Jason Smith

Mr. SMITH of Missouri

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, rewards the political class, not the working class; that should be the name of this bailout plan. When our Democrat colleagues got together to describe how to proceed on additional COVID-19 spending, they could have done a number of things. They should have followed the bipartisan precedent set over the past year and worked across the aisle. Instead, they chose a purely partisan process to jam through a radical agenda, putting the political class ahead of America's working class. They could have looked at the data coming out of the Congressional Budget Office. Had they done so, they would have seen that, absent any new funding, the economy is projected to reach prepandemic levels of real GDP growth by the middle of this year. Further, they would have seen that without this bailout, America is already projected to see its largest GDP growth in 15 years. Instead, they ignored the data, just like they have ignored the science. And they now hope that their bailout plan gets credit for an economic recovery that CBO tells us is already underway. They could have accounted for the approximately $1 trillion in COVID- 19 money Congress already appropriated in a bipartisan approach but which has not been spent yet. Instead, they ignored calls to provide an accurate and thorough accounting of unspent funds. Now, they are charging American taxpayers another $2 trillion. They could have focused on timely and targeted relief to support those that are most in need, to reopen schools in our communities and storefronts on Main Street, and to crush the virus and put shots in Americans' arms. Instead, less than 9 percent of this bailout goes to crushing the virus and dispensing vaccines. Only 5 percent of the K-12 education funding will be spent this year, even as Americans are told this money is needed to reopen their children's schools. Of course, Democrat leaders are more than willing to spend hundreds of billions to bail out States, sending a disproportionate share of that money to those States run by their political buddies that will reward and incentivize further lockdowns. Just look at how they changed the State funding formula. California, where revenues are, in fact, up, and they are sitting on a surplus of $10-plus billion, will now get billions more than they otherwise would have, a direct reward to the Speaker and Vice President's home State. It was all so predictable, really. From the very beginning of this process, Republicans have been saying that this bailout was never about COVID relief but, rather, about Democrats trying to notch some wins for their political base, to appease their allies rather than help Americans. Amazingly, Democrats are not even shy now about admitting that fact. The White House Chief of Staff has called this bill the ``most progressive domestic legislation in a generation.'' Leader Schumer, in the Senate, called it ``one of the most progressive pieces of legislation . . . in decades.'' We are here today, Mr. Speaker, because Democrats made a choice, a choice to put their own partisan political ambitions ahead of the needs of the working class, ahead of the needs of the American people. When our Democrat colleagues speak of unity, they mean keeping their party together, not pulling this country together. That is why we have before us this wrong plan at the wrong time for so many wrong reasons. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California. I will remind her that if this bill were enacted, her State's 6 million seniors would see a cut of Medicare of over $44 billion in the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina, and I will remind him that if this bill becomes law, the 1 million seniors in his State will face a $7 billion cut over the next 10 years to Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Nevada. I will remind him that with this bill, if it is signed into law, his 500,000 seniors will face a $3 billion cut to Medicare. So his vote today will cost a $3 billion cut to the seniors of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure. This Chamber may not have heard, but under the leadership of President Trump, in 2019, we hit the lowest poverty ever--lowest poverty. So thank you, President Trump. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have filed hundreds and hundreds of amendments. All but two were voted down. This is clearly a partisan plan that is the wrong plan at the wrong time for all the wrong reasons. If you take out the direct checks to Americans, almost half of all the money that is in this bill will not be spent until fiscal year 2022 or later. This is not imminent. It is the wrong plan at the wrong time and, we know, for all the wrong reasons. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I will remind him that if this bill were enacted, his State's 2.7 million seniors would face a $17 billion cut in Medicare over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California. I would just like to point out that, out of her 6 million seniors, this bill will cut $44 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years--10 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I will remind the gentleman from New York, if this bill is enacted, his State's 3 million seniors will face a cut to Medicare of $27 billion over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here today because Washington Democrats have gotten together and decided to use a global pandemic as an excuse to check a few items off their progressive wish list. They want to reward their political allies at the expense of America's working class. If this bailout is about crushing the virus, then why does less than 9 percent actually go towards putting shots in people's arms? If this bailout is about quickly reopening our schools, then why is less than 5 percent of the money for schools going to be spent this year? If this bailout is about helping workers and families, then why does this plan continue to incentivize Governors to keep small businesses shut down? Why does 25 percent of all spending go towards policies that will kill jobs and reduce hours worked? Simply put, this is the wrong plan at the wrong time for all the wrong reasons. It is the wrong plan because Americans living on fixed incomes, including 31 million seniors who are on fixed Social Security, will be forced to pay more out of pocket to buy food, put clothes on their backs, and to keep the lights on. Seniors will now have to decide to turn on heat or pay for the needed medication. It is the wrong time because Democratic economists and the Congressional Budget Office are warning that this spending isn't needed and that, by the middle of the year, our real GDP will have recovered and we will have our largest economic growth in 15 years. It is the wrong time because when you combine this bill with the COVID-19 money that has already been enacted, the sum is more than the GDP of every country in the world except China and the United States, and $1 trillion of already enacted spending still remains. So what is the reason for this bailout? It is all about rewarding political allies and bailouts to blue States. Democrats even changed the funding formula to reward States that severely lock down their citizens and boarded up Main Street. Using a pandemic to push things like the $15 Washington mandate, an expansion of ObamaCare, and billions on political payouts around this country is the real reason for this bailout. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look beyond their agenda and think about the working class. They want the schools reopened, to be able to go back to work, vaccines to keep their families safe, and end to this pandemic. All of that can happen without this bailout plan if we focus on what the American people need and not what one political party desperately wants. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), who will be the next Speaker of the House.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a recent letter from the Congressional Budget Office shows that if this bailout plan is enacted, the Medicare benefits for seniors will be cut by $36 million starting in fiscal year 2022 and every year for the next 10 years. I include in the Record a letter that confirms the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 will cause billions of dollars of cuts to Medicare. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, February 25, 2021. Re: Potential Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effects of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Leader McCarthy: This letter responds to your request for information about whether a sequestration (or cancellation of budgetary resources) could be triggered in accordance with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO) if the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (as posted on the website of the House Committee on Rules on February 19, 2021) was enacted. CBO estimates that the legislation would increase deficits by $1.9 trillion over the 2021-2031 period. Under statutory PAYGO, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to maintain 5- and 10-year scorecards that report the estimated cumulative changes in revenues and outlays generated by new legislation. If either scorecard indicates a net increase in the deficit, OMB is required to order a sequestration to eliminate the overage. The balance used to determine the amount of a sequestration is not the projected increase in the deficit for that particular year. Rather, the PAYGO scorecards identify average annual effects of legislation over the 5- and 10-year periods and assign that average to each year in the period. Before an average is calculated, any current-year effects are combined with those for the budget year. CBO has analyzed the implications of enacting the American Rescue Plan, which, by CBO's estimate, would increase deficits by $1.9 trillion (including current-year effects) over both a 5-year period and a 10-year period, assuming that no further legislation to offset that increase was enacted. In accordance with the PAYGO law, OMB would record the average annual deficit on its scorecard, showing deficit increases of $381 billion per year for five years, if its estimate of the act's effects was the same as CBO's. If the bill was enacted before the end of the calendar year, that amount would be added to the PAYGO scorecard, which currently carries no balances for 2021 or any subsequent years. Without enactment of subsequent legislation that would offset the deficit increase, waive the recordation of the bill's effects on the scorecard, or otherwise mitigate or eliminate the statutory PAYGO requirements, OMB would be required to issue a sequestration order within 15 days of the end of the Congressional session to reduce spending in fiscal year 2022 by $381 billion, CBO estimates. However, the PAYGO law limits reductions in Medicare spending to four percentage points (or an estimated $36 billion for that year), leaving $345 billion to be sequestered from the remaining mandatory accounts. Because the law entirely exempts many large accounts, including low-income programs and Social Security, in CBO's estimation, the annual resources available from which OMB must draw would total between $80 billion and $90 billion--significantly less than the amount that would be required to be sequestered. Because the required reduction in spending would exceed the estimated amount of available resources in each year over the next 10 years, in the absence of further legislation, OMB would be unable to fully implement the outlay reductions required by the PAYGO law. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Avi Lerner. Sincerely, Phillip L. Swagel, Director.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, in Missouri, we have this phrase that says: You are all hat and no cattle. That is what this legislation is. It is all hat and no cattle. We just had the Speaker speak right before me and said this piece of legislation is all about getting vaccines and shots in people's arms. Let me tell you, less than 10 percent of the money that is appropriated in this piece of legislation actually goes to vaccines and shots. It is 9 percent. That is all hat and no cattle, what we say in Missouri. If you are actually wanting to make sure that Americans have shots and vaccinations, do your job, not the lip service. If we really want to help American people, we should focus on lifting the burden of government influence and interference on the lives and off of the backs of working-class Americans. At a time of great division in this country, we ought to be conscious of the fact that how we govern in this body can serve to unite us, or it can divide us further. The only thing that has been bipartisan this week is bipartisan opposition to the bill. Not one Republican voted for it, but Democrats voted against it. One piece of this debate that is increasingly obvious and concerning to me is how our Democrat colleagues are pushing legislation that will rescue or reward their political allies in blue State capitals across this country. How else does one explain the billions in bailouts they have proposed for State governments that have locked down their local economies? They have told Main Street to board up and left families struggling even more to make ends meet. We should be looking to help working-class families by reopening schools, ending small business lock-downs, and allowing Americans to get back to work. Hardworking American families would also appreciate a White House that focuses more on job creation and economic opportunity instead of continuously issuing executive orders, firing American workers, and increasing the cost of living in this country. One truly disturbing part of the resolution before us today is that this resolution repeals the supermajority waiver requirement for unfunded mandates, making it easier for the Senate to impose mandates on our States and local communities on a partisan basis, now with only a simple majority waiver required. This paves the way for Democrats to enact sweeping policies that will make the cost of living more expensive, and it will give Washington bureaucrats power over the American people and harm the working class. Under this resolution, Democrats with a mere 51 votes could force States to provide healthcare to illegal immigrants under Medicaid. They could also take away States' ability to ensure Federal carbon mandates don't kill jobs and devastate local economies. Ironically, the same folks who want to bail out State governments today to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars will be able under the new rules to stick States with costly massive unfunded mandates for the long term. It makes zero sense. House Democrats are driving full speed ahead toward radical policies that will kill jobs and hurt the working class. It is past time to put politics aside and focus on the real needs of all Americans. Madam Speaker, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on policies that will support the American working class.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz), a true patriot.