[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.''

                          ____________________