| Welcome to Virtual America. We hope you enjoy your visit. If you're looking to join and sign up for the first time, register here! You'll want to familiarize yourself with the rules of Virtual America which you can find here. And you'll want to read up on how to sign in and create your character here. After all than you can sign in and get to playing! We're all friends here and we're certain you'll enjoy it here at Virtual America! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| HR 45 Efficient Government Act | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 5 Jun 2013, 10:58 AM (201 Views) | |
| Heather Holson | 5 Jun 2013, 10:58 AM Post #1 |
![]()
|
48 hours for debate.
|
![]() |
|
| Daniel Hernandez | 5 Jun 2013, 03:50 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Wielder of the Gavel
|
Rick Thomas Madame Speaker, This is a common sense piece of legislation, one that reduces government spending without sacrificing vital services which our fellow citizens have come to depend upon. Accordingly, I request unanimous consent on passage of this legislation. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Brenninger | 5 Jun 2013, 03:54 PM Post #3 |
![]()
#Swaggy
|
Madame Speaker, I object. I yield |
![]() |
|
| peter | 5 Jun 2013, 04:18 PM Post #4 |
|
Lucas for President: Take Back America!
|
Madam Speaker Here is my thought for the day for the majority *Picks up a bookmarked dictionary* "Debate: to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly to deliberate; consider." *Puts down book and looks up* Strangely, there is no mention of automatically rejecting an idea because someone else came up with it. For once, let's debate. If you don't like this Bill, that's fine. But at least say why. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| TheJohnson | 5 Jun 2013, 04:47 PM Post #5 |
![]()
|
Mme. Speaker My colleague from Texas can't possibly expect the majority party to defend their positions through debate? I am not even sure our majority party is capable of such thing. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Nick | 5 Jun 2013, 05:04 PM Post #6 |
|
Madame Speaker, I regret how rarely I tend to speak during debates, it would be nice to have more representatives who care more about -- I don't know, policy, than 30-second sound bites. Kudos to the minority, however, they've managed to pull a slam dunk in the hypocrisy section today, and it's been awhile, for them. The "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011" came up to debate last Congress. A request for unanimous consent was made, and granted, and then a Republican member of this body objected, stating, only:
Also, nowhere does it say that one must provide a reasoning for their objection. Not only are members of the minority party guilty of simply objecting themselves, I remind them that the rules don't indicate that a representative must provide a reasoning. Yes, I would like to hear the Gentleman from Colorado's explanation, but the fact that the minority party is up in arms over this is appalling. Especially given that their party, in the Senate, is making up rules of their own over there as the majority party. I don't know what's going on in RNC headquarters nowadays, but maybe it's "too" grand of a party. The minority party's lack of respect for the fundamentals of debate prove, at least to me, that they're not mature enough to even handle a debate. While I am not necessarily opposed to this bill, the conduct of the minority party is beyond troubling. I yield back the remainder of my time. |
![]() |
|
| Nick | 5 Jun 2013, 05:05 PM Post #7 |
|
Madame Speaker, I would simply add that my comments weren't even the most controversial of the words spoken on the floor today. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Brenninger | 5 Jun 2013, 05:21 PM Post #8 |
![]()
#Swaggy
|
Madame Speaker, I would like to say the hypocrisy of the Minority dismays me, but it does not. As my colleague from Illinois points out -- the minority party is just as prone to this sort of action. My opposition to this bill is simple, it cuts spending yes, but at what cost? The Department of Commerce employs 43,800, while the Department of the Treasury employs 115,800. The cuts have to be implemented somewhere and this bill will obviously cause some sort of lay-offs, that is not something I can support -- the lay off of thousands of Americans, indeed, middle class Americans. Jobs are what is needed in the time of recession. It is bad policy to cut so many well paying jobs, especially from those who need it most. That is not the only reason I object, I also object because this bill increases the workload for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Department of The Treasury by huge lengths, the minority claims they want increased efficiency and “less bureaucratic mess” this bill does neither, it decreases efficiency while slowing down every bureaucratic process imaginable. That, Madame Speaker, is why I objected. I yield |
![]() |
|
| Nick | 5 Jun 2013, 05:23 PM Post #9 |
|
Madame Speaker, I applaud the remarks of the Gentleman of Colorado. I wonder if my dear colleague from Texas could loan me his dictionary to see if the word "efficient" is synonymous with "job-killing" and "economically ignorant" -- it would seem to be that way. The Gentleman from Colorado is correct in his remarks, and I wholeheartedly support his decision to oppose this bill. This is not protecting government waste, it is protecting American workers. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| peter | 5 Jun 2013, 05:29 PM Post #10 |
|
Lucas for President: Take Back America!
|
Madam Speaker Of course efficiency means laying off some people. That's regrettable. But let's face facts: we are spending the better part of a trillion dollars a year more than we receive in revenues! That simply can not carry on. The function of the Government is not and should not be to employ people to do unnecessary work just so that they have jobs to do! I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Nick | 5 Jun 2013, 05:32 PM Post #11 |
|
Madame Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said, ""The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" I would say that there are 11 words even more terrifying: "I'm from the government, and I'm hanging you out to dry." The last thing our economy needs now, with 7.9% unemployment, is this bill. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Landry | 5 Jun 2013, 05:34 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Winter is Coming to the Red States
|
Madam Speaker, "Of course that means laying off some people. That's regrettable" says the gentleman from Texas. Perhaps he'd like to add "Then let them eat cake" to that sentiment? This is the same Minority that, time and again, carps on unemployment in the press and embraces those who believe we should abolish our social welfare system entirely. So tell me: where would the Minority have these patriotic Americans go when their hack-and-slash bill passes, if in fact it does? I yield. |
![]() |
|
| peter | 5 Jun 2013, 05:36 PM Post #13 |
|
Lucas for President: Take Back America!
|
Madam Speaker If the majority know how to eliminate the deficit with no job losses, I'm all ears. Otherwise, we need to accept that you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel Hernandez | 5 Jun 2013, 05:39 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Wielder of the Gavel
|
Rick Thomas Madame Speaker, First, I would like to comment on the demeaning and insulting nature of the majority's comments during this debate. Reasoned debate means having a basic respect for the sincerity of your opponents. Instead, before the gentleman from Colorado even stated his case, we heard from the gentlelady from Illinois who sought to demean and insult, simply it seems because those of us on this side of the aisle have a different idea. I would ask you to call the gentlelady to order, but asking for this majority to observe the rules of decorum would be a waste of time. Now, onto the matter at hand. The majority's basic argument against this legislation, it seems, is that because we have always spent money on a certain function or set of functions, that this should always be the case. The problem with that is twofold. Number one, I would argue that it leads to the very kind of inefficiency for which this government is known. Furthermore, such a practice continues spending billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars. If we can accomplish the same task with three employees in a more efficient manner and save the taxpayers money, why would we not do that? The majority is all for spending cuts. When presented with any sort of specific spending cut, however, the response is always "Well, not that kind of spending cut". It is time to set aside the politics of smoke and mirrors. We have before us a means whereby vital functions can be preserved while saving billions of dollars each year. These are the kinds of steps we must take, and the majority's refusal to even consider an idea which might make government more efficient is a powerful demonstration of why the American people can see they are the party which is for spending without regard to the future of the nation we were elected to serve. I yield the balance of my time. |
![]() |
|
| Nick | 5 Jun 2013, 05:40 PM Post #15 |
|
Madame Speaker, Don't bring me into a debate on taxes and the deficit and our budget -- I'll have too much fun pointing out the hypocrisy that oozes out of the Republican Caucus Room when it comes to that issue. Raising taxes on those Americans making over $1,000,000 will not lead to job losses. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Brenninger | 5 Jun 2013, 05:41 PM Post #16 |
![]()
#Swaggy
|
Madame Speaker, The sentiment put forth by my colleague from Texas is most disturbing. These are the types of comments that show that the Minority party is not fit to lead -- the government does have waste, that is very true. However, there are always ways to cut waste without killing jobs. This bill is not an example of this. This bill goes too far, cutting waste is essential but when it begins to interfere with our job numbers, especially with an unemployment rate hovering near 8% we begin to see problems. The hypocrisy of the minority party once again overwhelms me. We see them calling out the President and his administration for not doing enough to help our economy, but the fact is, our economy is improving, unemployment is going down, and the economy is getting better. The minority then turns around and proposes these types of bills -- bills that will cut thousands of jobs -- force thousands to rely on the government for assistance -- thousands who may descend into poverty. That is not the type of deficit reduction we need. I yield |
![]() |
|
| Terrus | 5 Jun 2013, 05:42 PM Post #17 |
![]()
|
Madame Speaker, The Efficient Government Act seeks to make government operations more efficient, a laudable effort, but its provisions fail to account for the complex work performed by various federal agencies. Furthermore, the authors of this legislation provide no empirical evidence that these amalgamations and transfers will do anything other than reduce effectiveness, especially given many of the effective cuts proposed. Therefore, I must rise in opposition to this bill, lest important services be needlessly curtailed. Rather than speak only in generalities, allow me to express my concerns with the major provisions of this bill, and with some of the minor provisions. Section 2 amalgamates the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Commerce, yet these cabinet agencies perform very different work. The Treasury Department overseas the fiscal operations of the federal government and regulates the financial industry, two important tasks that are very related. The Commerce Department promotes economic growth by investing in businesses, regulating certain important processes that effect many industries, and collecting information essential to policymaking. Treasury and Commerce may sound similar -- but in reality, they're as similar as the IRS is to the Census, and combining them is non-sensical. Section 3 transfers the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration to the Department of the Interior, which simply makes no sense to me. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration serves a number of purposes but its primary mission is to facilitate maritime commerce by providing important, up-to-date information regarding the ocean and the atmosphere. The Department of Commerce oversees the NOAA because the DoC, like the NOAA, is focused on promoting economic growth. The Department of the Interior by contrast manages federal lands and performs no work relating to the ocean; switching the NOAA there makes little sense as such. Now, combining the NOAA with NASA, that might be sensical, but that's not what's proposed here, despite the statements of the findings section. Section 4 eliminates a number of federal agencies that are inefficient or duplicative, yet it fails to take any action to safeguard those these programs do help. If a program is duplicative, it should be closed, but its funds should be transferred to the agencies it duplicates, not just withdrawn. And if a program is inefficient, we should discuss ways to reform it, or discuss ways to alternatively accomplish its mission, not just get rid of it. Section 5 amalgamates a number of agencies that facilitate international trade, yet it fails to address the fact that many of these agencies facilitate trade in extremely different ways. Section 5 additionally fails to maintain funding for international trade efforts, effectively halving funding for international trade efforts by providing only $500 million in funds to the new, amalgamated trade agency. No justification is provided for this, and I cannot think that one exists. Section 6 amalgamates the various statistical agencies of the federal government, which seems efficient, but in reality attempts to standardize extremely different information-gathering services. The Census performs vastly different work than the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which performs vastly different work than the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Combining these agencies will only create a management nightmare, while robbing various departments of experts that can be used on various other projects while also performing their statistical work. Section 7 eliminates the Office of Technical Assistance in the Department of the Treasury, closing a service that provides truly important aid to many federal agencies. The OTA does a lot more than it was intended to do, yes -- but that's a reason to keep it, not to lose it. Ultimately, this legislation laudably attempts to make our federal government more efficient, but in reality it only enacts amalgamations and eliminations that are sure to reduce effectiveness and increase inefficiency. I must oppose it as such. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Landry | 5 Jun 2013, 05:43 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Winter is Coming to the Red States
|
Madam Speaker, I presented a bill containing specific cuts and spending reductions that totaled $100 billion over ten years, which would appear to be far more than the bill on offer before us today. That bill was agreed to by this majority, so the gentleman from Texas' remarks are without basis. We object to these spending cuts because they are, ultimately, job-killing, middle-class attacking, and utterly nonsensical proposals. Bring forward something that won't kill middle-class jobs or reduce the efficiency of the federal government, and it will have my vote. Bring forward hack-and-slash efforts, and it will not. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| George Handy | 5 Jun 2013, 11:18 PM Post #19 |
![]()
|
Madame Speaker, The member for Texas' 6th said one thing right: this might make government more efficient. It is a very unlikely situation, but one that we shouldn't reject outright. Specially, if her definition of an efficient government is how much it spends. The Majority has a different definition - efficiency is how well the government does its job. Let me tell you straight - this bill will make government do a worse job, not a better one. The merger of the Treasury with Commerce is a ridiculous idea unworthy of the Republican Party's intellect. They so often point to best practice to highlight policies to emulate, well, it would do well to point out that no other government in advanced industrial nations have one single governmental division for both the Finance or Treasury and for the Economy. Even in Britain, where like here, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is seen as the key man responsible for the state of the economy, they have a separate Business Secretary. For once, may the Minority listen to their own arguments, and realize that their choices is either hypocrisy or to desist. The second point I'd like to raise concerns the merger of HHS, HUD and Labor. So often you hear the Republican Party rant about how government is unaccountable to people, how it is a bunch of distant bureaucrats. I couldn't think of a better way to make it worse myself! Smashing together these departments will lead to reduced public scrutiny for each department. We all know what happens when government isn't scrutinized or when businesses don't face competition. The result is sclerotic business and stifling government. That is the result of this bill, that is the result of the policies proposed by the Republican party. This bill is not about efficient government. It is about ineffective government, and how to make it more ineffective. Thanks, but no thanks. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Patrick Callaghan | 6 Jun 2013, 12:54 PM Post #20 |
|
New England Republican >:D
|
Madame Speaker, With all due respect to the lady from Georgia, I don't believe it should be the responsibility of the people from my district to pay for this body's desire to waste their tax dollars and bury them in debt in order to support public sector job growth in Washington. This legislation is a series of reforms that have been supported at a bipartisan level when former President Barack Obama supported merging the Treasury and the Department of Commerce. If we can't even agree to merge like minded departments so we can cut out waste and ensure efficiency then how exactly do we ever plan to reduce our budget deficit? Does the minority even care about the damage Washington has done to voters in my district because they can't bring our debt under control? There are consequences here and frankly I'm tired of the excuses while families in Massachusetts pay the price. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · House Debate Archives · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:19 PM Jul 11
|
Theme by Sith of the ZBTZ












4:19 PM Jul 11