Newne Carriebean7 wrote:United States House of Representatives
Representative Maxine Caroline Durant [R-MS-3]
Representative Maxine finally had her moment. If any could see on her face, she was, evidently, exhausted. But, she still had the gumption to show up to work, sit her ass in her chair and listen while the Speaker laid out the bill. The brief interlude did grant her a period of contemplation for the bill. She was still unsure as to where she would really lean on such a massive package, and so decided that popping some questions on the bill would be the most benifitical answer. She only wished and hoped that this was being broadcast on C-SPAN, so that people in her district and all over the nation would at least get a little clearer understanding of the bill.
With that, she swiftly stood up, holding a sheet of paper in one hand to ask away several questions about the massive spending bill that was stiffly standing on the House Docket.
"Mr. Speaker, I noticed the wording of certain sections of the bill, and would enjoy some clarification before we rush into things willy-nilly. With respect to the wording of "additional funding", that means that the funds will be added on top of what we've already set aside for the last Federal Budget, correct? So, if this is correct, this would mean that, instead of just spending say, 10 billion dollars for the RDOF, it instead allocates an extra 10 billion dollars on top of what the RDOF already has in it's coffers? How much spending per fiscal year would you say this legislation conducts? I'm well aware of the... One point Four trillion dollar price tag, but it is spread out over the 4 years of this year to 2025. Will that depend on future legislation passed, say a bill that will cut spending to, oh I don't know... the Poor people Drinking Water program. Say it cuts it by a quarter of a million. Will that mean there's just the additional $250,000,000 for the Poor People Drinking Program should the cut be approved by both bodies and signed into law as a 'cost cutting measure?
I am also gravely concerned as to the sheer amount of money we are allocating for personal checks. I understand that millions are currently looking for jobs and are out of work, but may I ask where you got the 1400 amount for the Individual Checks? I belive, and correct me If I am mistaken, but was there not negotiations between two thousand dollar checks and this was the resulting compromise? This bill, if passed, will have the immediate effect of flooding the national economy with 40-I mean 403 billion dollars into the hands of every single individual in this country. I ain't opposed to free money in principle, but is it really wise to grant millions of dredges on society the funds they'll need to squander them on booze and vice? I'd also like to know if you have a timeline of when the First Checks would go out should this legislation be signed into law. Finally, Why is there so much money being allocated twoards Child Abuse Prevention, both in the Grants and with respect to Title II. This is not to demean the critical role these programs play, but I'd like a reasonable explanation as to why there's 350,000,000 more of our tax dollars being allocated to these programs?"
United States House of Representatives
Representative Thomas Volker
(Republican- 8th Congressional District of Missouri)
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Not Presiding
“Regarding the question from the Representative for Mississippi’s 3rd Congressional District, I can confirm that ‘additional funding’ refers to is funding allocated in top of existing funding.”
“Furthermore, the decision to set stimulus checks at $1,400 was taken as a result of negotiations with multiple parties and was based on the estimated immediate needs of the American people. It is in many ways a blunt instrument yes but it is the single fastest measure we can us to get the American people tangible relief. This is of particular benefit to districts such as the Congresswomen’s own, where the median household income stands at roughly $50,000, or $11,000 below the nation average.”
“Moreover, cases of child abuse have substantially risen since the beginning of the downturn and the additional allocated funding is merely a means through which we can provide as robust a response as is possible in protecting America’s children whilst also addressing what has previously been an underfunded government.”
“If there are no objections, Mr Speaker, I motion to end the questioning period.”
