[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 50 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2415-H2424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1363, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND
FURTHER ADDITIONAL CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011; AND WAIVING
REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION
OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 206
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1363) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported before April 11,
2011, providing for consideration or disposition of a measure
making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2011.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentlewoman from
North Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 206 provides for a closed rule providing
for consideration of H.R. 1363, which is a bill providing 1 week of
continuing appropriations, a full year of funding for the Department of
Defense, and cuts $12 billion in wasteful Federal spending.
Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that we are at this juncture nearly 7
months into fiscal year 2011, considering the bill that this House will
soon consider. We are seeing a stunning lack of leadership on behalf of
Washington Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Reid and
President Obama, who have refused to do the work that Americans sent
them here to do. They have exhibited willful disregard for our troops
and their families, who are uncertain about their paychecks with a
government shutdown looming.
The bill we will debate and pass funds the Department of Defense for
the remainder of the year, while cutting another $12 billion in
wasteful Washington spending. Lest we forget, the reason this problem
exists at all is because the liberal Democrat elites were so incapable
of governing in the last Congress that they couldn't even pass a budget
for the first time since modern congressional budgets were first
created over 30 years ago.
{time} 1020
They didn't do that because of their lack of leadership then and
their apparent realization that the American people had tired of big
spending, big government policies streaming out of Washington, which is
why the Republicans now control the House of Representatives.
Today with real leadership in the House we have real solutions to
these real problems. House Republicans have passed H.R. 1, which is a
continuing resolution that takes us to the end of the fiscal year.
The Democrat response? In another display of their lack of
leadership, Senator Reid sits on his hands while Senator Schumer
tinkers in his game of manipulating the liberal political message in a
phone call with reporters.
House Republicans then took the lead in crafting two short-term
continuing resolutions, H.J. Res. 44 and H.J. Res. 48, providing for an
additional 5 weeks of funding authority while cutting $10 billion in
wasteful Federal spending along the way.
Realizing that the stubborn liberal elites in the Senate and White
House are using the threat of a government shutdown to continue their
failed wasteful spending policies, House Republicans last week passed
H.R. 1255, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act, which provided for
enactment of H.R. 1 in the event that the liberal malaise continues to
stymie progress on fiscal 2011 appropriations.
After all of these gestures of good faith made by House Republicans,
the time has now come for the hapless liberal Democrat elites in the
Senate and the White House to make a decision. It's time to decide
between acting responsibly, abandoning favored political alliances, or
continuing their failed Big Government policies as a solution to all
earthly problems.
These points aside, there is one truth upon which everyone could
probably agree: that the new Republican House leadership has changed
the discussion in Washington, D.C., and across the country.
Whereas the previous discussion in Washington revolved solely around
how much more money we should spend, today the discussion is how much
more money we should cut.
Americans can now rest easy knowing that their message was received
by responsible adults here in the House, and we will work to reflect
their support for a leaner Federal Government focused on finding
solutions to problems, rather than political gamesmanship and perpetual
misguided adventures in social engineering.
Speaker Boehner has told the President that the House will not be put
in a box and forced to choose between two options that are bad for the
country, like accepting a bad deal that fails to make real spending
cuts or accepting a government shutdown due to Senate inaction, and
that is why House Republicans, in lieu of an agreement in which the
White House and Senate agree to real spending cuts, are offering this
third option: another good-faith gesture that funds our troops through
the
[[Page H2416]]
end of the fiscal year while cutting an additional $12 billion in
wasteful government spending and keeps the government running for
another week.
Real leadership is long overdue in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, and
it's refreshing to see the new House Republican majority step in and
fill the void left by such a devastating lack of leadership that has
resulted from liberal Democrat domination of this city for far too
long.
Let's start by voting for this rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my friend,
Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to
the misguided underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Enough political posturing. Enough
governing by press conference. Enough finger-pointing press releases,
Facebook updates, and Tweets.
Democrats have already agreed, reluctantly, to tens of billions of
dollars in cuts. Many of these cuts are from programs that are very
near and dear to us. We have come more than halfway.
I am pleased that Speaker Boehner agreed to attend a negotiating
session with President Obama and Senator Reid last night. The truth,
Mr. Speaker, is that it shouldn't be this hard to come up with a budget
to finish this year. President Obama and Senator Reid are trying to
work with Speaker Boehner to come up with a bipartisan agreement that
moves this country forward.
But that's what we see coming from the Republican Party in the House.
Unfortunately, as of right now, the Republican leadership is continuing
with their ``my way or the highway'' obstructionism.
Let's be clear about what's really going on here. Let's at least be
straight with the American people. This impasse is not because of
disputes between Democrats and Republicans; it's because of an
intraparty feud between sensible, pragmatic Republican legislators and
angry, take-no-prisoner Republican activists.
Now, I know that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle
would like to accept the billions and billions of dollars in cuts that
the Democrats have offered and declare a victory.
Unfortunately, their Republican Party has been hijacked by people who
relish a shutdown of the Federal Government, people who refuse to take
``yes'' for an answer. They are more interested in making a point than
in making law. And unless and until the Republican leadership in this
House is willing to stand up to that radical element and stop moving
the goalposts, we will not be able to move forward.
My friends on the other side of the aisle talk a good game about
wanting to come up with a compromise. Unfortunately, this bill before
us today does nothing to achieve that goal. In fact, it is a step
backwards. This bill, like H.R. 1 before it, isn't going anywhere. The
Senate leadership and the White House have already made it very clear
that yet another short-term continuing resolution is not acceptable.
Further, this bill continues the misguided priorities that we have
seen from the Republican leadership of the House for the last several
months. It cuts vital domestic programs that families, communities, and
States rely on during these difficult economic times.
Let me just give you a few examples of the cuts to programs that will
directly affect the people in Massachusetts that I am honored to
represent.
H.R. 1363 would cut the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which helps
preserve open space, by another $71.5 million. It cuts $700 million
from the Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Funds. I don't know
of a community in this country that doesn't have infrastructure needs,
and the State revolving fund is one of the few areas where they can get
money to help repair sewers and deal with storm water and a bunch of
other issues, but they cut it by $700 million more.
Most egregiously of all, it cuts $390 million from the LIHEAP
contingency fund. That's fuel assistance for poor people, mostly
elderly, who need it as fuel prices continue to rise.
So there it is, Mr. Speaker. There is the clear difference of
priorities between the two parties. The Republicans would rather shut
down the government than provide heating assistance to some of the most
vulnerable people in this country. I should also note that this bill
would provide funding for the Department of Defense for the rest of the
year, but nothing else.
Every Member of this House believes that making sure our troops get
their paychecks is a top priority. The men and women who serve this
country in uniform deserve our support.
But, Mr. Speaker, so do the seniors of this country. So do the
children of this country. So do the poor and the hungry of this
country. So do the people who can't afford hot-shot lobbyists and
multimillion dollar ad campaigns. We are supposed to represent them
too.
A couple of days ago we saw where the Republican priorities are. They
made them crystal clear in their budget proposal. Eliminate Medicare as
we know it. Eviscerate Medicaid. Cut funding for education. Cut funding
for medical research, health care, environmental protection, and
infrastructure in order to make sure that the wealthiest individuals
and companies can keep their special interest tax breaks.
Oil companies continue to get their taxpayer subsidies. Why they need
them, I don't know, but they continue to get them. And they are
protected. Donald Trump continues to get his tax cut under their
proposal, but they go after programs that impact working people and
people who are the most vulnerable. That may fly on Wall Street, but it
sure isn't going to fly on Main Street.
So, again, Mr. Speaker, I say that enough is enough. It is time for
serious people to do some serious legislating. The bill before us is a
million miles away from that.
I would urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and to reject
the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Massachusetts and I are actually, I
think, getting fairly fond of each other, spending so much time in the
Rules Committee as we do. However, I really have to call into question
a couple of comments that he has made.
Is this bill really a step backwards when we're funding our troops
for the rest of the year, taking away the uncertainty that they have
just in case the government votes to shut down or the Senate doesn't
act as it should and allows the government to shut down?
{time} 1030
Do we really need to continue all the appropriations for LIHEAP, the
funding for helping people pay their heating bills, when we are in
April this year? This is money that goes until the end of September. I
hardly think that we're going to have people freezing to death in this
country between now and September 30.
Do we need to be looking after seniors and children? Obviously, we
do. Republicans are not heartless people. But we have to look after
them in a responsible way. Cutting spending is the way to be
responsible to them.
And, Mr. Speaker, I have to remind my colleague again that we are
here to fix a problem that they left for us last year: funding the
Federal Government for the rest of this year.
Yesterday in the Rules Committee, one of our colleagues said, Let's
stop talking about the past and talk about the future, when we brought
this up. Well, Mr. Speaker, Republicans would like nothing more than to
do that, but we're doing all that we can to avoid a government
shutdown, and that is what this rule and bill are all about this
morning.
Republicans understand that unless we change course, higher taxes,
inflation, interest rates and unemployment will cripple our economy and
rob our children of the opportunity to pursue the American Dream. Let's
be clear. We don't have deficits because Americans are taxed too
little. We have deficits because Washington spends too much. We've got
to stop spending money we don't have. Right now, we're borrowing 43
cents for every dollar that we spend.
I want to talk a little bit about the long-term effects of what we're
planning to do in this Congress this spring under Republican majority.
The budget
[[Page H2417]]
resolution introduced by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and passed out of
the Budget Committee last evening will spur job creation, stops
spending money we don't have, and lifts the crushing burden of debt.
It's a plan that puts the budget on a path to fiscal stability and our
country on a path to prosperity by cutting $6 trillion in Federal
spending over 10 years and takes government spending below 20 percent
of GDP.
Mr. Speaker, historically, our government spending has been between
18 and 20 percent of GDP. Once we go over that, we are endangering our
country, and that's where our colleagues across the aisle have been for
a long time. The White House predicts that their proposal will reduce
the deficit by only $1.1 trillion over the same period of time.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, President
Obama's budget would generate more than $9.5 trillion in additional
deficits between fiscal years 2012 and 2021. I actually have a visual
here, Mr. Speaker, that shows exactly what is going to happen under
President Obama's budget.
In contrast, the Republican budget resolution provides us with a path
to prosperity by limiting the Federal Government to its core
constitutional roles, keeping America's promises to seniors, and
unleashing the genius of America's workers, investors and
entrepreneurs. The Republican budget has a projected real GDP growth of
$1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
With this budget resolution, we're taking direct aim at wasteful
Washington spending as opposed to the Obama budget that spends more
than $46 trillion over the next decade.
Since January of 2009, there has been a 24 percent increase in non-
discretionary spending, a number that jumps to 84 percent when stimulus
funds are included, Mr. Speaker. Democrats promised if we paid for
their stimulus, unemployment would stay below 8 percent. Then it soared
to 10 percent. One trillion dollars in debt later, Americans know they
didn't get what they paid for.
The 2009 stimulus law has gotten the most attention with considerable
focus on the billions of dollars it wasted on dubious government
projects as well as the many promises it broke with respect to job
creation and economic growth. The Republican budget resolution projects
an unemployment rate of 4 percent by 2015, Mr. Speaker.
If we continue on the wrong path that we're on now, Americans will
not be able to rely on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in order
to plan for retirement if we don't take action. Republicans want to
serve as good stewards of the investment of millions of Americans
paying into Social Security. Republicans will save $750 billion through
Medicaid reform in the form of block grants to States, giving Governors
greater and much needed flexibility in their budgets.
As it stands, the share of the budget that goes to these entitlement
programs is growing rapidly, and demographics, economics and skewed
political incentives are driving Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare
into bankruptcy. Alice Rivlin, the former Clinton OMB Director, has
called Medicare's current policy ``not sustainable.''
Cutting spending is about ending wasteful spending, making the
government leaner and more efficient, showing respect to hardworking
taxpayers, and making the tough choices today that save our children
and grandchildren from even tougher choices tomorrow. For hardworking
Americans, this isn't about politics. It's about their life and putting
our economy and our Nation first.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have no disagreement with the gentlelady from North Carolina in
terms of trying to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in government. I
think we're all for a leaner government. But what we're not for is a
meaner government. And that is what the Republican policies are all
about--a meaner government.
There's a story that I will submit to the Record here. It's talking
about the Republican budget. It says the Budget Office claims the GOP
Medicare plan could lead to rationing, making it more difficult for our
senior citizens to get health care.
By basically obliterating Medicare, you may save a few bucks in the
short term, but you're going to deny them care in the long term. I
don't see how that is right.
Secondly, I didn't talk about the past in my opening statement; the
gentlelady did. I just want the record to be clear about the past and
how we got into this mess.
When Bill Clinton left office, we eliminated the deficit and we were
paying down the debt. We had all-time high job growth. George Bush
comes to office. His reckless tax cuts are not paid for and hundreds of
billions of dollars are added to our debt. A Medicare prescription drug
bill was not paid for--wasn't paid for--and was more expensive than the
Republicans advertised. Add that on to our debt, plus two wars that
weren't paid for.
When the first President George Bush went to war against Saddam
Hussein when Iraq invaded Kuwait, he went around and he got member
nations in the area to actually pitch in to help pay for the war so
that the burden wasn't only on the United States. George Bush II comes
into office--two wars, we don't pay for them. There's no tax on
anybody. It gets onto our credit card. That is just not right.
Men and women in uniform are sacrificing, their families are
sacrificing, and the rest of us have been asked to do nothing. They
just put it on the credit card. That is not right.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have a disagreement with the gentlelady not over
the issue of whether we need to reduce waste and abuse in government. I
have an issue with her over the way they're doing it. They protect tax
breaks for big oil companies, tax breaks for Donald Trump and subsidies
for corn ethanol, a big waste of money. All that's protected. And the
way they balance the budget is not by going after that. They go after
programs that help poor people, LIHEAP, WIC--the Women, Infant and
Children's program of all things--and Pell Grants. We all know that in
order to have a strong economy in the 21st century, we need a well-
educated workforce, and they cut Pell Grants. They just slash them.
That's where they're cutting, cutting programs that help average
people, regular people and people who are vulnerable.
What government should be about is making sure that those people are
taken care of and not forgotten. Instead, their budget and their
priorities are protecting those who have a lot of wealth who don't need
government. And I think what they're doing is misguided.
Let me just read one final thing here. This is a story that just
appeared on Politico, breaking news. President Obama is calling House
Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid back to the
White House to negotiate on the budget at 1 p.m. Just before the
announcement from the White House, Senator Reid said on the Senate
floor that the numbers are basically there, but that the only thing
holding up an agreement is ideology. He said he was not nearly as
optimistic about reaching a deal as he was last night.
So, in other words, Mr. Speaker, this is no longer about numbers. And
I regret that so much has had to be cut in order to satisfy my friends
on the other side of the aisle.
{time} 1040
But now this is about ideology. They have all these riders on these
bills, riders that deal with abortion, National Public Radio, and
riders that undercut EPA's ability to ensure there is safe drinking
water and clean air. They are insisting on all of these ideological
riders to be attached to whatever budget deal before they sign it. It
is not about the numbers anymore; it is about a rigid, right-wing
ideology.
So enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. I urge my Republican colleagues to
go back to the negotiating table and negotiate in good faith, let's get
a deal, and let's move on to next year's business.
[From NPR, Apr. 5, 2011]
Budget Office: GOP Medicare Plan Could Lead to Rationing
(By Julie Rovner)
Excerpts:
Buried deep in the analysis of the proposal offered Tuesday
by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the CBO
suggested that moving Medicare beneficiaries from
[[Page H2418]]
public to private insurance could actually end up slowing the
introduction of new and potentially life-saving medical
technology . . .
The key problem, according to CBO, is that private
insurance is, well, likely to be more expensive than
insurance that's run by the government, competition
notwithstanding. ``Under the proposal, most elderly people
would pay more for their health care than they would pay
under the current Medicare system,'' the CBO said.
And because those seniors would be paying more, those
private plans would be looking for ways to bring health
spending down . . .
The CBO acknowledges that private health insurance plans
would have cost-reduction tools available that government-run
Medicare does not--things like limiting benefits, changing
co-payment amounts, managing how patients use services, and
controlling which doctors and hospitals are in their
networks.
``(S)uch steps could serve as alternatives to limiting
payments to providers in restraining health care costs and
insurance premiums,'' the report says.
But at the same time, it warns, the higher payments could
affect care. Beneficiaries might be less likely to use ``new,
costly, but possibly beneficial, technologies and
techniques'' than they do under current law.
In other words, exactly the sort of rationing that so
frightened Republicans when they were fighting the health
law--the health law that Ryan's proposal would repeal, by the
way.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague from Massachusetts knows that every time he brags about
what happened when Bill Clinton left office and we had a surplus, that
he is going to get an answer to that because he knows full well that
Republicans were in control of the Congress. Republicans came in
control of the Congress in 1995, and they controlled the Congress the
last 6 years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, and it is Republicans who
created the surplus, not Bill Clinton. We have to remind them every
time that they are trying to rewrite history.
And then they blame George Bush. It is so convenient to do that. In
January of 2007, the month Democrats took control of the Congress
again, the CBO projected the Federal Government would run a surplus of
$800 billion over 10 years, covering the period 2008-2017. But they
took the Congress that January and, guess what, the most recent CBO
projections available project the Federal Government to run a deficit
of $7.4 trillion over the same period. This is an $8.2 trillion
deterioration of the budget outlook during Democrat control of
Congress.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. FOXX. You can speak on your time, Mr. McGovern. I will let you do
that.
My colleague on the other side of the aisle talks a lot about
creating a nanny state, taking care of people from birth until death.
That's not what the American people want. We see that over in Europe,
and it has failed. What the Federal Government does and what school
children should learn, if they learn the Preamble to the Constitution
and if they read the Declaration of Independence, is that we are here
to secure the blessings of liberty for the people. Creating a nanny
state does not secure the blessings of liberty for the people.
He talks about how we are not now talking about numbers, but we are
talking about ideology. I am happy to debate ideology with my colleague
from Massachusetts any day. The American people do not want taxpayer-
funded abortions. That's part of what we are talking about. That's part
of our ideology. No, we should not be taking money from hardworking
Americans and using that money to fund the killing of unborn babies.
That is our ideology. Again, the majority of the American people agree
with us, and we are going to stand on that ideology every day.
The American people have, Mr. Speaker, the right to a fact-based
conversation on the budget. We demand an end to budget gimmicks and
accounting tricks used every year to make budgets look responsible when
in fact they add to the debt. That is part of our problem with what
President Obama is recommending. He wants us to take mythical numbers
that he projects instead of real numbers that we have been using.
Passing a short-term measure is a step in the right direction to cut
spending while keeping the government open, but it is far from being
enough. Excessive government spending has economic consequences for all
Americans: higher cost-of-living, higher interest rates, higher taxes.
But, Mr. Speaker, we didn't get into this overnight and we will not get
out of it overnight. Investors in small businesses need confidence that
Congress will use commonsense American principles to cut spending and
ensure a secure economic future.
The Republican budget resolution can create 1 million private sector
jobs over the next year. We are not going to create these high-paid
government jobs that our colleagues have created. America's solution
for job creation won't come by raising taxes to pay for even more
wasteful Washington bureaucracy. Democrats tried that approach with the
stimulus, and it failed.
Republicans, on the other hand, estimate that with the Path to
Prosperity budget resolution introduced this week and passed out of the
Budget Committee, wages will go up by $1.1 trillion over the next 10
years, yielding an average increase in income of $1,000 per year for
each American family.
Mr. Speaker, we need to do in this House what the American people
expect us to do: be reasonable stewards, responsible stewards of their
money and adhere to the ideology which has made this the greatest
country in the world.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just two points. One, on the issue of abortion. The law
of the land under the Hyde language is that no Federal funds can be
used to finance abortion. Introducing abortion into this budget debate
is divisive and doesn't belong there. But it is all about ideology, and
I get it. So don't say it is about numbers anymore. It is about this
kind of right-wing ideology, going after National Public Radio, trying
to undercut the EPA. You know, I get it. There is a time and place to
do that; this is not it.
The other thing I would say, when I listen to my colleague from North
Carolina, the question I was going to ask, if Republicans are
responsible for deficit reduction under Bill Clinton, then who is
responsible for the increase in deficit when they were in charge of the
Presidency, the House and the Senate, when they had all three branches
of government? At some point you have to take some responsibility, and
at some point you have to live up to the fact that some of the policies
that my colleagues pursued when they were in charge here drove this
economy into a ditch and added significantly to our deficit.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. I listened to what the gentlewoman on the other side
said, and I was really amazed because she was harking back to when we
had a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, and a Republican Congress and
how we worked together to accomplish certain goals. Well, that is
exactly what is missing now. If you listen to what my colleague from
Massachusetts said, he said once again the President is calling the
Speaker, the Republican Speaker, and the Democratic majority leader in
the Senate back to the White House to try to work something out. That's
what is happening here. But it is the House Republicans and their
leadership that refuse any kind of negotiation. They keep saying: Oh,
yeah, they're going to work it out. But they don't. And they keep
insisting on this draconian H.R. 1, this continuing resolution that
really hurts Americans and kills jobs.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. No, I will not yield at this time.
So I say to the gentlewoman, yes, let's go back to those times. Let's
have the Republicans here in the House work together with the President
and with Senator Reid on the other side.
Now, you said before that this CR that is up now would prevent a
government shutdown. Just the opposite is true. It is a step backward.
It is going to lead directly toward a government shutdown because
Republican leadership knows that this bill will not pass the Senate. It
doesn't have any cuts in defense. It actually says we will keep the
level of funding for defense until
[[Page H2419]]
the end of the year. Well, aren't defense cuts on the table? And it
continues with this ideological battle. There is actually abortion
language in this CR, is my understanding. And the gentlewoman actually
said: Well, that is an issue here that we need to resolve, that we
should deal with. Well, no, that is not the case because if you
continue on this path, no defense cuts, bring up abortion, this bill
will certainly not pass the Senate, the President will not sign it, and
so we are just simply wasting our time.
What is happening here is the Republicans are ignoring the fact that
there are Democrats in the majority in the Senate and there is a
Democratic President. You can't have it my way or the highway, and
that's what we have been hearing for the last 3 months: my way or the
highway.
Now, I just want to mention another thing. I was glad that the
gentlewoman brought up the budget, which is to follow, because we know
that this bad CR, or spending bill, that we are dealing with now, is a
precursor to an even worse budget bill that the Republicans have
proposed.
And I want to tell you, you talked about a previous error. The
problem with the Republican budget, there are so many, but the biggest
problem is it is going to put an end to Medicare. I was here when
Speaker Gingrich became Speaker, and he said he wanted Medicare to
wither on the vine. And that is what the Republican budget will do. It
will end Medicare as we know it because there will be no guarantee.
Seniors will go back to the old days when they had to try to find their
own private health insurance, and maybe the government will give them
some help with it. But for the most part, they won't be able to find
health insurance.
So there won't be Medicare; they won't be able to get health
insurance. And what are they going to do? They're going to be out on
the street; they're going to end up in the emergency room again, which
is what happened with the elderly before we passed Medicare.
{time} 1050
The gentlewoman went on to say that she's going to reform Medicaid.
Well, she's reforming Medicaid by basically giving a block grant to the
States. And what does that mean? The States won't have enough money to
pay for seniors' nursing home care. So nursing homes will close or they
won't provide quality services. We'll see seniors getting bedsores
again, if they can even find a nursing home. So essentially we're also
going to end Medicaid. Sixty-five percent of Medicaid goes towards
seniors and the disabled.
You look at this Republican budget, and this is just a precursor to
what we're going to see next week: It will end Medicare as we know it
by eliminating its guaranteed coverage. It slashes Medicaid for seniors
in nursing homes, health care for children, and Americans with
disabilities. It increases the cost of a college education for close to
10 million middle class students. It gives away billions in subsidies
and tax breaks to Big Oil.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chair of the
Rules Committee.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Grandfather Community, North
Carolina, for her superb management of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, we are here with a couple of very important priorities:
Number one, we want to ensure that the government doesn't shut down,
and that's why we have come forward with this continuing resolution
that will provide funding to keep the government open for another week
and, first and foremost, to ensure that our men and women in uniform
have what they need and their families are not going to be victimized
by what has taken place over the past several months.
Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my friend from New Jersey talk about
this, I don't like to engage in finger-pointing. I really don't. But I
think it's very key--and the reason I don't like to engage in finger-
pointing, as my friend from Worcester laughs at that, is the moment you
point your finger at someone, I was always taught that there are three
pointing right back at you. And I think it's important for us to not
point fingers, but I think it's instructive for us to look at what it
is that got us here.
I suspect that my friend from Grandfather Community probably
explained the fact that for the first time in our Nation's history
since the Budget Act has existed, we went through a Congress without a
budget having been passed. That's what happened last year. And for the
first time ever, we had no appropriations bills passed. Now, I'm not
pointing fingers, but I will say that there was not a Republican in the
White House, there was not a Republican Senate, and there certainly was
not a Republican United States House of Representatives.
So this was dumped onto the laps of the new majority here in the
House of Representatives, which, as we all know, if we look at the
challenges that are ahead of us, we still have a Democrat in the White
House and we still have a Democrat-controlled United States Senate. So
of the three levers of power legislatively, we have control of only
one-third of those. And in light of that, we're trying to do the best
that we can under somewhat challenging circumstances.
Now, last November 2, the American people sent a very strong and
powerful message to Washington, D.C. My party happened to see the
largest gain in nearly three-quarters of a century; 1938 was the last
time we saw the kind of change in favor of the Republican Party that we
did last November 2.
So in light of that, there is a powerful message, and I'm happy to
say that that message has been heard by both Democrats and Republicans.
Why? Because with the 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary
spending that we saw under Speaker Pelosi, the American people said we
need to bring an end to that nonsense. And guess what? We have
Democrats and Republicans alike talking about the need for spending.
Since we've passed H.R. 1, we have had $2 billion in spending cuts
every single week. But it is a drop in the bucket. It is a drop in the
bucket.
Over the last 2 days, I have had the chance to meet with a very
bright, dynamic, new member of the British Parliament, a man called
Matthew Hancock. I've just had a chance to meet with ``Facebook girl,''
who was one of the leaders of the tremendous, tremendous change and
revolution that has taken place in Egypt. I'm going to be meeting in
just a few minutes with leaders from Mongolia. And, Mr. Speaker, I have
to say the world is looking at us as we deal with this terrible
situation today, and it's critical for us to step up to the plate and
provide strong leadership.
Now, what has happened is we have, as my friend from New Jersey
underscored, come forward with a budget. It was just unveiled this
week. Mr. Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is going to be
bringing it to the Rules Committee, and we will consider it next week.
And it is absolutely horrifying to hear the characterizations that have
been provided.
Mr. Speaker, obviously encouraged by fear tactics, my constituents in
California have been saying, Please, please, please don't support the
Republican budget, which will abolish Medicare. That message over and
over again has been coming: Don't support the Republican budget, which
will abolish Medicare.
And, Mr. Speaker, the thing that's so disturbing is that there are
senior citizens, elderly Americans, who are out there and they are very
emotionally distraught over the fact that people are telling them from
the other side of the aisle, and it's very close to the remarks that my
friend from New Jersey just offered, that we are going to abolish
Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important for the American people to
understand that we are seeking to save Medicare. Saving Medicare is
what this is all about.
We all know, if you look at the history of Medicare, it was
established in 1965. In 1970, Mr. Speaker, the cost of Medicare was $7
billion. In 1970 it was $7 billion. Four decades later, last year,
2010, the cost of Medicare was $528 billion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in light of that, there is realization that since
we've seen Medicare expand to address the needs of the disabled and so
many
[[Page H2420]]
other areas, there needs to be reform so that future generations will
be able, since they're compelled to pay their FICA tax, to receive the
benefits they deserve from Medicare.
But, Mr. Speaker, the idea of frightening senior citizens today by
leading them to believe that our budget is going to abolish Medicare is
outrageous. And I believe that the American people are smart enough,
smart enough, to understand that these fear tactics can't stand. We
have a responsibility, I believe now, an obligation, to counter the
lies that are being put out there claiming that we're trying to abolish
Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing that's important for us to note is that
the American people are hurting all the way across the board. We have
an unemployment rate, which we're all encouraged by the fact that it
has dropped by a full percentage point, down to 8.8 percent, but it is
still unacceptably high. And that's why we need to focus on job
creation and economic growth. Mr. Speaker, if we had 2 percent more GDP
growth in this country, we would be in a position where we would, in
fact, not be having to anguish over the kind of spending that we see
right now.
Obviously, it's important for us to recognize that the role of
government has become way too big and needs to be dramatically reduced,
not only because of spending but because of the encroachment on
individual liberty that exists. But we need to realize that government
does have things that it needs to do, and we need to generate an
increase in the net flow of revenues. A $1.6 trillion national deficit,
which is in the President's budget, coupled with $14 trillion in
accumulated debt is unacceptable. That's why our goal is to focus on
job creation, economic growth.
Our colleague Dave Camp of the Ways and Means Committee is focusing
on reducing that rate on job creators in this country, the highest of
any nation on the face of the Earth, now that Japan has reduced their
rate, and that top rate on individuals.
{time} 1100
Doing that, coupled with reducing the regulatory constraints that it
has imposed, will address the needs of the poor.
Now, my friend from Worcester last night in the Rules Committee was
talking about the fact that no one is focused on the plight of the poor
in this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is our priority, to make sure
that we have opportunity so that people who are truly in need have
their needs met, but also to ensure that we have opportunity. Creating
jobs for individuals is what we need to do.
And so, Mr. Speaker, we are committed to keeping the government open,
supporting our troops, and bringing about, with this continuing
resolution, a $12 billion reduction in spending. It's something that,
if we can pass it here, the Senate should pass it. Everyone is saying
they know the Senate isn't going to pass it. The fact of the matter is
the Senate should pass it. But we hope that it's not necessary. We hope
that Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, and President Obama are able to come
up with an agreement that will ensure that we don't go through what
would be a very difficult thing, that is, shutting down the government.
So I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I thank my friend
for yielding.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of the
Rules Committee, for giving us his itinerary for the day. I'm glad he's
meeting with the leaders of Mongolia, because this is a budget only the
people of Mongolia would love because it is a tough budget on the
people of the United States of America.
He talks about their commitment to helping the poor in this country.
I don't know how you do that when you cut WIC, when you go after Pell
Grants, when you go after LIHEAP.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Let me just say, I mentioned the 82 percent increase in non-defense
discretionary spending. If we look at the increases that have taken
place in WIC, LIHEAP, and a wide range of other areas, the notion of
slightly paring that back will in no way jeopardize the needs that need
to be addressed.
Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I will just remind my friend, as I
did last night, right now there are 30,000 people in this country that
are fasting in protest of the cuts that adversely impact the poor. A
former colleague, Tony Hall from Ohio, Jim Wallis from Sojourners,
David Beckmann from Bread for the World are highlighting the fact that
the cuts in this budget are going to be devastating to the most
vulnerable people in this country.
What I said in the Rules Committee last night is that sometimes we
forget to understand that there are real people behind these cuts, and
people are going to be hurt. And, unfortunately, the people who are
sacrificing are the people who can least afford to sacrifice. You're
not asking Donald Trump to sacrifice. You're not asking big oil
companies to sacrifice or those big agri-businesses that receive corn
ethanol subsidies. No. It's all focused on working people and poor
people.
I don't know when, in the minds of the Republicans, that average
working people and people who are vulnerable became the bad guys. It
was reckless Wall Street behavior that created this financial crisis,
and they get everything, and everyday people get nothing except the
bill. That's wrong.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, as we meet this morning, the top priority
of the American people continues to be the jobs crisis in our country.
There are too many people out of work and too many people worried that
they are next.
Last week, the welcome news came that last month the economy had
created about a quarter of a million new private sector jobs. That's a
good start, but it's not nearly enough. Shutting the government down
just when the economy is starting to get back on its feet would be the
worst possible mistake, but we're on the verge of that.
It's important that people understand that the President has gone
three-quarters of the way toward the majority party to settle this
matter--didn't meet halfway; he has gone three-quarters of the way--but
they won't go the full way because there is a fight here about values.
This is a fight about what you value.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we value Medicare. We believe that
after someone has worked their entire life and paid taxes into that
Medicare fund that they should not have to worry that a trip to the
radiologist will be followed by a trip to the bankruptcy court. This is
what Medicare accomplished for our moms and our dads and our
grandparents. It said that after a lifetime of hard work, if you have
medical worries, they will just be medical worries, not financial
worries, because Medicare will pay the bill.
The gentleman from California talked about how they're not destroying
Medicare; they're saving it. Let's talk about what they're really
doing. Here's what happens:
Today, if a senior goes to the radiologist of her choice, Medicare
pays most of the bill and she pays a little bit of it. She decides what
doctor to pick. She and the doctor decide what happens next, and no
private insurance company gets in the way. Medicare pays the bill.
What they are proposing is to end that system. So now what will
happen under their plan is that the taxes that we pay into the Medicare
fund will all be paid to health insurance companies. So we will trust
the good hands that so gently guide our health care in the health care
industry. We will give them the money, all of it, and trust them to do
the right thing with the health of America's senior citizens. That is
the wrong thing to do with the health of America's senior citizens.
There is a fight here about values. It's a fight that shouldn't take
place. We should settle the budget fight. The President has gone three-
quarters of the way to the Republican proposal. Settle it today on that
basis. But by all means, we will never yield, we will
[[Page H2421]]
never concede, we will never concede the point that Medicare should be
replaced by private insurance companies.
The Congressional Budget Office has said, in analyzing Chairman
Ryan's proposal, that the out-of-pocket health care costs for most
retirees in America will go up. This isn't spending reform. This is
having someone else pick up the tab. The hospitals aren't going to
charge less. The doctors aren't going to charge less. The senior is
going to pay more to get that coverage, and he or she is going to have
to go ask permission from an insurance company as to what radiologist
they can see. Then the radiologist will have to ask permission for what
test he or she can order.
Medicare is not perfect, but it works. We should preserve it and
defeat the underlying bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Speaker Boehner, the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding.
The House is preparing to pass a responsible troop funding bill that
would fund the Department of Defense through September. It would also
cut spending by an additional $12 billion and keep the government
running for an additional week.
There is no policy reason for the Senate to oppose this responsible
troop funding bill that keeps the government running. It reflects a
bicameral, bipartisan agreement that was reached in December regarding
the troop funding bill, and no Senator has objected to the policy in
this bill. I think it is past time that we get this responsible troop
funding bill enacted, especially when the U.S. has become engaged in a
third war.
To support job creation in America, we are working to make real
spending cuts. We are also working on commonsense policy restrictions
when it comes to how our taxpayer dollars are spent.
Talks to resolve last year's budget are progressing, but there is no
agreement yet, no agreement on numbers, and no agreement on the
underlying policies that were passed by this Chamber.
Now, I think we all know that no one wants a shutdown. There is
absolutely no policy reason for the Senate not to follow the House in
taking these responsible steps to support our troops and to keep our
government open.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the Speaker of
the House, but I would remind my colleagues that when we talk about
national security, it needs to include, as well, the health and well-
being of our senior citizens here in the United States. It needs to
include the health and well-being of our children here in the United
States.
{time} 1110
It needs to include our infrastructure, our education, the quality of
our environment. All those things are part of our national security. We
all support funding our troops. What we don't support are reckless
policies that are aimed at undercutting programs like Medicare and
putting our senior citizens at a disadvantage where they will pay more
and get less.
I mean this is an ideological battle that we are, unfortunately,
engaged in where my Republican friends believe that Medicare should be
ended as we know it. Medicare as we know it they want to end. It is
clear. If anyone doubts that, I will tell my colleagues to read the
bill, to read the stuff that is coming out of the Budget Committee.
Read the bill. For anybody who doubts that Republicans are targeting
Medicare, look at what the Budget Committee is doing. It will be there
in black and white when it's published, and it will state unequivocally
that Medicare, as we know it, will be ended. Senior citizens, according
to the CBO, will pay more and get less. That is not what, I think, the
American people want. I will just remind my colleagues of a new poll
that came out: 66 percent of seniors reject the plan to end Medicare as
we know it.
So, if you interpreted the results of the last election as going
after Medicare and seniors' health care, I think you misread the
results of the last election. The last election was about jobs. We all
need to come together and talk about how we protect jobs and help
encourage the creation of more jobs in this country. If you want to end
the deficit, put people back to work. Here we are in April, and you
have yet to bring one single bill to this floor that deals with jobs,
that helps create jobs and that helps protect jobs.
My friends on the other side of the aisle need to kind of reevaluate
their priorities here. Let's get back to what the American people
want--a strong economy and good jobs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from
Massachusetts if he is ready to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. I am not. I have a couple of more speakers.
Ms. FOXX. Then I will reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of
the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks).
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Yesterday, we met in the Rules Committee to discuss this
potential CR.
The point I wanted to make was that I felt--and I wish the gentleman
from California were here--that a clean CR would be more appropriate at
this time, especially if we get an agreement. Because, that way, the
President can sign the clean CR, which would keep funding for the
troops--I want to point that out as the ranking member on Defense
Appropriations--this CR is troubled. I believe, the President will veto
it. I also believe it won't be passed in the Senate.
So why are we doing this? Why are we wasting time here when we should
be focused on getting a clean CR through, which the President said he
would sign, which would allow a little more time for negotiations on
this agreement?
Now, we have got to get an agreement. The idea of shutting down the
Federal Government in the middle of this economic downturn is just the
worst possible idea. Goldman Sachs says you'll lose two-tenths of 1
percent of economic growth. This will mean laying people off. Whether
they will get reimbursed or not is a major question for those who are
not considered to be vital--and I think all workers are vital, but it's
regarding those who are not in essential kinds of jobs.
We talked yesterday to the FAA. They will keep operating. We have
troops in the field. As I mentioned before, if we did a clean CR, they
would be paid. I think this is a waste of time and that every ounce of
effort should be taken in reaching this agreement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DICKS. The administration has bent over backwards, and the Senate
has bent over backwards to try to reach an agreement on this, but the
leadership on the Republican side keeps changing the goalposts. First,
it was $33 billion. Now it's $40 billion. They just can't take ``yes''
for an answer.
The most important thing is that this will hurt the economy. Also, it
shows a kind of mean-spiritedness here. When you're going after
Medicare and Medicaid in the budget resolution and, in this deal,
you're going after women and infant care, this is not what we should be
doing. We should be helping the poor people, not taking their safety
net away.
Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Dicks has the right idea.
What we ought to vote on today is a 1-week extension that's clean,
that just gets that done and keeps everybody going in the government,
including the military, and then we should resolve our differences. I
think that's what we ought to be doing this morning, but what's
standing in the way of that is this values debate that I talked about
earlier.
Look, it's a position that we understand, which is that the majority
party does not want to continue Medicare as
[[Page H2422]]
we've known it for all these years. We strongly disagree with them, and
we are prepared to have the fight to say why America needs Medicare as
it has always been; but that disagreement should not shut the
government down; that disagreement over values should not mean that the
functions that people have paid for in their taxes don't go forward.
Let's not shut the government down over this values debate. Let's have
the values debate as the government continues to operate, and by all
means, let's protect Medicare.
Mr. McGOVERN. I am the final speaker on our side.
Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Well, here we go again--another closed rule, but this
rule is different from others. It also includes martial law authority.
This means that the Republican leadership can bring any spending bill
to the floor at any time they want.
So much for ``read the bill.''
This is not how the House Republicans said they were going to run the
House. Open rules? Read the bill? Markups? Hearings? Their record, Mr.
Speaker, is abysmal, and this bill is a perfect example of how they are
doing things they said they wouldn't do--a closed rule with Martial law
authority. I can't say I'm surprised. It's their way or the highway.
Yesterday, a group of tea partiers was protesting on the steps of the
Capitol. It's a wonderful thing to be able to protest in the open
without any threat of government violence or censorship. It's a very
American thing to do. Yet, while they're entitled to their opinion,
it's important to point out that they were protesting against keeping
the government open.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, they want to shut the government down. Just look at
the front page of CQ today. It's of a tea party member on the steps of
the Capitol with a sign that says, ``Shut 'er down''; and Republicans
in the House are doing their bidding.
Enough is enough. It is time to act like adults and negotiate in good
faith. It is time to come to a deal that keeps the government open--a
deal without partisan, ideological riders that prevent health groups
from providing important women's health information and health
screenings, riders that prevent the EPA from keeping our air and water
safe, riders that prevent independent, nonpartisan news agencies from
reporting in places like Afghanistan, Egypt and Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, it's time that the Republican Party does the right thing
for its country and not just for the extremist wing of its party.
At the end of this debate, I will oppose the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to provide
a clean CR for 1 week. No harmful cuts or ideological riders like those
that are included in the Republican bill. The government stays open
while President Obama, Speaker Boehner and Senator Reid continue to
negotiate. Now that they're at the table, it's time to let them do
their jobs and come to a deal without a continual moving of the
legislative goalposts that's going on under the Republican bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question
and to defeat this closed rule.
My friends on the other side of the aisle need to get serious about
negotiating an end to this impasse, and need to stop the ideological
riders that are attached to this bill. Let's get serious, and let's get
this passed so we can begin to deal with next year's budget.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1120
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself the balance of my time.
As our colleague across the aisle said, ``Here we go again.'' Here we
go again with the Democrats misleading the American people about what
this rule is about, what this bill is about, the underlying bill. Mr.
Dicks said he wanted the rule as it is. Our colleagues across the aisle
don't want us to be able to take up another bill in case there is an
agreement with the President on a long-term CR.
There is only one rider on this bill, Mr. Speaker, and that is to not
allow taxpayer funding for abortions in Washington, DC. My colleague
across the aisle says national security should include paying for all
of these government programs. The Federal Government is the only branch
of government that can handle national security, and that means funding
our troops. That's exactly what this underlying bill does.
Mr. Speaker, also our colleague says, ``It's time for people to read
the bill.'' How interesting that when they were in control, they didn't
want anybody to read the bills, and they said you wouldn't be able to
know what was going to be in the bill until after it was passed.
I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. There are words for that. I'm afraid I should
not use those on the floor today for fear it might slow down our debate
here.
But I want to say that I am particularly concerned that our
colleagues have brought up the issue of values. I'm pleased they
brought up the issue of values.
Our colleague from New Jersey says what this is, it's about the value
of Medicare. Well, Mr. Speaker, it shows what they value are government
programs. What we value are life and freedom. There is a distinct
difference, Mr. Speaker, in the values of the two parties in this
country--one wants more government funding, one wants government
control of our lives; the other wants freedom for the American people
and life for unborn children.
Mr. Speaker, they are misleading the American people. There's nothing
about Medicare in this rule or in this underlying bill.
We've discussed at great length why America needs this rule and this
bill. In the face of a government shutdown, our economy is struggling,
people are looking for jobs, they demand accountability and belt-
tightening in Washington, DC. They need the Federal Government to stop
draining job-creating resources from the private sector to fund
misguided adventures in social engineering. They demand action. They
deserve answers.
It's for these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and
the underlying bill so we can begin to restore the trust Americans have
in their Federal Government and restore this economy.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 206 To Be Offered by Mr. McGovern of
Massachusetts
(1) In section 1, insert ``and any amendment thereto''
after ``ordered on the bill''.
(2) In section 1, strike ``and (2) one motion to
recommit'', and insert:
``(2) the amendment printed in section 3, if offered by
Representative Dicks of Washington or his designee, which
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
and shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions''.
(3) At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as
follows: . . .''.
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
That the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-
242) is further amended by striking the date specified in
section 106(3) and inserting ``April 15, 2011''.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the
[[Page H2423]]
control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 206, if
ordered; and approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 185, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 242]
YEAS--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--185
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Bishop (NY)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
McMorris Rodgers
Ruppersberger
Schock
Schwartz
Tonko
Young (AK)
{time} 1145
Messrs. HIGGINS, CARDOZA and Ms. DeGETTE changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. TERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 242, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 242, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 189, not voting 15, as follows:
[[Page H2424]]
[Roll No. 243]
AYES--228
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--189
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Austria
Bishop (NY)
Cole
Courtney
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Giffords
Harper
McMorris Rodgers
Nunnelee
Pompeo
Rogers (MI)
Stearns
Young (AK)
{time} 1152
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 243 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 243 on agreeing to
the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1363, making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2011, and for other purposes; and waiving a requirement
of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain
resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, I had briefly stepped
off the floor and was unintentionally delayed and missed the vote on
the Rule. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________