[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1654-H1663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 112, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 597 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 597

       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. 112) establishing the 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 
     and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 2014 through 2022. 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 of general debate 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 of general debate 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. The concurrent resolution shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. 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, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
     report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. 
     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. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and 
     amendments thereto to adoption without intervening motion 
     except amendments offered by the chair 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.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of March 29, 2012, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure extending 
     expiring surface transportation authority.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my colleague 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.
  Mr. Speaker, it's budget day. It's budget day, and we get to begin 
that in the Rules Committee.
  Now, I have the great pleasure in this body, as a freshman, of 
serving on both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, so you 
can imagine the sincerity with which I bring my enthusiasm to the floor 
today.
  Coming here as a freshman who believes in an open process, who 
believes that we ought to have the opportunity to bring all ideas 
before the American people and let the 435 Members of the people's 
House express their opinion, I'm proud to tell you that the rule that 
is before us today allows for not one budget to be debated, not two 
budgets to be debated, not three, not four, not five, and not six, Mr. 
Speaker; but the rule that we bring today allows for seven different 
visions of the United States budget to be brought before this 
institution and debated. That is every single budget that was 
introduced, offered yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in front of the Rules 
Committee.
  Candidly, had more Members submitted budgets, had we had 11, had we 
had 12, we would have made those in order, too, because this debate 
that we will have over these next 2 days, Mr. Speaker, is a debate 
about the vision that we have in this body for this country. I am so 
proud of the vision that was voted, reported out of the Budget 
Committee, and that will be made in order by this rule.
  The options we'll have before us, Mr. Speaker, as made in order by 
this rule, include the President's budget. You may remember last year, 
Mr. Speaker, the President submitted his budget to Congress and not a 
single Member of the House offered that budget on the floor. It was 
offered in the Senate. It didn't get any votes. It was defeated 97 0, 
but it was offered there. This year, we're going to be able to look at 
the President's budget and debate that here on the floor of the House 
for the first time in my term.
  We're going to have a budget offered by the Congressional Black 
Caucus today that lays out a vision for America, that talks about 
taxation, that talks about revenues and spending and where we should 
prioritize. We have a bipartisan budget that's been introduced, Mr. 
Speaker, that will come before the floor of this House, again, to be 
debated in its entirety. We have the Progressive Caucus budget that's 
coming. We have the Republican Study Committee budget that is coming. 
And, Mr. Speaker, we have the Democratic Caucus substitute that is 
coming, all to compete with, in this grand arena of ideas, the budget 
that we reported out of the Budget Committee.
  I see my colleague from Wisconsin, with whom I have the great 
pleasure of serving on the Budget Committee. We went through amendment 
after amendment after amendment--some 30 amendments offered and 
considered, debated, some with bipartisan support, some with bipartisan 
opposition--to create this one budget that will be the foundation for 
the budget debate, Mr. Speaker, if this rule is enacted.
  I don't know how we could have done it any better in the Rules 
Committee. I hope that's what we'll hear from my friend from New York.

[[Page H1655]]

  Again, every single budget that was offered--and that was the 
invitation put out by the Speaker, just to be clear. The openness and 
the invitation was, Mr. Speaker: Come one, come all. If you have a 
competing vision, send it to the Rules Committee. We'll make it in 
order on the floor so that we can have the kind of open debate that's 
going to make America proud.

                              {time}  1300

  This is the beginning of that, right here, Mr. Speaker, right now.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for his kindness yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee did fine. It was open, and it 
allowed all the budgets, as he said, to be brought to the floor. It's 
what we have to work with that is concerning to me because the budget's 
a reflection of our values and, through that prism, the Ryan budget 
that we're considering today is morally bankrupt.
  The budget that the majority proposes today puts corporations and the 
wealthiest Americans above the needs of working and middle class 
families. It increases military spending while slashing the safety net 
for the middle class and protects tax loopholes for corporations that 
ship jobs overseas.
  In short, this extreme, partisan proposal takes a hatchet to the 
notion of shared responsibility and places the financial burdens of a 
generation upon the shoulders of seniors, the poor, and the middle 
class.
  Under this budget, the millionaires will receive multiple tax cuts 
totaling at least $300,000, and not a single corporate tax loophole 
will be closed.
  Under this budget, we would see the end of Medicare as we know it. In 
its place, seniors would be offered the option of a fixed price voucher 
with which they may go into the market to find their own insurance, 
with no guarantee that the voucher you receive will come even close to 
covering the cost of the health care.
  Meanwhile, the landmark Affordable Care Act, which is the first law 
to start addressing the soaring cost of health care, would be repealed. 
Repeal of the law would mean that children under 26 could no longer be 
insured by their parents, and millions of Americans suffering from 
chronic diseases could once again be denied care.
  I don't think many Americans--certainly, I didn't know it--
understand--I learned this during the Clinton health care debate--that 
most policies have a yearly and a lifetime limit. As a matter of fact, 
at that time, when we were debating the Clinton health care plan, that 
limit was about $1 million, which means that an emergency like head 
trauma from a car accident, a bike accident, or just a workplace error 
on a construction site, could lead you to reaching your limit, and you 
would no longer be eligible for health insurance.
  Let me say that in another way. Once you reach that limit with your 
preexisting condition, you would be uninsurable in the United States 
for the rest of your life. The health care bill that everybody's 
talking about now does away with that, both yearly limits and lifetime 
limits.
  Right now, most individuals still face this danger, but thanks to the 
Affordable Care Act, lifetime and yearly limits will be phased out in 
2014. That's a very important part of this bill.
  People who want to repeal health care have said absolutely nothing 
about what they expect to replace it with. We would assume that people 
with preexisting conditions could no longer get coverage.
  Under the Republican budget, those protections would be taken away, 
and the vulnerable Americans would be left to figure out how to survive 
on their own.
  We talk about the mandate to buy insurance. Right now, under the 
present law, we are all paying for people who are uninsured. Those 
people who choose not to buy insurance, who have to go to the hospital 
for emergencies, or any other reason, are paid for, they are treated, 
by the law, but we pay the cost. It is estimated in some areas that we 
spend $1,000 a year more, those of us who are insured, simply to cover 
the uninsured.
  Now, you can continue doing that and paying everybody else's health 
care costs, or we can keep this health care bill which is so important 
to us.
  The Republican budget not only takes from the poor and gives to the 
rich, it even fails to fulfill the promise of a balanced budget.
  Just this morning, Politico published an article entitled, ``Ryan 
plan puts GOP in long-term budget bind.'' In the article, the author 
writes:

       It is a bold, even bellicose election-year challenge. But 
     the strict revenue limits could postpone for a generation the 
     conserve promise of a balanced budget.

  Even the majority themselves admit this plan will add $3.11 trillion 
to our deficit between 2013 and 2022.
  Under the majority's plan, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office estimates that all government spending, except for Social 
Security and paying down the debt, will have to be cut by one-third in 
order to balance the budget by 2040.
  This draconian approach means that seniors and the poor will receive 
worse health care, our children will continue to learn in crumbling 
schools, and we will all travel, as usual, on a failing transportation 
network with bridges that are substandard and roads that are cracking, 
that is inefficient and totally out of date.
  This vision does not reflect the ideals of a better America nor the 
hopes for a brighter future. It is neither a reflection of the values 
that I hold dear nor the values of the people that whom I represent.
  I join many of my colleagues in supporting the Democrat alternative 
being offered by Mr. Van Hollen. The Democrat alternative budget 
supports the creation of jobs in the high-tech and construction fields. 
It invests in our future by prioritizing education, as we must, also 
prioritizing health and the economy, and reduces the deficit through 
responsible spending cuts, with revenue raised by having everyone pay 
their fair share and by closing corporate tax loopholes.
  The Democrat alternative is a thoughtful, balanced approach, one that 
does not place the entire burden of sacrifice on the backs of seniors, 
the poor, and the middle class.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the misguided and dangerous proposal 
before us and, instead, consider one of the numerous alternatives that 
protect the middle class while reducing our deficit in a responsible 
way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                   [From POLITICO.com, Mar. 27, 2012]

                  Ryan Plan Puts GOP in Long-Term Bind

                           (By David Rogers)

       Call it the 19 percent solution.
       As House debate begins Wednesday, that's the bottom line of 
     the new Republican budget blueprint, which breaks with the 
     August debt accords and substitutes a vision of capping 
     revenue at 19 percent of gross domestic product and scaling 
     back government to fit into that suit.
       It's a bold, even bellicose election-year challenge. But 
     the strict revenue limits could postpone for a generation the 
     conservative promise of a balanced budget. At the same time, 
     deep cuts to health care and education most likely will make 
     it harder for GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney to appeal to 
     independents and women voters in the presidential campaign.
       Indeed, it's a tight box that Republicans have put 
     themselves in and one that literally requires a 
     transformation of government to escape.
       Just an upward adjustment of revenue to 20.25 percent of 
     GDP would bring Washington into balance by 2023 under the 
     same House plan. But the party's anti-tax stance precludes 
     that, and it is not until 17 years later that an extended 
     forecast by the Congressional Budget Office shows a modest 
     surplus in 2040.
       By that date, all government spending--except Social 
     Security and payments on the debt--would have had to have 
     been cut by more than a third to reach this goal. Even in the 
     wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget tilts 
     heavily toward defense spending at the expense of domestic 
     appropriations.
       In a show of unity, Romney endorsed the House plan last 
     week, but his campaign ducked questions from POLITICO this 
     week. If elected president, he would face almost immediate 
     pressure to cut nondefense appropriations by 20 percent in 
     his first budget, rolling back spending to a level that 
     predates George W. Bush's administration.
       ``It's not the budget I would have written,'' Rep. Mike 
     Simpson told POLITICO. And the Idaho Republican--and former 
     speaker of his state Legislature--represents an increasingly 
     restless element in the party going forward.
       It was Simpson's vote that allowed Budget Committee 
     Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to get the resolution out of his 
     committee last week--and Simpson will stand again with the 
     leadership on the floor. But there's no hiding the fact that 
     he and many Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee 
     are furious with the course taken in

[[Page H1656]]

     this budget and more willing to lend support to those who 
     feel revenue must also be part of the equation.
       ``This is going to be the most partisan debate of the year 
     and it will set up the election for the year,'' Simpson said. 
     ``But I don't think it's the balanced plan to get us out of 
     the hole we are in. Ultimately, the only thing that is going 
     to solve this problem is not a Republican plan, not a 
     Democratic plan, but a bipartisan plan that has buy-in from 
     both sides. That's when we stop going out and shooting one 
     another.''
       An early test in this week's floor debate could be the fate 
     of a new entry sponsored by Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and 
     Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), also a member of the 
     Appropriations panel.
       Their proposal would present an updated version of the 2010 
     presidential debt commission's recommendations, a combination 
     of entitlement savings and $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 
     years. And having shied away in the past, Cooper told 
     POLITICO that he was now encouraged enough by the reception 
     to proceed--the first real time the ideas have been put to a 
     floor vote.
       ``My view is this is where they are going to wind up at the 
     end of the year anyway, so we might as well start talking 
     about it,'' LaTourette said. ``Anybody who thinks you are not 
     going to have to have a pot of revenue and pot of cuts is 
     thinking funny.''
       Matched against this fragile center will be more 
     traditional warring alternatives on the right and left.
       The Republican Study Committee Tuesday announced its menu 
     of still deeper appropriations cuts and Medicaid savings--all 
     in the hopes of reaching balance in five years. At the same 
     time, the Congressional Black Caucus weighed in with a 
     deficit-reduction package that also exceeds Ryan's plan but 
     is heavily dependent on what appears to be $3.9 trillion in 
     additional revenue--including a novel financial speculation 
     tax--not in the White House's own budget.
       Republicans hope to embarrass President Barack Obama by 
     having one of their own call up the White House's February 
     budget submission--for certain defeat. And the House Rules 
     Committee late Tuesday made in order such a proposal to be 
     offered by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), who already is 
     backing both Ryan and the more severe RSC alternative.
       Democrats will have their own alternative claiming greater 
     war savings than Obama's--it would end all overseas 
     contingency operations funding after 2014, for example. But 
     the 10-year deficits are still almost double those in the 
     Ryan plan, and Republicans jumped on the fact that the 
     resolution cancels the $1.2 trillion sequester mechanism 
     under the Budget Control Act--without spelling out a clear 
     substitute.
       By contrast, the Ryan resolution would also tamper with the 
     first round of automatic cuts due in January but seeks to 
     offset most of these reductions, about half of which would 
     come from defense appropriations.
       Six House committees would be ordered to come up with 
     prescribed savings by the end of next month for floor action 
     in May. Armed Services is exempted, frustrating the design of 
     the Budget Control Act, and there is the risk of splitting 
     even traditionally bipartisan panels, like the House 
     Agriculture Committee.
       Ryan's budget demands savings of more than $8 billion in 
     2013 from Agriculture--an effort to target food stamps. And 
     the challenge for Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) is to 
     navigate these waters without jeopardizing the partnership he 
     wants with the minority in writing a farm bill later this 
     year.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that I think the gentlelady from New York is right on target. I 
mean, these budgets are moral documents. They talk about our priorities 
as a people.
  I tell folks back home, Mr. Speaker, and we don't have any young 
people on the floor with us today, but for all those young folks who 
are entrepreneurs, Mr. Speaker, who want to go out, and they don't want 
to work for the Man, they want to go out and hang out their own 
shingle, run their own business; you know, if they lost, at their small 
business, beginning on the day Jesus Christ was born, $1 million a day, 
and they lost $1 million a day at that small business every single day 
from the day Jesus was born, 7 days a week, through today, Mr. Speaker, 
they would have to continue to lose $1 million a day every day, 7 days 
a week for another 700 years to lose their first trillion dollars. 
Their first trillion.
  And the budgets that have been passed by this House and by the United 
States Senate and signed by Presidents of both parties have saddled our 
young people today in America with more than $15 trillion--not $1 
trillion, Mr. Speaker--$15 trillion and climbing, soon to be 16.
  So when we talk about the morality of our budgets, we've got to talk 
about the morality of continuing to run budgets that are unbalanced. 
We've got to talk about the morality of continuing to pay for our 
priorities today with IOUs from our children in the future. We've got 
to talk about the prosperity that we experience today that we're 
trading away the prosperity of the future to have.
  Health care, Mr. Speaker. It's going on right across the street. The 
longest line in Washington, D.C., today is right out there at the 
Supreme Court, folks who want to get in and find out what's going to 
happen.
  Well, the budget that makes up the foundation of this debate that 
we'll have assumes the President's health care bill is going to go 
away. It assumes the Supreme Court Justices will accurately conclude 
that this mandate is unconstitutional, that the whole house of cards 
unfolds beyond that, and we'll start again.
  And you know what's interesting?
  Again, I'm so proud to be a member of this Budget Committee that I do 
think is doing it better than we have done it in the past under both 
parties. You know, had the President's health care bill come to the 
floor of this House five pages at the time, 10 pages at the time, 20 
pages at the time, I would wager that this House would have passed the 
majority of it. In fact, I would wager that the American people would 
have approved and been enthusiastic about the majority of it.
  But what has happened in this House too often, Mr. Speaker, is that 
we take those policies that we can all agree on, and for some reason 
unbeknownst to me, we decide that it would be bad if we all agreed on 
good policy, and so we begin to stuff things in there that we know are 
going to create controversy.

                              {time}  1310

  We just manufacture an argument that we don't have to have, and 
that's what happened to the President's health care bill. There was 
this nugget of the individual mandate, that theft of freedom, a new 
definition about what it means to be an American. We knew that the body 
wouldn't support that so we began to add on sweetener after sweetener 
after sweetener. We could have just voted on those sweeteners.
  This rule doesn't put up with that, Mr. Speaker. This rule says we're 
not going to try to buy anybody's vote on the floor, we're not going to 
try to hide the ball in these budgets. Every single Member of Congress 
who has a vision of America, who has a vision of the morality that my 
colleague from New York discussed, who has a vision of what we could be 
as a people if only we had the political will to implement it right 
here. Each and every Member of Congress was invited to put that vision 
forward.
  There are at least two visions that we'll have today, Mr. Speaker, 
and tomorrow that I plan to support, visions that I think outline that 
correct vision of how we can retain America's economic prosperity, how 
we can continue to be a leader in the free world.
  But I support bringing to the floor those budgets that I do not 
believe in because just because those folks in north metro Atlanta, Mr. 
Speaker, just because those folks in the Seventh District of Georgia 
that I represent don't approve of every budget doesn't mean that those 
budgets don't deserve a vote, and that is a fundamental difference 
between the leadership that this Speaker has brought to this 
Institution and the leadership that we have had from both parties in 
years past.
  What we've said is every single idea is worthy of consideration--win 
or lose. Win or lose, bring those ideas to the floor for debate, and 
let's see where the votes fall.
  Mr. Speaker, again, as a member of both the Budget Committee and the 
Rules Committee, I am strongly supportive of the underlying budget bill 
but particularly proud of this rule that makes every other budget 
option in order as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from New York for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the majority's 
misguided budget.
  Forty-seven years ago when seniors were the most uninsured group in 
our Nation, we made a promise that their health care would be 
guaranteed; and because of that promise, millions of older Americans 
today have quality, affordable health care, and they and their families 
have peace of mind. But

[[Page H1657]]

the majority's budget seems to break that promise by ending Medicare as 
we know it.
  Instead of a guarantee, seniors would get a hope and a prayer, 
otherwise known as a voucher. This voucher, fixed in price, would be 
worth less and less each year, and health care costs incurred by 
individual seniors would increase by at least $6,000 a year.
  Their plan would raise Medicare's eligibility age, delaying the 
promise of a sound retirement for millions of working Americans, and 
the bill would whack away at Medicaid which provides long-term care for 
low-income seniors and the disabled and pass the buck to cash-strapped 
States where its future would be uncertain in tough budgetary times 
like today.
  Mr. Speaker, those promoting this plan to end Medicare argue that we 
have no choice if we want to bring down our deficits, but their plan 
doesn't bring down health care costs. It just shifts those costs onto 
the backs of our Nation's seniors.
  Today's seniors will lose important benefits that they currently 
enjoy today, like access to free preventive screenings and reduced 
prescription drug costs through the closing of the doughnut hole under 
ObamaCare, a term I am proud to use. The plan would weaken Medicare 
itself. As the voucher program draws off healthier, younger seniors, it 
leaves behind the oldest and sickest, those the private insurance 
market won't cover.
  This plan will cause untold harm to our Nation's seniors and their 
families who today rely upon Medicare for the promise of quality, 
affordable health care.
  You know, 47 years ago we did make a promise, a promise that is 
working for millions of American seniors and their families. We cannot 
break that promise. I urge my colleagues to oppose the majority's 
budget, the Ryan budget.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the comments of my colleague from California, and I know 
her concern for America's seniors is heartfelt, and it's one that I 
share as well; and I hope that she will support this rule that allows 
for a series of votes on many different Medicare solutions. Some 
solutions are better than others; but even if she opposes the 
underlying budget, I do hope we'll have her support on the rule, 
because we do lay out the opportunity for folks to choose among seven 
different visions for solving the Medicare challenge.
  I don't have the charts with me down here on the floor. I know my 
colleagues on the Budget Committee will bring them during the main 
debate; but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I can picture the charts 
in my mind, if you charted Medicare spending going out from 2020 to 
2050, that two-generation horizon heading out there, and you charted 
the President's commitment to spend dollars on Medicare, and you 
charted the Budget Committee's commitment to spend dollars on Medicare, 
you'd find that the dollar value commitment is about dollar-for-dollar 
going out over that 30-year window.
  So the question then, Mr. Speaker, is not about how much money is 
this Congress committing, the question is to what priorities is this 
Congress committing that money.

  Now, the President's budget, which we'll have an opportunity to 
debate and vote here on the floor of the House, turns those Medicare 
financing decisions, those decisions about how to save money in the 
system, over to what we've all come to know as IPAB, the Independent 
Payment Advisory Board, to make recommendations and suggestions about 
how to clamp down on costs.
  Now, generally, that means clamping down on reimbursements to 
doctors.
  What the Budget Committee budget does, Mr. Speaker, is give those 
dollars to individuals so the individuals can enter the marketplace--
not a free-for-all marketplace--but a regulated and guaranteed 
marketplace where policies are guaranteed to these seniors so that 
individuals can then control those dollars and make their own choices 
about health care decisions.
  So just to be clear, we're not arguing about dollars and cents in 
Medicare. The President's vision and the Budget Committee's vision is 
virtually identical.
  What we are talking about, though, is who controls those dollars. Are 
they controlled by a one-size-fits-all 1965 Blue Cross/Blue Shield 
plan, soon to be revised by the IPAB board, or are they controlled by 
my mother and my father and your mother and your father and our 
neighbors, our aunts and uncles, individuals, Americans who will make 
those health care decisions for themselves.
  Again, for me that choice is clear. Individual freedom will always be 
my choice over government control.
  But getting back to the actual rule, Mr. Speaker, that's what's so 
wonderful about the way this Rules Committee has operated and this 
resolution that we have before us today. You're not restricted to just 
voting on my vision of solutions for this country. We're offering six 
other visions as well. In fact, we're offering every single vision that 
has come out of this U.S. House of Representatives so that we can have 
a free, open, and honest debate and let the American people know what 
their true choices for freedom are.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I was just saying to the previous speaker that I have a 
98-year-old mother. Let's hand her a voucher and say, Go figure it out. 
That's precisely what you want to do. Go figure it out on Medicare. 
Unbelievable. She could really figure it out.
  Chairman Ryan and the House majority have put together a lopsided 
budget, tries to break the middle class, gouges deeply into our 
commonsense national priorities and ends the Medicare guarantee.
  According to estimates, more than 4 million Americans would lose 
their jobs because of this budget, but they provide a $150,000 tax cut 
to the richest 1 percent of people in this Nation.
  The Republican budget would slash the social safety net cutting the 
food stamp program by over 17 percent, or $133.5 billion. That's more 
than the amount of food stamp funds going to 29 States and territories. 
Over 8 million men, women, and children would go hungry. If their plan 
to turn food stamps into an underfunded block grant goes through, even 
more damage is done. Coming out of the deepest recession since the 
Great Depression, food stamps help to feed 46 million Americans, 21 
million children. Seventy-five percent of the program participants are 
families with children.
  This is Robin Hood in reverse. It takes from the middle class, gives 
to the rich. I urge my colleagues to oppose this disastrous budget.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to say to my friend from Connecticut, because I can see 
her passion--again, I know it comes from the heart--your mother will be 
in no way affected by the budget that we're voting on today, and I 
would like to make that clear if anybody else is concerned about their 
mothers. For folks who are aged 55 or older, there is not one word in 
the Republican budget plan that changes the commitment that we've made 
to folks over the past three or four decades. That commitment since 
1965 remains as solid today and tomorrow under the Budget Committee 
budget as it has ever been.
  The alternative, Mr. Speaker, is to take our 98-year-old mothers and 
turn them over to IPAB. Now, again, there are choices here. The 
Republican budget, which has become the House Budget Committee budget, 
allows everyone in the current Medicare system and those 55 years of 
age or older to experience no changes whatsoever to that program 
guaranteed from 1965. Because the dollars still have to be regulated 
and because we still have to protect this program from bankruptcy, 
which is a program important to so many of us, the alternative is to 
turn it over to this government board and to let them cut costs where 
they can.
  Let me tell you a story, Mr. Speaker, if I can just take a moment of 
personal privilege.
  I was talking with a physician from back home in Gwinnett County, my 
hometown. He is a neurologist, Mr. Speaker. He has been practicing 
neurology for 17 years, and he is the youngest neurologist in the 
county. This is one of the largest counties in

[[Page H1658]]

the State of Georgia, which is one of the largest States in the Nation, 
and we haven't had one new neurologist coming into our area in 17 
years. This doc says he's thinking about getting out. He has got an 
uncle who is a primary care physician in south Georgia, a primary care 
physician who is the only one to accept Medicaid, Mr. Speaker, in a 
five-county radius.
  Folks say that there is this guarantee of health care. Let me tell 
you, if you can't find a doctor who will take you, your insurance card 
isn't worth much.
  What we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to restore the promise of 
America's health care system. What is it about the American health care 
system that's driving our doctors into retirement? Is it that we're not 
clamping down enough and that if only we had the IPAB board clamp down 
even more that it's going to increase access to care? I tell you that 
it's not, Mr. Speaker.
  There are lots of different ways to prepare budgets, and I didn't 
know what to expect when I got on the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker. 
I'll be honest. It could easily degenerate into a political exercise. 
I've seen it happen. It could become all about the right talking points 
and about all the right focus group conversations and have nothing to 
do with how we should actually lead this country forward--but not so on 
the Chairman Paul Ryan Budget Committee. In meeting after meeting, in 
conversation after conversation, in argument after argument, this 
Budget Committee chairman said there is one way to do a budget, and 
that is to do a budget with honest numbers and honest priorities that 
lay out in plain vision, for all to see, our vision of America's 
future--and he did it. He did it. He did it with the help of a very 
competent Budget Committee.
  Again, as I look to my friend from Wisconsin with whom I share the 
bottom dais there on the Budget Committee, he did it with lots of input 
and lots of conversation; but he did it in a way so that no one would 
say they're just gaming the numbers, so that no one would say this is 
all about politics, and so that everyone who comes to the floor of this 
House can vote for this House Budget Committee reported budget with the 
pride of knowing it was put together with integrity about a vision for 
a better future. Again, we are going to have six other competing 
visions, Mr. Speaker. I can only hope that those numbers, those charts, 
those graphs were put together with the same care and integrity that 
Chairman Ryan used in the Budget Committee.

  For folks who are trying to make up their minds about where they're 
going to cast their votes today, again I urge the strong support of 
this open rule that allows for the complete debate over all of these 
alternatives; but I also encourage my colleagues to give a look at that 
work product that we created on the House Budget Committee, a work 
product that I believe, Mr. Speaker, is crafted in a way that can make 
every Member of this body proud.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after 
the House adopts the rule, it will bring up H.R. 4271, a bill to 
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA.
  This is a vital law that I coauthored with Pat Schroeder in 1994 and 
of which I have been an original cosponsor each time it has been 
reauthorized. Since VAWA's enactment in 1994, the cases of domestic 
violence have fallen, and over 1 million women have used the justice 
system to obtain protective orders against their batterers.
  To discuss this proposal, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
sponsor of the bill, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Representative Slaughter.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question in order 
to allow us to consider the Violence Against Women Act. It is pathetic 
and it is disappointing that it has come to this--that we have to use 
procedural shenanigans to talk about an initiative that has been a 
bipartisan initiative since 1994.
  Violence against women in this country is not levied against just 
Democrats but Republicans as well; not blacks or whites or Hispanics 
but against Native American people as well; not just Christians or 
Muslims but Jews and nonreligious people--atheists--as well; not just 
rich people or poor people but middle class people as well; and not 
just against heterosexual women but homosexual couples as well. It 
knows no gender. It knows no ethnicity. It knows nothing.
  I'll tell you that violence against women is as American as apple 
pie. I know not only as a legislator but from my own personal 
experience that domestic violence has been a thread throughout my 
personal life, from being a child who was repeatedly sexually assaulted 
up to and including being an adult who has been raped. I just don't 
have enough time to share all of those experiences with you.
  Yet I can tell you, when this bill came out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee with all of the Republican Senators--all of the guys--voting 
no, it really brought up some terrible memories for me of having boys 
sit in a locker room and sort of bet that I, the A kid, couldn't be had 
and then having the appointed boy, when he saw that I wasn't going to 
be so willing, complete a date rape and then take my underwear to 
display it to the rest of the boys. I mean, this is what American women 
are facing.
  I am so proud to be an author of this amendment because it has been, 
in the past, a bipartisan bill. This bill will strengthen the core 
programs and support law enforcement, prosecutions, and judicial staff 
training. It will include new initiatives aimed at preventing domestic 
violence-related homicides that occur every single day in this country. 
It will extend the authority to protect Native American victims on 
tribal lands. It will ensure a strong response to the insufficient 
reporting and services for victims of sexual assault. It will increase 
the numbers of U visas for undocumented women who, because they're in 
the shadows, are particularly vulnerable to domestic violence. This 
bill will also expand services for those in underserved communities, 
who, due to their religion or gender or sexual orientation, have not 
been served.
  This is not a partisan issue, and it would be very, very devastating 
to women of all colors, creeds, and sexual orientations for us not to 
address this.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my 
colleague from Wisconsin that her words are always among some of the 
most powerful that we have on the Budget Committee, and I don't believe 
I've ever heard her speak from a place that was not of conviction. I 
want to say I appreciate those words, and you have my support on the 
Rules Committee. If we can get that bill reported out of Judiciary, I 
would love to see that in the Rules Committee and would love to see us 
report that to the House floor for that same kind of free and open 
debate that we are having today on the Budget Committee, and I 
appreciate the words that you shared.
  I must say, though, Mr. Speaker, I have a tough time connecting the 
Violence Against Women Act with these budgets. I will disagree with my 
colleague from Wisconsin and will encourage folks to support the 
previous question so that we can have this budget debate. Should we 
have the debate that my colleague is discussing? I believe we 
absolutely should. Again, I know the committees of jurisdiction are 
working on that, and my hope is that they will report that and send 
that to the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1330

  But today, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity. It's not an 
unprecedented opportunity, but it's one of the rarest of opportunities 
that we have here in the House, which is to have a debate on the floor 
that includes every single idea that any of our 435 Members have 
offered as a vision of how to govern this land, of how to set our 
fiscal priorities, of this morality that is deciding how to spend 
taxpayer dollars. We must seize that opportunity today. It's one that 
comes but once a year, Mr. Speaker; an opportunity but once a year to 
set these priorities. And again, the Rules Committee has provided time 
not just today but tomorrow as well to make sure we can thoroughly 
flesh out each and every one of these ideas and make sure that no one's 
voice on the floor of this House is silenced.

[[Page H1659]]

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me take about 30 seconds just to say that I 
appreciate what my colleague from Georgia is saying. However, we are 
not giving a choice whether we are going to do the budget or violence 
against women, but we're going to have an attempt to do both on the 
rule.
  What we can do in the vote for the budget--when we vote for the rule, 
we would like to have the previous question be defeated so that we can 
add VAWA to it. That's all we are trying to do here today.
  The bill is about to expire. It would be a dreadful thing to think 
that women and children and the other spouse would be growing up with 
violence because we have failed to provide the resources to stop that, 
after it has been so successful since 1994.
  Now I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for the 
consistent leadership she has given to this important legislation since 
it was passed. It took us a number of years to get it passed in the 
first place, and it's never been off her radar screen.
  I especially want to thank my good friend from Wisconsin, who has 
come forward in a very compelling way to ask that we vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that we can consider the Violence Against Women 
Act, which may well expire, making it--I fear--a real target for the 
Appropriations Committee because the law will not have been 
reauthorized.
  Mr. Speaker, I visited a safe house last week in my district because 
I wanted to hear why a woman would make the decision to stay at home 
with an abuser rather than leave. I'm not sure I understood in my heart 
why she would assume the risk rather than leave. I'm glad I went. There 
were eight women there, different ages. Some had children. For the 
first time, when I heard the stories of these women, I understood in 
the most poignant and practical way what a ``hotline'' actually means, 
what a ``rape crisis center'' means. After that experience, the notion 
that when this legislation expires, the Appropriations Committee would 
have before it unauthorized appropriations, which become a target in 
and of itself, was just too much to bear. Yet the reauthorization bill 
has gone nowhere here. At least in the other body, the bill has been 
passed out of committee. It is a bipartisan bill, with several 
Republicans as well as Democrats on it.
  Ms. Moore's amendment essentially does no more than incorporate the 
Senate bill, which is tailor-made for our consideration, because in 
keeping with the way in which reductions are taking place--20 percent 
is very painful--but there is a 20 percent reduction in the 
reauthorized act, even though with any reauthorization you would expect 
an increase. Yet even with that reduction, we cannot get the bill on 
this floor. So we must do what we're doing this afternoon.
  If you want to talk about a bill that is worth the money, there are 
very few bills where we can show the kind of cause-and-effect that we 
can show here. There has been a 50 percent drop annually in domestic 
violence. And the reason for that is there's been over a 50 percent 
increase in reporting. Women are not afraid to come out because they 
know that if they report it, go to the police station, the police will 
tell them where there is a safe house.
  Don't leave women out on the streets. Don't leave their children with 
no place to go. Vote ``no'' on the previous question in order to allow 
the House to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which I think 
would receive bipartisan support if it were heard this afternoon.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I was expecting one additional speaker, but I believe 
she is not here. So I am prepared to close.
  Let me say, Mr. Woodall is a generous and kind man, and I know he 
understands what we are talking about here today.
  My speaker is here, so let me yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlelady.
  In 21st century America, three women die every day at the hands of 
their husbands, boyfriends, or former partners. Domestic violence 
causes 2 million injuries a year. Sadly, it is something that one out 
of every four women will experience in their lifetimes.
  This is particularly a difficult problem for young women today. Women 
between the ages of 16 and 24 have the highest rates of relationship 
violence, and one in every five women will be sexually assaulted while 
they are in college. Even more worrisome, we know that when couples are 
experiencing economic difficulties, domestic violence is three times as 
likely to occur.
  Victim service providers have seen an increase in demand since the 
recession began while also seeing their funding cut. More than 70 
percent of shelters credited ``financial issues'' for increases in 
abuse that they have seen in communities across the country.
  In 1994, our now-Vice President Joe Biden wrote and championed the 
Violence Against Women Act. In 17 years it has cut the rate of domestic 
violence in our country by over half. It is past time to reauthorize 
the Violence Against Women Act again, and my colleague's amendment 
would allow us to act now. This bill reauthorizes the programs that 
have been proven to work to stem domestic violence and to help law 
enforcement and prosecutors do their jobs.
  This reauthorization enjoys bipartisan support in the United States 
Senate, with 59 cosponsors. In addition, over 200 national 
organizations and 500 State and local organizations have urged us to 
pass this bill, including the National Association of Attorneys 
General, National District Attorneys Association, National Sheriffs' 
Association, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. Why 
do they want us to do this? Because it helps to make their jobs easier, 
and it gives women the tools to be able to protect themselves.
  Everyone, everyone in this Chamber wants to see an America where no 
woman ever has to endure the scourge of domestic violence. The Violence 
Against Women Act is helping us realize this vision. We must 
reauthorize the law so it can continue to help our constituents.
  And I am also proud to tell you that the Affordable Care Act, the 
health care reform legislation, now says that if a woman is a victim of 
domestic violence, her insurance company can no longer say that that is 
a preexisting condition, and she can get the kind of health care 
coverage that she needs. That's the value of reauthorizing this 
legislation and the value of the Affordable Care Act.
  I urge you to support this amendment so we can act now. Let's move 
forward. Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act once again.
  Mr. WOODALL. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Ms. DeLauro has just reminded me that 
when we began the debate on health care, that eight States in the 
United States and the District of Columbia considered violence against 
women to be a preexisting condition, and a woman who had been beaten to 
a pulp could not be insured because she would be apt to have that 
happen to her again. And we changed that in that bill.

                              {time}  1340

  I think all of us, too, are familiar with the phrase ``rule of 
thumb,'' but I'm not sure a lot of us understand what it means. The 
rule of thumb was the size of a man's thumb and the stick with which he 
could legally beat his wife. So every time you use that, I want you to 
remember what that means.
  Since VAWA's enactment, we've all seen that domestic violence has 
fallen over half. Policemen have been trained and the courts have been 
trained to understand it better.
  There was a time in the United States when it was simply considered a 
private manner and police would not always take away the offending 
partner, leaving a person again to be beaten one more time.
  I don't think anybody in the House of Representatives wants this to 
expire. I'm sure they don't. Everybody has mothers, sisters, daughters, 
and nieces that they want to protect.

[[Page H1660]]

  This is such a simple thing. It doesn't hurt the budget at all. We 
have tried our best to get this bill brought up in the House; and we're 
terrified, frankly, those of us who have spent a good bit of our time 
in Congress trying to deal with this act, that it will expire. As I've 
pointed out many times, I've been at this since 1994.
  It's such a serious thing, that shelters for battered women are never 
revealed as to their location because of fear that the offending spouse 
will find them and make them come home or other things.
  This past 5 or 6 years, we've seen a number of spouses being killed; 
and we always look at what goes on in those houses, and nobody ever 
realized before what was happening there. More women obviously need to 
know that there is someplace that they can go and someplace that they 
can get help.
  Let me give you a figure because we're pretty much concerned here 
about the deficit, the budget, and costs.
  In studies recently released, they have shown that just a 2-minute 
screening of domestic violence victims in a yearly checkup can save 
nearly $6 billion in chronic health care costs every year. The 
screenings are provided for in the Violence Against Women Act, which 
trains health care professionals to recognize and address the signs of 
domestic violence, because obviously most women who are trying to cover 
it up simply attempt to live with it and are not going to bring it up 
themselves.
  Approximately 2 million women are physically or sexually assaulted or 
stalked by an intimate partner every single year; one out of every six 
women has experienced an attempted or completed rape at some point in 
her lifetime; one in four women in the U.S. will experience domestic 
violence in her lifetime. This is terrible.
  The Congress has a responsibility to ensure that rape prevention 
programs are fully funded, that law enforcement has the resources, that 
battered women's shelters are open, and that victim advocates have the 
training to stop the violence against women.
  With all this authorization expiring before this year's end, we're in 
danger of letting these responsibilities go unfulfilled.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
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?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the 
previous question for all of those women who live in fear and for all 
those children who witness that violence. Violence against women 
changes people's lives forever, mentally and physically. They will 
never, ever be the same. For heaven's sake, let's reauthorize this 
bill. It does so much for them.
  I urge everyone in the House to please vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question so we continue to provide support to the millions of 
women who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the comments of my friend from New York. We serve 
together on the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, and we grapple with tough 
issues on the Rules Committee every single time we meet. There's no 
easy day on the Rules Committee. Every bill is a challenge because of 
the different ideas that folks have to make it better. But what I've 
learned in that time, Mr. Speaker, is that I'm not the smartest guy in 
the room, I'm not the smartest guy in this Congress, and I'm not the 
smartest guy in my district.
  There's a reason we have regular order here in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, so that even a good idea we can make better.
  I have some folks come to me in my district and they say, Rob, why is 
it that you put that hospital funding that we need in the 
transportation bill? Those things don't have anything to do with one 
another. Why do you combine those two things? If it's a good idea to 
pass the transportation bill, let's pass the transportation bill; and 
if it's a good idea to pass the hospital bill, let's pass the hospital 
bill. But why do you put these disconnected things together? Why do you 
try to fund a new military procurement program in the environmental and 
National Park funding? Why do you stick those things together, Rob? 
They don't have anything to do with one another.
  I actually campaigned on that issue, Mr. Speaker, because I think 
they're right. I think that the American people deserve an up-or-down 
vote on one issue at a time. I think my colleague from New York, my 
colleague from Connecticut, my colleague from the District of Columbia, 
and my colleague from Wisconsin make extremely compelling cases for why 
we should see the Violence Against Women Act come through regular 
order.
  But my understanding is--and I would be happy to be corrected if I'm 
mistaken--my understanding is the bill was just introduced yesterday, 
that it hasn't had an opportunity to go through those committees where 
folks know so much more about these issues than we do in the Rules 
Committee or in the Budget Committee; that it has not had an 
opportunity to be amended and improved, to have the opportunity for 
those Members for whom this is a heartfelt and compelling issue to put 
in their two cents to make it even better.
  I think it should have that opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I encourage 
folks to vote ``yes'' on the previous question so that we can move 
forward to debate these budgets today, and then I urge my colleagues--
let me say it, Mr. Speaker, because I know folks are watching this on 
the screens back in their rooms--the bill number of the Violence 
Against Women Act is H.R. 4271, Mr. Speaker. There's no question--
because this is a House where folks believe in regular order--that the 
more cosponsors a bill accumulates and the faster it accumulates them, 
the more likely it is to end up on this floor in haste, rapidly, 
immediately in order to have a hearing.

  I would encourage my colleagues to go and look at that bill again 
just dropped yesterday, but certainly something that I know this House 
and the Judiciary Committee and others are going to want to consider.
  The opportunity we have today, though, Mr. Speaker, with this rule, 
is to define our national vision. I don't mean our vision for just the 
Nation, our land, Mr. Speaker. I mean a vision for us as a people. Who 
are we as a people, Mr. Speaker?
  I heard one of the Presidential candidates speak the other day and he 
said, This year we don't need politicians that we can believe in; we 
need politicians who believe in us.
  I thought that was pretty profound. I don't need somebody I can 
believe in. I need somebody who believes in me. That's true, Mr. 
Speaker.
  We lay out all of these different competing budget visions here, the 
summaries of which I hold in my hand. My question to my colleagues is: 
Which of these visions do you believe believes in you? Which of these 
visions lays out that future of America that is best for you and your 
family, that is best for your constituents and their families, that is 
best for your State, that is best for our Nation?
  The visions are starkly different, Mr. Speaker. Again, the base bill 
is the bill that we reported out of the Budget Committee. That is the 
base text. These are substitutes for that.
  For example, we have a bipartisan substitute--Republican and 
Democratic Members of the House--that raises taxes by $2 trillion more. 
To be perfectly accurate, it's $1.8 trillion more than the Republican 
budget that the committee passed. It spends $3.1 trillion more. It 
focuses on different priorities. The debt increases by about $1.4 
trillion. That's the cost of those priorities. Again, some priorities 
may be worth that cost. We'll have that debate on the floor.
  The ranking member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, the 
gentleman from Maryland, his budget substitute also raises taxes by 
$1.8 trillion over the next 10 years more than the House Budget 
Committee budget does and spends $4.7 trillion more than the House 
Budget Committee budget does and thus adds $2.9 trillion more to the 
backs of our children.
  As I said, Mr. Speaker, about $15.5 trillion today, soon to be $16 
trillion, that we've borrowed and spent, that

[[Page H1661]]

we've impoverished our children with so that we can live today at the 
standard of living that we have, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from 
Maryland's substitute increases that by $3 trillion more than does the 
House Budget Committee report.
  Do the priorities that he spends on merit that kind of increase? Do 
the priorities that he focuses on merit that kind of debt increase? 
Perhaps they do. We're going to have that debate on the floor of the 
House, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1350

  The Congressional Black Caucus substitute raises taxes by $6 trillion 
over 10 years, more than the House budget bill does, and it spends $5.3 
trillion more, which means the Congressional Black Caucus substitute 
actually reduces the national debt more than the House Budget Committee 
does. Now, it does so by raising taxes $6 trillion, and it only reduces 
the debt by under $1 trillion, but that's one of those priorities that 
folks have had the courage to lay out here on the floor of the House 
that we're going to make in order.
  My colleague from New York, the chairman from California, this Budget 
Committee of men and women, Mr. Speaker, has made every single option 
available.
  The Congressional Progressive Caucus, Mr. Speaker, their proposal is 
to raise taxes by $6.8 trillion more than the Republican Budget 
Committee budget, the budget that was passed out of the entire Budget 
Committee. It increases spending by about $6.6 trillion, one of the 
highest spending of the bunch, again, focusing on priorities that all 
435 Members of this House deserve an opportunity to hear and an 
opportunity to consider.
  We have an opportunity in this House, Mr. Speaker, to do great 
things. We have an opportunity in this House to stand up for the 
priorities that are the priorities of our constituents back home. And 
we don't have to vote on 100 different ideas in one bill, Mr. Speaker. 
In the 15 months I've been here, Mr. Speaker, all but about five of the 
bills have been short enough for me to read; I don't have to staff it 
out, and I don't have to have a team of speed readers out there working 
through it. All but about five have been short enough for me to read.
  That's a source of great pride for me on the Rules Committee, because 
I've told folks back home and folks believe it back home that we ought 
to have time to carefully deliberate each and every thing. Folks are 
tired of 1,500-page bills. Folks are tired of 2,500-page bills. Folks 
are tired of the defense bill being merged with the transportation bill 
which is merged with the health care bill which is merged with the 
national parks bill which also funds the White House. That's crazy, and 
it doesn't have to be that way. There's not one rule of this House that 
requires that nonsense to go on. In fact, the opposite is true. The 
rules of the House were actually created to prevent that from going on, 
and we have to work really hard to pervert the process in a way that 
makes that possible.
  This Speaker has made an effort unlike any I've ever seen to try to 
have one idea at a time down here on the floor of the House, one idea 
at a time so that the American people's voice can be heard. If we bring 
a bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, that supports dogcatchers on the one 
hand and hospital funding on the other and somebody votes ``no,'' what 
are they voting ``no'' on? Are they voting ``no'' on the dogcatchers or 
are they voting ``no'' on the hospital? You can't tell. And that's what 
happens. Have you seen that?
  Have you ever wondered why it is, Mr. Speaker, that in our 
appropriations process the food stamp language and the agricultural 
subsidy language is in the same appropriations bill? I always wondered. 
I started thinking about it as I watched the votes going on the board, 
and what I figured out is that we don't have enough farmers in this 
country for everybody to vote to increase farm spending, and we don't 
have enough folks with high food stamp populations in their district to 
support having high food stamp spending, but when you combine those two 
groups together, guess what? You get 51 percent of this House and you 
can make things happen.
  Well, I guess I support the ingenuity of folks who find ways to 
cobble a multitude of ideas together and find 51 percent, but I ask my 
colleagues, is that really what our constituents sent us here to do? Is 
cobbling together multiple ideas and just trying to game the system 
enough to find your 51 percent, Mr. Speaker, is that really what our 
Framers intended? Or, alternatively, should we commit ourselves to not 
just having an open process, Mr. Speaker, but an open process on a 
single idea?
  Do you know what I found on the Rules Committee? And it was a 
surprise to me--and if you haven't had a chance to serve on the Rules 
Committee, it might not be intuitive to you--but when you bring a small 
bill to the Rules Committee, when you focus on one single idea, when 
you find one priority that you want to make the law of the land and you 
send that to the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, then the amendment 
process is only open to amendments that are germane to that underlying 
idea. If you bring a bill about hospital funding to the Rules 
Committee, well, then, the only germane amendments that will be 
considered are amendments that have to do with hospital funding.
  So the shorter we make these bills and the more single-minded we make 
these bills, the more open we can have the process here on the House 
floor. Mr. Speaker, this freshman class is full of a bunch of CEOs from 
the private sector, folks who ran for Congress because they're worried 
about the direction of this country, and they said, Dadgumit, I've got 
to step up; I've got to run, and I've got to be a part of the solution. 
And they get here thinking that they were going to be able to do it all 
overnight. It turns out there are 435 of us, and we all have the same 
voting card. It's harder. Nobody is king of the world in here. It's one 
man, one woman, one vote, and there are 435 of us. You've got to find 
that agreement.
  Well, it turns out there really is a lot of agreement, not just 
agreement on the Republican side of the aisle, not just agreement on 
the Democratic side of the aisle, but agreement across this whole House 
when we open up the process and allow the House to work its will.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we have here today. We have a rule that 
opens up the process, that flings open the doors of democracy and lets 
every single idea be considered.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage an affirmative vote on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 597 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, 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 bill (H.R. 
     4271) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Judiciary. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (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

[[Page H1662]]

     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. WOODALL. 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. 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 adopting House Resolution 597, if 
ordered; suspending the rules with regard to H.R. 1339; and agreeing to 
the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 183, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 139]

                               YEAS--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     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
     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
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     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.
     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
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     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
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     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
     Bonamici
     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
     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
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     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)
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     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
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Benishek
     Filner
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Jackson (IL)
     Mack
     Meeks
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Rangel
     Roe (TN)
     Shimkus
     Stearns

                              {time}  1426

  Messrs. ALTMIRE, DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, DOGGETT, Mrs. LOWEY, Messrs. 
OLVER and CARNAHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. BLACK and Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 139, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 139, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 139, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page H1663]]



                          ____________________