|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Dec 23, 2005 14:44:32 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
I'd like to introduce the following Amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Speaker Hastert on Dec 23, 2005 23:22:42 GMT -5
The Amendment is recognized. 24 Hours to vote. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Present.
*gavel*
|
|
|
|
Post by Hank Goodwin on Dec 24, 2005 5:05:04 GMT -5
I must say a few words to explain myself here, as I find that I must vote against this amendment. An explanation is necessary because Mr. McLaughlin has not only done much good work recently to attempt to construct a worthy budget that pleases all appropriate interests, but has proven to be a great supporter of American farmers in this debate. Indeed, his amendment here is a step in the right direction, clearly preferable to the alternative that has recently passed the Senate. However, I feel that it still falls short, mostly because while moving a direct grant system is vastly preferable to simply eliminating all farm support whatsoever, it still does not fully replace the effect of the loss of our current system on America's farmers.
A much more comprehensive system will need to be devised that can be quickly defined on a broad budget, so I contend that our best strategy would be to simply let the apropriation stand as is, with no set limitations at this point. I have recently been consulting many agricultural experts, farmers, and other agricultural organizations in an attempt to create a more comprehensive bill on this subject. I hope to submit my work for valuable contributions from my colleagues here soon. It is my hope that this bill will be able to provide the needed support for farmers, provide both stability and flexibility in our agriculutral economy, and set us on a course towards a more market-based system that may one day free us from almost all farm subsidies. I also believe that all of this can be done for less than the total 26 billion dollar apropriation, allowing us to return some of that money for the further reduction of our national debt. However, the complexities of such a bill make it impossible to accomplish in such an abbreviated form, so I hope we can preserve this entire amount without limits to give us a free hand as we conduct this crucial reform of our agricultural policies.
So, with all respect to the gentleman from Texas, I must vote nay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Hall (D-IA) on Dec 24, 2005 12:22:58 GMT -5
Nay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Hall (D-IA) on Dec 24, 2005 12:25:29 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
Though I may not, in the end, agree with the gentleman from Kansas' legislation - he is correct, in that agriculture is an issue that should be dealt with in a comprehensive bill. If we try and address the reforms that may be needed in the budget then it is impossible that we will do it justice. Let's leave this for seperate legislation.
I yield.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Dec 24, 2005 12:57:20 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
In light of the considerations of my colleagues, I withdraw the Amendment. Agriculture funding will have to be dealt in seperate legislation.
I yield.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Dec 24, 2005 12:58:30 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker, debate has expired. I call for a vote on the budget as it stands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Speaker Hastert on Dec 24, 2005 13:23:19 GMT -5
The Budget has been called to a vote. *gavel* Please vote aye, nay, or present.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Hall (D-IA) on Dec 24, 2005 13:26:51 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
Now is not the time to end debate. This budget, to put it bluntly, is a travesty to every value that Americans hold dear. For decades the Republican and Democratic parties have agreed on scant few things, but one of them is that it is in the United States' interest to promote home ownership by the multitude of people in this great nation. Though I can find little to admire about conservative policies - this is one that I think any person of any persuasion knows is good for America. Yet, the McLaughlin Amendment has eliminated the Housing Loan Program, which helps so many people get the funding they need to buy a home and truly experience the American dream.
In addition, there have been amendments added that cut 19% from environmental spending, 54% in transportation spending, 25% from aid to low income families. All the while, we see a 10% increase in military spending. 10% on a budget that already represents over $400 billion of this government's spending. Now, I believe fully that we must support our men in uniform, but this is absurd! We could easily cut projects out of our military budget that have no bearing on our ability to defend this nation, but this Administration has chosen not to do that and, instead, chooses to make victims out of the poorest of our citizens.
We can cut the deficit - I support cutting the deficit. Let us do it the same way that successful Administrations have done so in the past. Moderate spending cuts with moderate tax reform. It would not even be necessary to roll back all of President Bush's tax cuts - just the most extreme. If we slash spending or raise taxes exceptionally, we are targetting single groups specifically, either the rich or the poor, which will have an adverse affect on both. Let's have everyone be in this together and do a bit of both - which will be better for our economy and better for the people of this nation.
I yield.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Hall (D-IA) on Dec 24, 2005 13:27:19 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
Apologies - I did not realize you had called the question.
I yield.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Hall (D-IA) on Dec 24, 2005 13:27:55 GMT -5
Nay on the budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Retton on Dec 25, 2005 19:50:07 GMT -5
Nay on the budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickmclaughlin on Dec 27, 2005 0:19:26 GMT -5
Aye on the budget.
|
|
C August Swift
Democrats 
Christian Coalition's Worst Nightmare
Posts: 34
|
Post by C August Swift on Dec 27, 2005 0:44:11 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hank Goodwin on Dec 27, 2005 8:36:44 GMT -5
Aye
|
|
