seven years. During her chairmanship, the party increased both its membership and visibility, and started a scholarship program for Gaffney and Blacksburg High School seniors. Mrs. Wheeler always had the best interests of her community at heart. Mrs. Wheeler was often recognized for her public service. She received the Woman of the Year award for the South Carolina Federation of Republican Women. She was the first recipient of the Palmetto Elephant award for the S.C.G.O.P. In 2010, Governor Mark Sanford presented Mrs. Wheeler with The Order of the Palmetto, the highest civilian honor in my State, recognizing a person's lifetime achievements and contributions to South Carolina. Mrs. Wheeler was also a woman dedicated to her family. She is survived by her husband of 63 years, George Wheeler, and four children--David, Tom, Mary Lois and Jan. We will remember Mrs. Wheeler not only for her convictions and her work to improve the lives of others, but more importantly, as a dear friend. My thoughts and prayers are with Joan's family and for all those who knew her and share in her loss.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I saw the gentleman from Maryland this morning on television. It was the first time I had heard, Madam Speaker, of his proposal. So I had a chance to take a look at it today, and I also had a chance to look at the CBO report that was performed on it. I saw some interesting things that I don't know if we've discussed fully here today. It raises taxes by $85 billion over the 10-year window. According to the CBO, it raises spending by almost $80 billion. This is a refrain that I used to hear a lot when I was younger--taxes and spending, taxes and spending, raise taxes and increase spending. I thought it was gone from today's party across the aisle, but evidently, here it is--alive and well--in Mr. Van Hollen's substitute offering, raising taxes by $85 billion and raising spending by $80 billion, which is a net reduction of the deficit of $5 billion over 10 years. According to the CBO, it actually increases the deficit by $55 billion in the first year. It does that, by the way, in part and parcel by offering what they call the Buffett rule. The last time I came to this well, I believe the gentleman from Maryland and I had a nice exchange about whether or not my amendment was a gimmick. It was the amendment regarding the President's budget. I seem to remember someone else calling the Buffett rule a gimmick. In my research in coming over here today, I found out that it was, in fact, the President of the United States who called the Buffett rule a gimmick. So I'm wondering now if the President believes that part of the gentleman from Maryland's offering is, in fact, a gimmick because it encompasses the Buffett rule in its entirety. I compare all of this, Madam Speaker, to the offering that we have before you with our bill. That bill reduces the deficit by at least $237 billion over the same 10 years. Theirs reduces it by $5 billion-- raising taxes. According to the CBO, ours reduces the deficit by at least $237 billion. That's the smallest number the CBO gives us. It also gives us four times as much in deficit reduction in the first year as does the BCA that it seeks to replace. Again, theirs increases the deficit by $55 billion in the first year. Ours decreases it by more than the BCA it seeks to replace. Our offering does that without asking anybody to pay more money to the government. People pay enough money to the government. We spend their money improperly. It's not that we don't take enough from them. We take enough money from our citizens. We spend it improperly. So, when I finished looking at this, I thought to myself, I think it would be great to have this come up for a vote. I'm disappointed that the Rules Committee did not give Mr. Van Hollen the chance to bring it to the floor. It has happened to me before, and for that, I am sympathetic. At the same time, I know that he has a chance to do that still. We are going to finish this debate here in a few minutes; and before we vote, there is going to be a motion to recommit. The gentleman from Maryland could easily offer his amendment as the motion to recommit. In fact, I would welcome the opportunity to see that debate. I would welcome the opportunity here, 60 days before an election, to have my colleagues across the aisle come over and say, We want to raise your taxes. Would you please reelect us. I want that on the floor. I'm disappointed the Rules Committee did not bring it. I would love to see if that's really what our colleagues across the aisle stand for. I heard it described by the gentlelady from California a few minutes ago as a better plan. I think we are doing a disservice by not allowing a vote on this particular bill, because it is not a better plan, and I think the vote here would bear that out, not just on our side of the aisle. I would be curious to see if that's what our colleagues stand for--more taxes, more spending here 60 days before an election. I encourage folks to support our bill. Our bill cuts spending, lets people keep their money, and still allows us to end the sequester.

Mr. MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MULVANEY. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MULVANEY. The amendment is fairly simple. It's an amendment to seek to freeze defense spending for 1 single year. It is not a cut. Only in Washington, D.C., could we spend more money from one year to the next and call it a cut. This is not a ``cut'' amendment. This is an amendment to freeze spending for 1 year. It is an amendment to set the base defense spending levels at $518 billion, the exact same amount as last year's appropriation that was approved just a few months ago. It is $2 billion above what the Pentagon asked for. It is also $2 billion above what the President asked for. While the amendment gives control to the generals over the spending, it still protects military pay, the Defense Health Program, and the war budget. We've heard arguments in favor of a 1-year freeze before. This amendment is entirely consistent with the Simpson-Bowles plan, and it is entirely consistent with the Domenici-Rivlin plan. What arguments will we hear against it? We may hear, as we've heard earlier today, that the defense budget has already been cut $39 billion over the last 2 years. This is the base defense budget for the last 2 years and the base defense budget in this year. The base defense spending has gone up from 2011 to 2012. If the bill passes unamended, it will go up again this year. Only in Washington, D.C., is that considered a $39 billion cut. We may hear that the CBO says that the Pentagon is still $9 billion short based upon a report they released earlier this month. I have the report. The report reads: To execute its base-budget plans for 2013, the Department would require appropriations 1.4 percent less than last year's appropriation. We may also hear the argument that this amendment would compromise our defense in some fashion. That can only be true if the same exact appropriation that we passed just 6 months ago put our defense at risk, because this is the exact same spending level as we established 6 months ago. The one thing we do know is that even with this amendment, if this amendment would pass, we will be spending more on defense spending than the Pentagon asked for and that the President asked for, and we will be spending exactly the same as we did last year. We've heard a lot in the last day or two about ``austerity.'' It's another word that, I think, has lost its traditional meaning. It means something different in Washington than it does back home. ``Austerity,'' to me, means spending less. Total discretionary spending will be up this year. Total mandatory spending will be up this year. Total government spending will be up this year. We are still facing a $1 trillion deficit by the time that this year is over. We need to do better in getting our spending under control. It is easy to cut things that we do not like on both sides of the aisle; it is hard to cut things that we like. The defense of this Nation means a tremendous amount to me, as I know it means to every Member of this Chamber. If I thought for a second that this amendment would put a single soldier at risk, if I thought for a second that this amendment would put a single citizen at risk, I would take it down immediately. All it does is freeze spending from last year. If we cannot do that simple task, do we really think we have an honest chance of solving our debts and our deficit problems? With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the gentleman from California. I rise very briefly to respond to a few points made by my colleague and friend from New Jersey. Yes, North Korea is a threat. Yes, Iran is a difficulty. Yes, China's role in the world is growing, and we will need to deal with that. No, Syria was not a problem last year, but Egypt was. All of these were challenges to us last year. All of these were challenges to us just 6 months ago when we set the base Defense appropriation at $518 billion, and $518 billion was good enough 6 months ago. It should be good enough today. I received a letter regarding this particular amendment, and it used a lot of the same language the gentleman from New Jersey did. It mentioned that these were real cuts already, that the cuts we have put in place regarding the defense budget were real cuts, not cuts in future growth. This is the CBO's estimate of the defense-based budget for the next 15 or 20 years. Can someone please show me in this dark line, which is the base budget, where the cuts are? Because in my world, when we cut spending, those graphs go down. The only reductions that we have seen, the only real reductions that we have seen in defense spending are in the overseas on the global war on terror, which we all agree was a good thing because it came as a result of winding up operations in Iraq and reducing operations in Afghanistan. But what we do in this town is when we increase spending on the global war on terror, we don't count it as an increase; but when we cut spending on that same thing, we do count it as a cut, and that is simply not right. It's not fair, and it's not honest with people back home. We should tell people how we spend their money. To sit here and say that the cuts that the Defense Department has incurred already are real cuts is not accurate. The sequester is. This is not a debate about the sequester, because I am as opposed to the sequester as anybody in this room. I have voted several times to replace it with spending reductions in other places. That's not what this discussion is about. This is about whether or not the $518 billion that was good enough 6 months ago is good enough today. With that, I ask once again for support for the amendment.

Mr. MULVANEY. This is a follow-up amendment to an amendment that I had offered and we had a chance to debate, and once again I thank the chairman for the opportunity yesterday to discuss the issue before the amendment was ruled out of order. As you recall, very briefly, $5.6 billion this year has been moved out of the base defense budget and into the war budget. It violates a policy that we have tried to follow in this House since 9/11, and actually violates a policy that the bill, itself, says we should not violate going forward, beginning in 2014. I simply tried to draw attention to that in yesterday's amendment which was ruled out of order. This amendment deals with the exact same thing, and it simply takes that $5.6 billion out of the budget and puts it right back in, which sounds like a strange thing to do, but it's the only way within the rules to draw attention to the fact that this $5.6 billion is in the war budget when it actually should be in the base defense budget. This is not a spending amendment; this is a good-governance amendment. This is not a spending amendment; it is an accountability amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. Mr. Jordan from Ohio and Mr. Welch from Vermont are amongst those joining me in sponsoring this particular amendment. Again, this is a good-government amendment, and I would think that it would have bipartisan support. I ask for its support. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.