Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 51 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)

[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]]

____________________