Interview With Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Well, I don't know yet, Jake, because I haven't seen the text. You know I'm not a big fan of in principle or frameworks. That's always a problem if you can't see the exact legislative text. And we're all trying to wade through spin right now. I think that's certainly what you heard from my good colleague on the other side of the aisle, is a lot of spin. But I think it's going to come down to what the legislative text is.
I think, at the end of the day, though, the American people have to understand that we are at the brink of default. We don't have a deal yet. We're not sure how many Republican votes can be produced. And it is all because Republicans said that they wanted to cut the deficit. And let's be clear that what they got from this was not that. They may have gotten other things.
I'm not happy with some of the things I'm hearing about, but they are not cutting the deficit and they are not cutting spending, because, if you think about the fact that they have agreed to increase Pentagon spending, number one, they have agreed to increase VA spending, number two, and while there are some fiscal calculations that are being made around what nondefense discretionary spending is -- and, by the way, for people that are listening to that -- that's a lot of mumbo jumbo.
That's basic spending on things like health care, education, childcare. All the things you care about is what Republicans want to cut. And they even took back $10 billion from the IRS that was supposed to go to taking on wealthy tax cheats in order to make regular Americans pay for wealthy people to be able to continue to get tax breaks.
So I think that you got to ask yourself, what was all the drama for? Because they didn't get what they said they wanted. We knew that was never actually what was on the table.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I don't know because I haven't seen the language.
And what -- first of all, let me say, terrible policy, absolutely terrible policy, does not reduce spend, actually, by some estimates, creates a burden on administrative spending that is actually worse for the overall cost of a program like that.
Number two, it is about people who are hungry, people who just need a little bit of temporary assistance. And we are one of the only countries in the world, if not the only country in the world, that is an industrialized country that puts any requirements on people who just want food, so very bad policy, does not save money, and, by the way, does not work. We have seen reams of data that show that, when you put these work requirements in, they're really just administrative red tape that prevent the people who need help from getting help.
What I'm not sure on and what I'm looking at right now -- and I need to see the legislative text -- is what it means in terms of the exemptions that were put in for veterans, for folks who are experiencing homelessness, for people who are coming out of foster care. Those are three exemptions that were included.
And so what do the numbers look like at the end of the day, I'm not sure. However, it is bad policy. I told the president that directly when he called me last week on Wednesday that this is saying to poor people and people who are in need that we don't trust them.
And the average amount of assistance for snap, for example, is $6 a day, Jake. I mean, we're talking about $6 a day. And I think it is really unfortunate that the president opened the door to this. And while, at the end of the day, perhaps this will -- because of the exemptions, perhaps it will be OK, I can't commit to that. I really don't know.
And our caucus -- and it's not just the progressives -- across the ideological spectrum, including Problem Solvers, by the way, people feel that this is bad policy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
So, it's very unfortunate that it's even made its way into the discussion, frankly.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Yes. I just -- I just...
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
That's right. That's right.
No, I just don't know because the numbers of people that are affected are -- is really what this is -- we have to look at that. And if there is -- anyway, I don't want to get into suppositions, because I just need to see the text. And that's the other thing.
How is it possible that we are at a place where the debt ceiling -- and, by the way, Jake, two countries in the world have a debt ceiling, the United States and I think it's Denmark. And they do not -- they tie it to a percentage of GDP, debt to a percentage of GDP.
And our net interest payments have actually -- are below what the historical 50-year average is.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
So, it's ridiculous that we're even in this situation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Well, as you know, that's what I pushed for. That's what the Progressive Caucus put in our lame-duck agenda that was published.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Well, I think it's because we didn't have 50 votes in the Senate.
Unfortunately, we are also governed by a couple of conservative Democrats and/or independents in the Senate who refuse to take the actions that we need to take. And that's -- I think that's why we ended up in the situation we're in.
That's why we need a bigger majority in the Senate of people who are actually going to continue to do what the country needs and what our constitutional obligation is, because, listen, the debt ceiling -- and we have explained this ad nauseam, but I just think it's important to say it again.
We go through an appropriations process. You know this very well, Jake. We go through an appropriations process. We argue that is where the majority in the House and the Senate get to figure out...
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
... who is going to negotiate what, right?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
And -- legislate, exactly.
And at the end of that process, we come up with something. We pass it through a budget.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
We pass appropriations bills. And the debt ceiling is essentially about implementing what Congress has already passed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
And to somehow use that...
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
That's right.
And I think, at the end of the day, this is going to make it easier, hopefully, to take the debt ceiling off the table permanently. Brendan Boyle, our ranking member on Budget, has a great bill -- I'm a co- sponsor of that bill -- to give the authority to the Treasury secretary to be able to just raise the debt ceiling in accordance with whatever Congress has passed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
That's really all we're saying, is, Congress passes this stuff. It should just be raised automatically.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
We should not allow people to continue to take us hostage.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I have not spoken with either of them, though I have been texting with Leader Jeffries.
However, I did get a lengthy briefing from a top White House official. Lael Brainard called me immediately when the deal was released last night to tell me. It sounds like perhaps not everybody was on the same page in terms of when the deal was going to be announced. And I think that there was supposed to be a final review.
So I think it got announced to Republicans quicker than was expected. But I did get a briefing. I still have questions, though. And, at the end of the day, I don't like frameworks. I think they are really problematic in terms of being able to make a decision. It's fine to say we have reached an agreement in principle, but all of the text matters.
And there are so many pieces of this that we need to look at in terms of what the spending is exactly like, because my understanding is, we're essentially held harmless at '23 levels. It will -- it is still not ideal, but not that different than what a C.R. would be.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I think, for me, the big questions are around, what is the -- what are the changes to NEPA? I understand they're pretty minor, but I'd like to see those.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
And, then, what does this work requirements piece look like?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I may or may not answer you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Yes, they have to worry. Yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Thank you, Jake.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source