[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 55 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2675-H2686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 34, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 223 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 223
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 34) establishing the
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012
and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2013 through 2021. The first reading of the concurrent
resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the concurrent resolution are
waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with
three hours confined to the congressional budget equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget and one hour on the
subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and
controlled by Representative Brady of Texas and
Representative Hinchey of New York or their respective
designees. After general debate the concurrent resolution
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original concurrent
resolution for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the
[[Page H2676]]
Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order
against the amendments printed in part B of the report are
waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of
consideration of amendments to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute made in order as original text. After the
conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for
amendment and a final period of general debate, which shall
not exceed 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent
resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
concurrent resolution or to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute made in order as original text. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent
resolution and amendments thereto to final adoption without
intervening motion except amendments offered by the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve
mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question of its
adoption.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), 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
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. 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
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 223 provides for a
structured rule for consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 34.
This rule makes in order every complete substitute submitted to the
Rules Committee. Continuing a bipartisan tradition, we are making in
order four Democratic substitutes and one Republican substitute,
providing 4 hours of general debate, with ample debate on each
substitute. This will allow the House to work its will and adopt a
budget blueprint for fiscal year 2012.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
bill. The underlying legislation is our budget for 2012. Our 2012
budget is our blueprint for a strong and secure future for the next
generation.
Each of us is here today because those who came before us made
amazing sacrifices for the next generation--us--keeping alive the
American Dream. In the last century alone, our parents and grandparents
have won two world wars, overcome the Great Depression, defeated
communism, and created the most prosperous and vibrant society in the
history of mankind.
Today it is our turn. It is our turn to take a bold and necessary
step to ensure that we pass on to our children this great blessing
called America, and even a stronger America than the one we received
from our parents.
Paul Ryan calls his plan The Path to Prosperity. I call it
leadership. It is what our country has been thirsting for. It confronts
our problems head on, and it proposes reasonable and responsible
solutions to get us back on track.
Our plan creates jobs, real jobs, 1 million new jobs in America in
the first year alone. It stimulates our economy, increasing our GDP by
$1.5 trillion in the next 10 years. It protects and strengthens Social
Security and Medicare. Let me say that one more time because so many
people are trying to demagogue the issue: Our plan strengthens and
protects Social Security and Medicare for the next generation of
Americans. And it also reduces job-killing government spending by $6.2
trillion in the next 10 years.
Yesterday, our President, he got on board. Two months ago, he gave us
his 2012 budget, and now we have 2012 2.0, the second time around. But
the plan hasn't changed much, sir. The plan is basically the same. So
let's compare our plan in the next 10 years to President Obama's plan
over the next 12 years.
President Obama would add $4 trillion to our debt, leaving us at the
end of the next decade with $26 trillion of debt, according to the CBO.
Even our Democratic colleagues in the House agree, and they have
presented a plan that breaks from their own President, cutting an
additional $1.2 trillion off the deficit. The Republican budget cuts
$6.2 trillion, bringing spending to under 20 percent of our economy.
The Republican plan proposes specific and responsible solutions to
strengthen Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. The President talks
very vaguely about a plan to cut waste and streamline Medicare and
Medicaid, proposing to create yet another unelected commission to solve
all of our problems. We don't need more unelected bureaucrats in
Washington, sir, enlarging the scope of government. That's not real
leadership.
The President tries to tax our way out of debt, placing the burden on
those earning more than $100,000. But the problem, sir, is a simple
one. If we were to tax these individuals 100 percent of their income,
we still cannot cover our deficits this year alone. As a matter of
fact, to tax our way out of debt, we would need to increase taxes
across the board on every man, on every woman, and on every business by
60 percent. You simply cannot tax your way out of this debt. Imagine
the effects this would have on our economy.
{time} 1130
The President's budget cuts $400 billion out of our military. In the
time that he has led us into Libya, in the time that we have two
conflicts going on, it cuts $400 billion away from the men and women
who are fighting for freedom, dying for liberty.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule. I encourage my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the underlying resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina
(Mr. Scott) for yielding me the 30 minutes, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the urgent need to cut the Nation's
deficit. We need to have serious discussions and make tough decisions
about how we prevent a fiscal crisis in our country, and certainly we
are beginning those discussions.
But, sadly, today--and I must emphasize this--sadly, today this bill
will end Medicare and cost shift to seniors $6,000 more a year. And why
are they doing that? They get to pay for more tax breaks for Big Oil
and millionaires, who are untouched in this country. That really is
strange deficit reduction to me.
Frankly, if I had my druthers, I would start by ending the war in
Afghanistan. That war is costing us $8 billion a month, and we're
paying to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan while our own infrastructure
crumbles and while we feel we cannot afford to spend any of our money
on those of us who live here and pay the costs.
Just yesterday, the President presented another way to solve our
fiscal crisis, as he laid out a budget that will responsibly reduce the
spending and that simplifies the Tax Code, which is so important, so
that, as the President said, and this is critical to understand, the
taxes you pay are not going to be determined by the accountant you can
afford. This is good news for all Americans.
The President's budget puts us on the right track to ending the
deficit crisis while investing in the long-term success of our economy
and our country. Unfortunately, the thought is far too prevalent in
this House that we need not invest in ourselves, that we can just shut
down programs and everybody will be happy and singing in the streets.
Not likely.
But despite the responsible vision the President presented yesterday,
we stand here today debating a reckless Republican budget that will
destroy programs like Medicare while extending the tax cuts to
corporations and America's rich.
The budget starts with Medicare, eliminating the program that
provides secure and affordable health care in old age. And it is
eliminated. People who
[[Page H2677]]
are on Medicare now will be grandfathered in. In the future what they
will get will be a voucher with a certain amount of Federal money that
goes with it. They are then required to go do the best they can in the
private market to meet their health care needs.
As we watch the cost in the private market climb, we would have to
ask ourselves, Would this government help out, as Medicare would, by
raising the money that the government puts in to replace it? No, it
wouldn't. So under this plan a senior in the year 2021, and I hope
there are a lot of them in this House who will follow me on this, will
pay $6,000 more for the private insurance than they would have under
Medicare. Now, if your insurance costs more than that, you had better
find a way to pay your creditors because you're going to be on your
own.
Today's budget bill also threatens the future of Social Security. It
includes a trigger mechanism that would allow Social Security cuts to
be rushed through the Congress at a future date. This trigger is an
abuse of the legislative process and puts Social Security on the
chopping block for future cuts.
Furthermore, in an act that defies all logic, this bill cripples the
watch dogs that we created just last year to police the big banks who
created the financial crisis. Why in the world would we want to do
that?
In addition to Medicare and Social Security, it cuts 70 percent of
our investments in clean energy. It cuts 25 percent of our education
funding. It cuts out 30 percent of our transportation funding,
including significantly less money for a high-speed rail network
designed to free us from foreign oil.
By stopping investments in key competitive areas, our Nation is
abandoning jobs and future economic opportunities that come with clean
energy, with a new transportation network, and the invaluable work of
educating our children. This is the burden 90 percent of Americans are
asked to share.
Meanwhile, the Republican budget would make permanent the Bush-era
tax cuts that further cut taxes for corporations and America's richest
individuals, including the oil companies. Do they need a Federal
subsidy? I think not. Had the Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire in
December, we would almost be able to cut our deficit in half within a
few months from now.
The Republican majority apparently believes that the ones who have
the most should sacrifice the least. Some have claimed tax cuts create
jobs. We hear that a lot around here. But analysis by respected
experts, such as Pulitzer Prize winner and former New York Times tax
expert David Clay Johnston, have shown that tax cuts do nothing to spur
the economy and create jobs; they simply pad the wallets of the
wealthiest among us in times of a national need.
As we shape a budget for 2012, we must craft legislation that truly
shares the entire Nation's sacrifice, not a budget that ends Medicare
while handing more tax giveaways to those who need it the least and in
many cases are asking not to be given it.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the
underlying resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may
consume, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to address a few points that
Congresswoman Slaughter brought up.
I have scoured the budget looking for this notion of a voucher system
for Medicare. I've scoured the budget and simply cannot find anything
that is, in fact, a voucher system. I have seen things about premium
support.
But let's just talk about Medicare for a quick second. $800 billion
the President has suggested must come out of Medicare in order to pay
for national health care. So we are going to take benefits from our
senior citizens in an attempt to provide health care benefits for 19-
and 20-year-olds. In fact, that $800 billion is one way to actually
increase the cost to every senior citizen in our country. Increasing
taxes by $2 trillion in the next 12 months is a wonderful way to make
our economy stumble, and that's what the President has suggested.
Finally, you cannot increase taxes on the very job creators
themselves and then ask them to continue to create jobs.
{time} 1140
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we are facing a crisis in the country today. Imagine
back home in your family budget if for every dollar you spent, 40 cents
was borrowed. Surely you would bring your entire family to the kitchen
table and say, okay, what can we cut out? We cannot continue to borrow
40 cents for every dollar we spend. You would make changes in your
household budget. But for some reason, many in Washington, D.C. want to
stick their head in the sand and say, no, we really don't have to do
this. And yet right now the national debt is 90 percent of the GDP.
We borrow billions of dollars a year from China, which is not exactly
a great idea in terms of national security. I sit on the Defense
Subcommittee of Appropriations. We watch China year in, year out
building up their army, and yet we go to them over and over again for
more money. And yet, while we do that, those in Washington, D.C., don't
want to do anything.
We heard yesterday the President's mulligan budget. As you know, Mr.
Speaker, the President of the United States is responsible to submit
his budget to Congress each year, which the President did in February,
totally ignoring his own deficit commission's recommendations. The
Simpson-Bowles language was not in there. And yet, yesterday, the
President decided, oh, well, give me one more chance, I'm going to
introduce another budget, which has a lot of phony numbers in there and
a lot of false promises and calls for more studies and commissions. I
ask my Democrat friends, is that budget going to be on the floor today?
Are we going to be able to offer it?
I yield to my friend from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If the Speaker would allow, we are going to be
offering a Democratic alternative today, and everyone will have a
chance to see the alternative.
Mr. KINGSTON. You will be offering the budget the President talked
about yesterday? I'm going to yield back to my friend from Maryland,
but I want to say this: Unlike when you guys were in charge, we are
offering the Democrats opportunities to offer budgets. We think it's
very important, because we want the best of your ideas, and we think
the best of our ideas can be combined together for the best of America.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield for 5 seconds? Because you
will have that opportunity to vote on a Democratic alternative.
Mr. KINGSTON. I am going to yield to my friend, but here's what I
want to say, that we keep hearing over and over again in the last 24
hours about the President's wonderful mulligan budget that he offered
yesterday, but I don't believe it's going to be offered on the floor of
the House.
Now let me yield to my friend.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. As I indicated, you will have a Democratic
alternative budget that we're going to put forward, and it will present
a very clear choice for the Members. We will present a budget that
achieves steady, predictable deficit reduction. Again, we make
different choices in how we do it, and that is the center of the
debate. So everyone will have an opportunity to vote on an alternative
budget.
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask specifically, the mulligan budget that the
President offered yesterday, will it be on the floor of the House
today?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The President did not offer what we call a budget. He
offered what was an outline, an approach, that he wants people to look
at on a bipartisan basis. That's what the President proposed yesterday.
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me thank my friend from Maryland for answering
this, because I do think it's important for the Democrats to be given
an opportunity to offer an alternative budget, and I'm glad that you
will be, and there will be five such budgets. And I'm hoping even if
your budgets don't pass, that we can still pick and choose some parts
of those, and there will be some parts of our budget that you like and
want to support as well.
But I want to emphasize over and over again that the President, who
yesterday tried to reclaim some territory
[[Page H2678]]
because he did not take on the recommendations of his own deficit
reduction commission, he was not offering a budget yesterday. What he
did was give a speech. Now, the President is kind of becoming the
Spectator in Chief or the Speaker in Chief. He's the guy who offers a
budget, and then yesterday decides to give a speech. Well, the time has
come and gone for speeches.
What our budget does is take on some serious changes in our spending
habit. It does tackle the difficult choices that we have on Medicaid
and Medicare. It does not create a voucher system; it is a supplemental
system which will give seniors more choices. And it doesn't affect
anybody 55 years or older, which is very important.
But we will hear from the liberals in this community the cage
rattling of senior citizens over and over again, and that's why we
can't make progress in this town, because we always reduce policy to
politics.
The time to put policy first is now. We've got to tone down our
rhetoric and say, you know what, here is a plan to save and protect and
preserve Medicaid and Medicare, not for the next election, not for
politicians, but for America's future seniors. The baby boomers who are
under 55 years old will have a Medicare/Medicaid plan that they can
count on because it will be there. If we don't change, it will not be
there for them.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, later in this debate, if we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in
order Mr. Tonko's amendment to protect Medicare, TRICARE, and veterans'
health care from privatization or arbitrary spending caps.
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the ranking member.
I'm glad my colleague raised the issue of the bipartisan fiscal
commission, because the fiscal commission took a look at the Republican
budget plan and said it was not balanced and not comprehensive and not
a way to achieve deficit reduction in a responsible way. That was the
verdict of the bipartisan commission.
Why did they say it was unbalanced? Because the Republican budget
provides big tax breaks for special interests. You don't get rid of the
subsidies to the big oil companies. You want to give additional tax
breaks to the very wealthy, including millionaires. And what do you do
for the tradeoff? You cut funding for education for kids and you do end
the Medicare guarantee. We're going to have time to talk about other
parts of the bill later on, but I want to talk about that now because
it's going to be the subject of the previous question.
What this budget does is say to seniors, you no longer may stay in
the Medicare program today; you have to go into the private insurance
market. And the way it saves money is it says, as those costs in the
private insurance market continue to go up, you are not going to get
premium support that will keep up with it. You're going to get
something that's a relatively fixed value compared to the rapidly
rising health care costs, which is why, as the President said
yesterday, in the year 2022 seniors would pay more under the Republican
budget plan by over $6,300 than they do under current Medicare. And
that continues to rise and rise and rise.
I want to put an end today to this other talking point we keep
hearing, that somehow they're offering seniors what Members of Congress
have. It's not true. What Members of Congress have is something called
a fair share formula under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.
So as premiums go up, the risk to Members of Congress and other Federal
employees is fixed at a certain percentage. Not true under the
Republican Medicare plan. The way it saves money in the out years is in
fact to make sure that share between Medicare and the senior is not
fixed, that the senior has to pick up more of the cost. That is a fact.
And that is how they make money in the out years, by putting it on the
backs of seniors, even while they say they're going to bring down the
top tax rate by 30 percent for the wealthiest people in this country.
That's the kind of choices we're facing here.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) had an amendment before the
Rules Committee on exactly this issue of ending Medicare and the
guarantee that it provides in saying you've got to go into the private
system.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. His amendment makes the point that if you think this
is a good idea, if the Republicans think this is such a good idea, why
don't you apply it to veterans? Why don't you apply it to active
service personnel? If it is such a great thing, why don't you turn them
into voucher premium support--whatever you want--a kind of plan where
they have to eat the rising cost of health care?
Members are going to have an opportunity. If you vote ``no'' on the
previous question, you will be able to vote to say, let's not turn
Medicare into a voucher premium support, let's not end the guarantee,
and let's not do that for our military personnel or our veterans
either.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's just clear up a simple point here. The only
specified savings in this budget are from raising taxes and cutting the
military. If we really wanted to have an opportunity to make Medicare
last longer, we could simply repeal ObamaCare, repeal national health
care, and put the $800 billion back into Medicare.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The Democratic alternative says, yes, we should ask
the highest income earners, the folks at the top 2 percent, to simply
pay the same rate that they paid during the Clinton administration when
the economy was roaring and we created 20 million jobs.
{time} 1150
That's what the choices are before us, and that's exactly the point
you're making. You want to end the Medicare guarantee for seniors at
the same time you want to give tax breaks to folks at the very top.
That's your choice. You can make it, but we don't think that's the
choice the American people want to make.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Congressman, the fact is simple. We
could tax those over $100,000 a year 100 percent and we still simply
could not close the deficit for this year.
The fact of the matter is people talk about this government getting
smaller, and the President's original budget spent $47 trillion in the
next 10 years--an $8.7 trillion increase in spending. We're talking
about a $2 trillion increase in spending in the next 12 months in
taxes. We're not talking about reducing the size and scope of this
government.
We must get ourselves on a completely different trajectory. We must
bend the trajectory back towards the American people, back towards the
private sector, and eliminate the disincentive for growth in our
economy called taxation.
So to the extent that we can flatten the tax, spread the risk, we
find ourselves in a more prosperous society with a stronger economy led
by those folks in the private sector. Entrepreneurs have an opportunity
to take those dollars and reinvest them in such a way to create more
jobs. It is a simple formula.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Mulvaney).
Mr. MULVANEY. I thank my colleague for the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Speaker, it's been roughly a hundred days since I've been here.
I'm one of the new folks in Congress. I began with my very first
presentation several months ago congratulating my opponents across the
aisle for saying all of the right things about where we're going to go
this year, about how concerned they were about cutting spending, how
concerned they were about balancing the budget. And I was actually
excited at that time to hear folks across the aisle using a lot of the
same language that we were using. Apparently, by now, I guess I have to
expose myself for being somewhat naive.
Here we are again today hearing the exact same language, that the
other side is deathly serious about cutting
[[Page H2679]]
spending, the other side is deathly serious about balancing the budget,
and I've come to realize, as I think most of America has, that the
words simply don't match up to the language.
I guess, to a certain extent, I should be happy that we are here at
least having this debate. We are here today discussing the 2012 budget
for the first time. This will be the first time in 2 years this debate
has taken place on this floor since there was no budget last year
offered by my colleagues across the way.
I can simply ask them: If you are indeed serious today about
balancing the budget, serious today about getting spending under
control, where have you been for the last 4 years? Where were you last
year when this debate was not even allowed to take place on the floor
of the House of Representatives?
But let's put that behind us now. Let's move on to the 2012 budget.
What are we seeing? We're seeing some wonderful language out of our
colleagues on the other side. We saw the President in his State of the
Union say a lot of the things that folks like me wanted to hear. And
then we saw a budget that did absolutely nothing out of the White
House--nothing. A budget that was decried by The Washington Post as
actually being void of ideas and failing to lead.
So what did our side do? We led. And in our budget, we actually
introduced specific proposals on how to solve the problem. Did you like
them? No. Did I like all of them? No. Are we all going to like all of
the proposals? No chance. But at least we offered ideas, specific
ideas.
Then yesterday we heard the President was going to do the same thing,
that he was going to meet us, that he wasn't going to attack us. He was
actually going to put specific ideas on the table and invited my
colleagues to sit in the front row while he called them un-American and
again refused to give any specifics.
Mr. Speaker, you will not see the President's budget offered today or
tomorrow as an amendment. You will not see the budget that the
President discussed yesterday offered as an amendment because it simply
does not meet the specific requirements of being a budget amendment. It
doesn't even come close.
What the President talked about last night was more empty ideas and
political rhetoric. The speech was introduced by his campaign manager,
not by his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, not by the
Secretary of the Treasury. It was a political speech. I'm
extraordinarily frustrated with that.
I have an economics background. I'd love to sit and talk about the
economic realities that face our Nation. It is so difficult to do when
the other side, led by the President, simply wants to engage in
politics.
Here again today we've seen it. We've seen talking points that
somehow our proposal is going to require seniors to pay $6,000 out of
pocket. We've looked for the last 12 hours to try and find that, Mr.
Speaker, and we can't find it. What we did find, however, was the CBO
report that says that the payment under our proposed system for 65-
year-olds in 2020, 10 years on, would be the exact same as it would be
under Medicare, that the spending per capita on seniors under our
proposal 10 years on would be the same as it is under the current law.
I'm not sure where the $6,300 is coming from. My guess is it's coming
from somebody's political office and not from some economic think tank.
You heard my esteemed colleague from Maryland, whom I've enjoyed
working with on the Budget Committee, talk about the fiscal commission.
I think lost in a lot of the discussion yesterday about the President's
speech were the comments that one of the cochairs of that committee
made as he walked out of the room after the President gave his speech,
and they said, ``Mr. Simpson, what do you think the course of action
should be from here on out?'' And his answer was, ``Pray.''
Is that what we've come to as a Nation, that the best chance we have
to balance our budget is prayer? I'm a big believer in prayer, don't
get me wrong, but we need to be met on the real issues. We cannot have
the other side continuing to meet our specific proposals with rhetoric.
To the extent that we will see specific proposals, I think we saw a
brief introduction to it during the amendment process in the committee.
Every single Democrat amendment--that's not fair. There were three or
four, including one or two that I think I voted for. We did have a
couple of bipartisan amendments pass. But the large majority of the
Democrat proposals of amendments to this budget during the budget
process were fairly simply described as increased taxes and increased
spending. It was a series of increased taxes and increased spending.
My fear, Mr. Speaker, is that's what we're going to see for the next
few days, and it's a tremendous loss that here we are able to discuss
the budget for the first time in 2 years that the debate will be purely
political.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the ranking member.
If my colleague would remember, one of the first amendments that was
offered was to say let's be serious about the deficit. Let's have
shared sacrifice. Let's ask those folks paying over a million dollars
to go back to the same tax rates that they were during the Clinton
administration and put some of that money to deficit reduction.
We offered other amendments by saying let's let the big oil companies
do a little less with the taxpayer subsidies and focus that on higher
priorities.
The gentleman asked where the figure was that a senior would have to
pay $6,000 more in the year 2022 under the Republican proposal. That is
from the CBO letter to the chairman of the Budget Committee where they
did their analysis of the long-term impact. It was not a Republican
outfit. It was not a Democratic outfit. In fact, the chairman of the
committee has made it clear that he has used the CBO baseline for the
purpose of his own budget. This is out of a CBO report. And I think we
need to take it seriously, because we can all have our own arguments
and opinions, but there are certain facts that we can't run away from,
and that's one of them.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California, Chairman Dreier.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation
not only to the gentleman from North Charleston for his superb
management of this rule, but also to salute my friend from
Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who serves from the Rules
Committee to the Committee on the Budget.
We actually have clearly changed the entire trajectory with the
budget that we are going to consider with this rule. And I should say
that, as I listened to the exchange that took place between Messrs. Van
Hollen and Kingston earlier, we've changed the debate.
In the last session of Congress, Mr. Speaker, there was not a budget
considered. We didn't go through this. Yet we are going to have every
single substitute--from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the
Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Cooper, the Democratic substitute--all
considered, and we're going to have a free-flowing debate today and
tomorrow on that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that yesterday I stood here at 1:30
just as the President was getting ready to deliver his speech, and I
indicated some real hope and optimism by virtue of the fact that early
indications were that the President would be talking about the need for
entitlement reform. I have to say that I was more than disappointed in
the fact that the speech was a little more political than I thought it
could have been, and it was at best a very first step, but a little too
modest for my tastes.
{time} 1200
Madam Speaker, it is essential that we work in a bipartisan way to
take on the burden and the cost of Medicare especially, and Social
Security as well. Why? So that we can save, not abolish, Medicare and
Social Security. The American people have been compelled throughout
their entire lifetimes to pay the FICA tax. They in fact should have an
opportunity to have what are much needed health care and retirement
benefits. And the course that
[[Page H2680]]
we're on right now, Madam Speaker, has created a scenario whereby they
will be lost. That's why we are working to save it. It can only be
done, I believe, Madam Speaker, if we do it in a bipartisan way.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former member of
the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague from New York, former
chair of the Rules Committee, who I had the privilege of serving under,
for allowing me this time.
Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak against the rule and against
the Republican budget. Last year was a good year for CEOs at America's
biggest companies. The average CEO got a 12 percent raise and made
about $10 million. Now the Republicans want to give that same CEO a 30
percent tax cut. That's right. While the average American family is
struggling with gas prices that went up 93 cents in the last year,
while working Americans tried to figure out how to afford health care
or how to send their children to college, the Republicans have been
busy trying to figure out how to cut taxes for CEOs by one-third.
Of course, you can't cut taxes that dramatically for the richest
Americans without cutting spending somewhere else. Someone has to pay
for the tax cuts. And in the Republican budget, the people who pay the
price are seniors and the middle class. Under their budget, seniors
will pay when Medicare as we know it is ended and replaced with a
voucher system that will be a windfall for insurance companies but will
double health care costs for seniors. And the middle class will pay
when deductions for home mortgages or health insurance are repealed to
pay for those CEO tax cuts.
Madam Speaker, Republicans simply have the wrong priorities, putting
the burden of the budget on seniors and the middle class while giving
big tax breaks to the wealthy and handing out handouts to insurance
companies. I don't share those values. This is not a budget that serves
the American people well.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan
budget before the House today. I am pleased that the Rules Committee
has made the submitted substitute budgets in order so that we can have
a full debate on our Nation's priorities over the next several years.
And in my view, the Ryan budget represents exactly the wrong
priorities.
It would eliminate Medicare as we know it, forcing seniors to pay
thousands of dollars more every year for their health care. It would
bring back the doughnut hole, allow insurance companies to once again
discriminate based upon preexisting conditions, and kick young people
off their parents' insurance plans. It would slash needed investments
in education, infrastructure, medical research, environmental
protection, and hunger programs. And it would still result in deficits
as far as the eye can see.
And at the same time, the Ryan budget would give a massive tax cut to
the wealthiest Americans. The top rate under the Ryan budget would be
the lowest since 1931, which is appropriate, Madam Speaker, because
this is a budget that only Herbert Hoover could love. Apparently, the
Republican leadership of this House would like to reverse the last 80
years of social progress in this country.
In short, I believe this budget would represent the largest
redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the
wealthy in American history. Now, some have called this approach
trickle-down economics on steroids. But it's worse than trickle-down,
Madam Speaker; it's gusher-up. Over the last several years, working
families have been struggling, struggling to find a job, struggling to
pay their mortgages, to pay the utility bills and their health care
bills, struggling to put food on the table and put their kids through
college. To them, the Republicans would say, ``Tough luck.''
At the same time, the very wealthiest Americans and corporations have
enjoyed record profits. And to them the Republicans would say, ``You
need more help.'' As President Obama said so eloquently yesterday,
``That's not the America that I grew up in. That's not the America I
want for my children and for my grandchildren.''
We can and we must do better. The Democratic alternative offered by
Mr. Van Hollen is a sensible, practical, and, most importantly, fair
way to address our long-term fiscal challenges while at the same time
investing in our future. I urge my colleagues to support that
alternative and to reject the Ryan budget.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the
Budget Committee and my colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, in the last week I have twice offered an amendment to
protect health care for seniors, veterans, and active duty military and
military families. And to my great disappointment, the Republican
majority has twice blocked this effort, first in committee, where
Republicans voted unanimously on a party line vote to end Medicare, and
again yesterday, when the Republican leadership refused to allow this
amendment to be heard, debated, and voted on in this Chamber.
I have twice asked my Republican colleagues to honor the
Constitution. They must allow the democratically elected
representatives of the American people to have an honest up or down
vote on whether or not we support privatizing Medicare, a trend that
could lead to similar privatized plans for the health coverage provided
to our troops and veterans. For if they honestly believe that seniors
will receive quality care at a more affordable price to the taxpayer,
what's to stop them from going after TRICARE and the VA?
My amendment will protect health care provided to seniors and the
disabled from being privatized or being subject to arbitrary spending
caps. It would extend the same protection to health coverage for active
duty military and their families, as well as veterans. This amendment
would protect Medicare, TRICARE, and VA health care from being
eliminated and replaced with voucher or premium support programs.
The Road to Ruin budget ends Medicare. This is a program that 46
million seniors and disabled individuals rely on for their health care.
Rather than guaranteed benefits, seniors and the disabled will be left
with a voucher, or so-called premium support, that by design cannot and
will not keep up with rising health care costs. The private market
views seniors as a risky and expensive investment. So too the disabled.
So too military servicemembers and veterans who have unique health
needs earned through their sacrifice in service to America.
The question before us today is not whether to reduce the deficit,
but how. We have balanced the budget before without ending Medicare. We
can do it again without the painful consequences that the Republican
plan would initiate, where our seniors would pay 68 cents of every
dollar of insurance required as compared to Congress paying 28 cents on
every dollar.
Forty-six million people rely on Medicare today. Even more will
depend on it in the future. Those many millions deserve a vote. That
vote has been denied to them by the Republican leadership of the House.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
Mr. DOLD. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I think it's time that we roll up our sleeves and get
to work. I am delighted that we are having this debate. We hear a lot
about job creators and business owners. Well, I am a small business
owner, and I know what this crushing Federal debt does to small
businesses all across our Nation and to job creators as well. It
reduces certainty and stability, it scares away private sector
investment that leads to growth for our economy, and it crushes the
hopes of job creation.
Small businesses need to be able to forecast what their expenses will
be in
[[Page H2681]]
the long term. Small businesses are reluctant to take risks when they
don't know what their costs will be in the future. And if you listen to
what the President said from his speech just yesterday, he made it
clear that his vision of the future includes taking money out of the
pockets of small businesses and job creators by increasing taxes on
these very small businesses. This is the President's plan for
addressing the deficit.
Increasing taxes on small businesses will have a devastating effect
on job creation in this country. Two-thirds of all net new jobs in our
Nation are created by small business, and 75 percent of those small
businesses file their returns as an independent return on their
individual tax forms. Rather than introduce the specter of uncertainty
and increased taxes on our business community, we must instead make the
choice to be relentless in our effort to support small businesses and
actually encourage economic growth.
Last week Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put
forward a budget that cuts $6.2 trillion over the decade, preventing
the President's proposed tax increases from going into effect and
putting the Nation on a fiscally sustainable path to give job creators
and entrepreneurs all across the country the confidence to grow their
business, to invest, and to create jobs.
{time} 1210
Federal deficits, Madam Speaker, have ballooned over the last 3
years, and this budget blueprint for fiscal year 2012 starts to repair
the damage and takes the serious steps to put ourselves on a path to
paying off the debt and reducing our deficits.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 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. Madam Speaker, we need to work together to change
America, to stop borrowing so much money and jeopardizing the future of
our country. We agree on that.
But it's important that we understand that it's not the way to do
that to end Medicare, and here is what ending Medicare means to the
seniors and disabled people of this country. Today, if a person on
Medicare has a medical problem, they choose their doctor. The doctor
and the patient decide what should happen next and Medicare pays the
lion's share of the bill. This is a system that works for America's
seniors and works for America's disabled.
How do the Republicans want to change Medicare and end Medicare? This
is what they want to do.
You won't choose your doctor, the insurance company will. If a doctor
decides that a certain test or procedure is necessary, he or she will
have to ask the insurance company's permission to get that test done.
And the bill won't be paid by Medicare. The bill will be paid by the
insurance company when they feel like it, if they feel like it, for the
amount that it should.
The Congressional Budget Office has looked at this issue at the
request of Chairman Ryan and concluded that by the end of the
implementation of this plan, seniors will pay an extra $6,000 a year
out of pocket for health care expenses: $6,000 a year, $500 a month,
$125 a week, beyond what they are paying right now for health care.
We will stand for Medicare. We will not stand for this budget. We
will defeat it.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. This Republican budget does offer a path to prosperity.
Unfortunately, it's China's prosperity.
For America, they offer a fast track to mediocrity, a descent into
economic insecurity. It's the wrong path to global competitiveness.
It's not that the level of our debt or the size of our tax rates is
unimportant; it's that when you have such a narrow focus that you talk
about little else, you forget America's other competitive strengths,
our workforce, the need to invest to ensure the strongest and best-
educated workforce anywhere in the world, and our infrastructure that
allows American businesses to prosper across our country. It's also
about preserving a broad middle class so that more Americans share in
the bounty of this country instead of going to some third-world extreme
where all the wealth is concentrated at those at the top of the ladder.
Today we have to choose. Instead of eliminating $4 billion from early
education and student financial assistance so that students can achieve
all of their God-given potential, why not ask General Electric to at
least pay the level of taxes that the mail clerks that work for it pay?
Instead of eliminating $3 billion from our crumbling roads and
bridges, why not ask those giant corporations that currently get a $3
billion annual deduction when they borrow money to build a factory
overseas without recognizing any of the income from that factory, to
begin to pay their fair share. And instead of accepting this Republican
nonsense that we have to have more tax breaks for the very wealthy in
our country, why not use the same money to ensure a little dignity for
our seniors in nursing homes across the country?
We need to stop exporting jobs and manufacturing and stop exporting
our tax revenues overseas and begin developing a more competitive
workforce right here in America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. I will yield my time, but I will never yield to those
Republicans who don't demand any sacrifice from Wall Street and all
those big-bonus recipients but do demand that the rest of us pay for
balancing their budget.
Oppose this Republican budget.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
(Mr. LANKFORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANKFORD. I sit and listen to the conversation and the debate,
and it is as if we are reading two entirely different documents. I feel
like the Republicans are being portrayed as if they are going to have a
horn grow out of their heads and immediately rush into homes and jerk
out the poor and those that are on Social Security and the needy.
If you read the document, we are dealing with two central issues. The
first of those issues is $14 trillion in debt. Now, we can ignore that
fact or we can begin to take it on and make serious decisions and have
serious adult conversations.
The second issue that we take on is this one simple principle: Do we
have a spending problem, or do we have a tax problem in America? In
other words, do we need to tax a lot more, or do we need to spend less?
I think if you look at the rate of how we have been spending in
America versus how we are taxing in America, you would say we have a
spending issue. In our current time there are all these statements that
are being made that Republicans want to protect the corporations,
Republicans want to be able to give all these benefits to the wealthy.
Here's what we want to do with the tax rate: Leave it where it is
now. That's not a 30 percent cut. That's not anything else. Where it is
right now, that's the rate that we need to keep.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my good friend from New York.
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the seniors in my community.
Before we enacted Medicare in 1965, almost half of all seniors in our
country had no health insurance coverage. That's why the creation of
Medicare was so important, and now every one of America's seniors has
access to quality health care coverage.
But today their care is at risk and under assault. The America we
enjoy, as the result of the lifetimes of hard work by our seniors, and
as they enter their well-deserved retirements, there are those who
would callously rip away the commitment this Nation made to them.
The Republican budget for fiscal year 2012 is a Path to the Past and
will return us to the dark days when seniors
[[Page H2682]]
agonized over access to health care. The Republican budget ends the
guaranteed coverage of Medicare and replaces it with a grossly
inadequate voucher system, subjugating seniors once again to the whims
of private insurance companies and forcing them to bear the brunt of
spiraling health care costs by themselves.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said seniors in 2030
would pay three times more for coverage under the Republican plan. The
Republican budget reopens the doughnut hole in Medicare part D, forcing
seniors once again to pay thousands of dollars of out-of-pocket
expenses for prescription drug medication.
I was proud to fix that inequity and eliminate the doughnut hole last
year. But the Path to the Past brings it back, roaring back, costing
seniors thousands more.
But this Republican budget isn't just a cost-shifting trick to
transfer the financial burden onto seniors, though it is that. The
Republicans would also repeal the important reforms prohibiting
insurers from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.
That puts every single senior with preexisting conditions at risk.
Even those who can afford the increased costs of privatized care, they
could find themselves denied that care in the Republican plan. The Path
to the Past needs to be rejected, Madam Speaker.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one
of our new Members, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
I rise in opposition to this rule and against this budget. This
Republican budget no longer honors our commitment to our seniors and
doesn't reduce our deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
says that the Republican plan will add $8 trillion to the deficit over
the next decade because the proposed cuts in spending are outpaced by
gigantic tax cuts for the richest Americans.
{time} 1220
You also can't say you care about seniors and then fight to enact
policies that hurt seniors. Under their plan, they'll slash support for
seniors in nursing homes while giving away tax breaks to companies that
ship our jobs overseas.
And what else? American seniors will literally be paying more for
their health care and getting less in order to finance additional tax
breaks to the wealthiest Americans, also reflected in this Republican
budget.
A budget is more than just about dollars and cents. It's a statement
of our values and our priorities as a Nation. This Republican budget
does not reflect the values of our great Nation. My friends on the
other side of the aisle would rather cut benefits to seniors than cut
subsidies to big oil companies and big corporations that ship our jobs
overseas.
They can quarrel with that argument, but these are the choices made
in this budget. It ends Medicare as we know it. It slashes funding for
nursing homes. It preserves tax cuts for the richest Americans and
makes it even more generous. And it increases our debt. We have a
responsibility to honor our commitment to our seniors. I ask my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if we can't protect our
Greatest Generation and keep our promise to them, what is next?
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for
yielding.
We've got a good freshman class up there on the Rules Committee. And
what we've been able to do under the leadership of Chairman Dreier is
bring open processes to the floor. Can you imagine, we've got a
multitude of budgets down here on the floor. If you want to look at the
Congressional Black Caucus budget, you can vote for that today. If you
want to vote for the Republican Study Committee budget, you can vote
for that today. If you want to vote for Mr. Van Hollen's budget, you
can vote for that today. You have your choices today about what your
priorities are and about what your vision for America's future is.
And when we have that conversation--and we've had it in the Budget
Committee. I'm proud to be able to serve on both the Rules Committee
and the Budget Committee--we've had that on the Budget Committee, an
honest back and forth. So it pains me to come to the floor today and
hear what can only be described as nonsense. Nonsense.
Have you heard anybody on the House floor today say that the
Republican budget would change things for seniors? Have you heard that
today? I believe you have because I've heard it over and over again.
The truth of the matter is the Republican budget changes nothing,
nothing for seniors. It says you don't even have to be a senior. If
you're age 55 or older, we change nothing in Medicare for you. Nothing.
Yet my colleagues on the left are scaring today's seniors, scaring
the folks who have the fewest number of choices in our society, scaring
them into believing that folks are coming for them. Not true.
Our colleagues on the left would say $6,000 is what we're going to
charge additional to seniors. Well, two things: Number one, again,
we're not doing anything for seniors. You've got to be 55 or younger.
You've got to be my age to even begin to have a program change.
And more importantly, that $6,000 figure comes from a CBO report
looking at things 12 years down the road, which is 2 years after the
Medicare program has gone bankrupt entirely. Hear that. Hear that
misinformation: $6,000 per beneficiary, a number that comes from a
report looking at the program 2 years after our trustees tell us it's
going to go bankrupt entirely.
Folks, this is about choices. This is about your vision for America.
You have to put forward your plan. I applaud Mr. Van Hollen for putting
a plan forward. He could have said, no, I don't have any ideas. That's
what the White House has chosen to do. Mr. Van Hollen did better. The
Congressional Black Caucus did better. The Republican Study Committee
did better.
Look at these budgets. Look at the open process. Make the choice for
you about what you believe a better America would look like. The Wall
Street Journal talked about the Path to Prosperity and called it the
most serious attempt at reforming government in a generation. It
absolutely is. I applaud Chairman Ryan for getting that done.
I thank my friend from South Carolina for the time, and I appreciate
the Rules Committee giving us this open process that we have today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I want to thank my colleague from New York
for allowing me to speak.
The gentleman before me was correct: we have lots of options today,
and that's great. We have the Republican budget, we have a Democratic
budget, we have a Black Caucus budget and we have a Progressive Caucus
budget. We have lots of options.
I'm going to talk about the Republican budget.
The Republican proposal we're debating today is reckless and
misguided. It slashes taxes for the wealthy and pays for them by
gutting Medicare. Let me explain that. It cuts over $30 billion in the
first 10 years and will end Medicare by forcing seniors into private
health insurance plans after 2022. They're right, if you're 54 years
old now and you have high blood pressure and you're diabetic or
prediabetic, you won't get Medicare. You'll get a voucher. And
insurance companies don't want to cover those of us that may be
diabetic or prediabetic or have high blood pressure. They're waiting to
get on Medicare. They're not waiting to get a voucher.
It gradually excludes seniors and eventually raises the age to 67 for
Medicare. The CBO says that in 2022, the Republican's proposal will
more than double the cost paid by Medicare enrollees. We are throwing
seniors out of Medicare and into the uncertainty of the private
insurance market while providing tax breaks to the wealthy. And it
doesn't make sense.
I also represent the Port of Houston, the 10th busiest port in the
world. The
[[Page H2683]]
port is facing a dredging crisis. Ensuring dredging means ensuring
jobs. But the Republican budget contains deep cuts in programs like the
Army Corps of Engineers. Dredging cannot be funded privately. It has to
come from the Corps and the Federal Government. Hundreds of thousands
of jobs not only in our Port of Houston but also across the country
under this plan will be put at risk.
There's one high point in the budget, and I commend Chairman Ryan for
including language to put NASA on track with the authorization bill
Congress passed last year and provide for an immediate transition for
our next generation of human space flight program once the shuttle
missions are concluded.
Despite that, I'm unable to support the plan that allows massive cuts
for the wealthiest Americans and pays for them by ending Medicare while
neglecting our ports.
This budget proposal makes over $30 billion in cuts to Medicare over
10 years, seeks to eliminate Medicare, and shifts all seniors over to
private insurance plans after 2022.
Beginning in 2022, Congressman Ryan's budget proposal would convert
the current Medicare system to a system of premium support payments.
Individuals, when they turn 65 and Disability Insurance beneficiaries
who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later, would not enroll in
the current Medicare program but would receive vouchers to purchase
private insurance plans. In addition, the proposal would increase the
age of eligibility for Medicare for 2 months per year until it reaches
67 in 2033.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Ryan budget
proposal would more than double Medicare beneficiary costs in 2022,
from $5,538 to $12,513, which is an increase of nearly $7,000 per year
in beneficiary premiums and co-insurance. Not one dollar of that
increase in beneficiary costs goes to reducing the deficit--it all goes
to cover the higher costs of private plans that the Republicans would
force seniors to join. Additionally, the average 65-year-old in 2030
would have to pay about 68 percent of their health care costs (through
premiums and copayments), compared with 25 percent under current rules.
This is not the type of system we want for our seniors. Shifting
individuals from a program like Medicare that works to private
insurance plans that are only interested in making a profit is no way
to reduce government spending and our deficit. In fact, the Ryan
proposal once again shifts the burden of reducing the deficit onto the
taxpayer and our seniors.
I represent the Port of Houston, the busiest port in the United
States in terms of foreign tonnage, second-busiest in the United States
in terms of overall tonnage, and tenth-busiest in the world.
Unfortunately, the Port of Houston, like many Ports in this country, is
facing a dredging crisis.
In my district, ensuring dredging means ensuring jobs. By maintaining
our shipping channel we lower the cost of importing and exporting. We
move more commerce through our city and into communities across the
country. Workers at distribution centers, longshoremen, truck drivers,
tug boat operators, and many other professions rely on a functional
port.
The Port has identified over $80 million in dredging needs and they
were only receiving $20 million of that in the President's budget
request. The Republican Budget contains deep cuts, beyond the
President's Budget, to programs like the Army Corps of Engineers. No
other entity can fund these dredging projects but the Corps. Hundreds
of thousands of jobs rely on the Port of Houston being one of the
busiest in the world. Our oil and gas industry relies on a well-
maintained, functioning port. It is critical to our economy and our
Nation's strategic interests to maintain this port in the best
condition possible, but under this plan, the budget will be cut.
We have heard a lot from the Republican side about freeing our
private sector to create jobs, but now we see their budget, and we find
out this just isn't the case.
While I am disappointed with nearly the Republicans' entire budget, I
am pleased with one portion of it. I commend Chairman Ryan for
including language that would put NASA on track to follow the
Authorization bill Congress passed last year.
The plan in the authorization, and reaffirmed in this budget, would
provide for an immediate transition to our next generation human space
flight program.
If NASA follows its own plan, human space flight will be put into
limbo once the Space Shuttle missions conclude.
By incorporating the compromise of the NASA authorization bill, we
can use the valuable work accomplished during the Constellation program
for the next generation of human space flight.
We can maximize cost-savings and offer the best value by leveraging
tax payer dollars that have already been spent for the biggest benefit.
These are goals that we must pursue during such difficult fiscal times.
If we do not effectively guide NASA back toward a plan that is within
the confines of the law, it will result in significant duplicative
costs and unnecessary job losses.
Local economies, like my own in Houston, home of Johnson Space
Center, will be hit hard when we have just begun to recover.
It is estimated by the Human Space Flight industry that at least
10,000 employees will be laid off under the more expensive, less
effective, NASA budget proposal.
A failure to maintain preeminence in human space flight will have
ripple effects that damage our education system, our technology
industry's ability to innovate, and could handicap our global
competitiveness for years to come.
We spend so much time talking about the importance of inspiring our
students to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math
disciplines. NASA serves as the single biggest catalyst for this
inspiration.
Under the NASA budget proposal, there will be no new jobs for our
STEM students. We must change the trajectory at NASA. The plan in the
authorization bill costs less, does more, and will allow our Nation to
maintain its role as the leader in space.
Despite this, I am unable to support any plan that allows massive tax
cuts for the wealthiest Americans and pays for them by ending Medicare
while also neglecting maintaining our Ports, which are critical
national interests.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
Republicans say their budget is a ``Path to Prosperity.'' But it's
really a ``Path to More Prosperity for the Already Prosperous.'' The
Republican budget picks high-rolling oil executives over low-income
families. It favors CEOs over senior citizens. It helps the wealthy
over the working class.
How do Republicans pay for this gigantic goodie bag for the rich?
Well, they eviscerate Medicare, turning it into an underfunded voucher
program. Medicare becomes ``Medicare-less.'' And to help seniors to pay
for their medicines, GOP stands for ``Grandma's Out of Prescriptions.''
This budget is the same tired tune Republicans have been trotting out
for decades. It's ``Play It Again, Uncle Sam.'' In the 1980s, Ronald
Reagan tried to slash the social safety net programs. In 2005,
President Bush tried to privatize Social Security. And today, the same
Republicans are trying to shred the social safety net they've opposed
since it was created. It is not just deja vu all over again. It's deja
voodoo economics all over again.
Vote down this misguided budget so that we can protect Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security now and into the future. Do not let
Medicare become ``Medicare-less.'' We don't want these people who
always opposed Medicare, always opposed Social Security, opposed
Medicaid as we put it on the books, to now come back and say, we're
very courageous, we want to end those programs as we know it. But, by
the way, where their courage has to be shown, they show none. They will
not tax the rich. They only want to harm the poor.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, the Republicans have shown with their budget proposal
that they're intent on using the deficit as a pretense to end Medicare.
Democrats proposed an amendment in the Budget Committee to protect
Medicare, TRICARE for the military and VA health care from
privatization or arbitrary spending caps. The Republicans all voted
against it. Democrats tried again in the Rules Committee last night,
but this rule does not allow the amendment to be brought to the House
floor.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Tonko's amendment to protect
Medicare, TRICARE and veterans' health care from privatization or
arbitrary spending caps.
{time} 1230
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
gentlewoman from New York?
[[Page H2684]]
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so we can put every Member of the House on
record as to where they stand on health care and if they want to end
Medicare or not.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, finally, the Democrats do get it. What they get is, if
they do not find a way to scare our senior citizens, they have no
chance. When you cover the expenses of running this government and when
you think about the fact that what the Democrats have proposed and what
President Obama has proposed in his original budget is an increase of
$8.7 trillion of new spending and $47 trillion of new spending in the
next 10 years, the Democrats have finally found a way to cover their
tracks, and it is on the backs of our senior citizens.
There is no doubt that the 2012 budget plan that we have proposed has
no impact, not only on our senior citizens who are receiving benefits
today, but on those over the age of 55.
Not only are the Democrats willing to scare our seniors based on
nothing, but they want to go to 2 years after Medicare is bankrupt and
then start having a conversation about numbers when Medicare would not
exist under their plan.
What we do under our plan is a simple thing. We strengthen and
preserve Social Security and Medicare for the next generation. We
understand that it is time to roll up our sleeves and to get serious
about preserving the American Dream for the next generation. Our budget
does that by cutting $6.2 trillion out of the deficit in the next 10
years and by creating more than 1 million jobs in the next 12 months--
but we go further. We simply say that you do not create more
disincentives or higher taxes in order to improve our economy.
Let us do exactly what the previous generation, the Greatest
Generation, has done for us--pass on the American Dream in its
entirety. We have a responsibility to the next generation in taking the
tough road today in order to make the American Dream stronger tomorrow.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 223 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution or the adoption of an amendment printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules, it shall be in order
to consider the amendment specified in section 3 as though
printed as the last amendment in part B if offered by
Representative Tonko of New York or a designee. That
amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
At the end of title VI, add the following new section:
SEC. __ SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SAVING HEALTH CARE FOR SENIORS,
MILITARY, AND VETERANS.
(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) senior citizens and persons with disabilities highly
value the Medicare program and rely on Medicare to guarantee
their health security; and
(2) active duty military servicemembers and their families
value the high-quality health care they receive through
Tricare and other programs run by the Department of Defense,
and veterans rely on the health service network run by the
Department of Veterans Affairs to address their unique health
needs.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) the Congress should reject legislation that--
(A) protects tax cuts for the wealthy and special interests
while shifting health care costs onto seniors through a
policy to replace Medicare with vouchers or premium support
for the purchase of private insurance; or
(B) damages the excellent care provided to the men and
women who are serving and who have served the country in
uniform; and
(2) any future health care legislation that eliminates
quality Federal health care programs and--
(A) replaces them with vouchers or premium support for the
purchase of private insurance; or
(B) sets caps on Federal health care spending,
should exclude programs for seniors, military servicemembers
and their families, and veterans.
____
(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 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.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam 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 223, if
ordered; and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 183, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 265]
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
[[Page H2685]]
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
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
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
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
Shuler
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 (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
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
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
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
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
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
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Cassidy
Diaz-Balart
Giffords
Meeks
Moore
Olver
Reichert
Richmond
Schock
Sewell
Towns
{time} 1256
Mr. SERRANO changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. FORBES changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 265, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 265, 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 181, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 266]
YEAS--243
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
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
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)
Frelinghuysen
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
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
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
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
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
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 (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--181
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
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)
[[Page H2686]]
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Cohen
Garrett
Giffords
Meeks
Olver
Reichert
Towns
Waters
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining on this vote.
{time} 1305
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.
____________________