[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 55 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1860-H1872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4089, SPORTSMEN'S HERITAGE ACT OF
2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 614 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 624
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 bill (H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for
recreational hunting, fishing and shooting. 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 Natural Resources. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Natural Resources now printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 112-19. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. (a) Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 2013, the provisions of House
Concurrent Resolution 112, as adopted by the House, shall
have force and effect in the House as though Congress has
adopted such concurrent resolution (with the modifications
specified in subsection (b)).
(b) In section 201(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 112,
as adopted by the House, the following amounts shall apply:
(1) $7,710,000,000 (in lieu of $8,200,000,000) for the
period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013 with respect to the
Committee on Agriculture; and
(2) $3,490,000,000 (in lieu of $3,000,000,000) for the
period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013 with respect to the
Committee on Financial Services.
{time} 1230
Point of Order
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 614
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order
against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of
section 426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentlewoman from Wisconsin
makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate,
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means
of disposing of the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily
out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in
the underlying bill, H.R. 4089.
But before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state the inquiry.
Ms. MOORE. The rule clearly states, ``Pending the adoption of a
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013, the
provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 112, as adopted by the House,
shall have the force and effect in the House as though Congress had
adopted such concurrent resolution.''
Does this mean that the rule deems that the Senate will have passed
H. Con. Res. 112?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the resolution
during its pendency. That is a matter for debate.
Ms. MOORE. Okay. We will have to debate this. The language, as I have
construed it, says it shall have force and effect in the House as
though Congress, which would include the Senate, had adopted such
concurrent resolution. That is subject to debate.
So I want the House to be really clear here that, given this
language, there is a real--it seems probable and likely that if we vote
``yes'' for House Concurrent Resolution 112, the Republican budget,
which ends Medicare for a voucher system, ends the entitlement under
Medicaid, cuts food support, cuts funds by $134 billion over 10 years,
that we could be deeming this to be passed.
I am raising again, Mr. Speaker, the question about that use of
``Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution,'' meaning also the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would reiterate that the issue is
a matter for debate, and the Chair will not interpret the language of
the resolution during its pendency.
Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your lack of clarity.
I raise this point of order because it's important to uncover whether
or not the underlying rule for this Natural Resources bill--it's a
Natural Resources bill--also deems the Republican budget plan to end
Medicare as we know it, slash funding for SNAP.
When it comes to the Republican budget, my Democratic colleagues are
most definitely not asleep at the wheel. And we want to take this
moment to shed light on what's going on here.
Mr. Speaker, I'm a member of that prestigious committee, the House
Committee on the Budget, and a long-time advocate for sound budgetary
policy. I recognize the importance of tackling our deficit and debt
head-on, carefully balancing both the spending and revenue-raising
sides of our ledger.
But House Republicans, led by my dear colleague from Wisconsin, have
put out a budget that is neither sound nor balanced. This budget finds
a jaw-dropping 62 percent of its $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget
cuts over 10 years from programs that serve the most vulnerable of our
society, the poor, and I might add in the most vulnerable, women and
children, since we've just recently established in this last week that
women were very important in our economy.
In addition to the sheer magnitude of these raw numbers, I want to
make it clear that the Republican budget contains major departures from
current policy. This budget heralds welfare reform as a vital victory
and plots the next chapter of so-called ``reforms'' for other areas of
the safety net.
Our core programs are not spared by this budgetary trick. This budget
takes an aim at Medicare. We're told that by stripping Medicare of its
entitled status, cutting $30 billion out of Medicare, that we're going
to save it. We're going to save Medicare by subtracting $30 billion.
That's not the kind of math I learned at North Division High.
And we're going to set seniors adrift in the private market. Now,
this budget does nothing to cut the cost of health care in the private
market. It only passes those costs on to seniors.
The cuts to the SNAP program have not gotten as much attention as the
Medicare cuts, even though they are cause for collective alarm. As we
know, over half of our citizens in the United States, working people,
many of them, found themselves with no other income. They had no job.
We played phony baloney with the unemployment insurance. They had
nothing except SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.
{time} 1240
And so they had no other income other than the food stamp program,
[[Page H1861]]
SNAP, but yet we're going to cut $134 million out of this program and
convert it again to a block grant and handcuff SNAP's ability to
respond to its increased need.
Mr. Speaker, can I ask you how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. MOORE. I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and neighbor from the
great State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in
support of her point of order.
All this talk of ``deeming and passing,'' those words mean nothing to
the American people, but the vote we are about to take means a lot.
What Republicans are trying to do is to jam through the Republican
budget and pretend that it's the law of the land. They have to play
these games because last year the American people rejected this budget
the first time around. But instead of doing some soul-searching and
offering a bill that reflects the true priorities of this Nation, the
Republicans have doubled down, and the results are truly astonishing.
As has been mentioned, this budget ends the Medicare guarantee while
raising health costs for seniors who have an average income of just
$19,000 a year. It increases defense spending while placing a cap on
food assistance and cutting Medicaid. It gives the average multi-
millionaire--listen to this--a tax break of $394,000 while raising
taxes on the middle class. It protects subsidies for oil companies and
corporations that ship jobs overseas while slashing investments that
create jobs and rebuild the middle class. The cuts are so severe that
if their policies are carried out, by 2050 there is almost nothing left
of discretionary spending but defense. As the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities has said, most of the rest of the government will
simply ``cease to exist.''
But it doesn't have to be this way. Yesterday, Republicans in the
Senate rejected a perfectly reasonable proposal--that millionaires and
billionaires shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than a middle class family
does. They should have passed the Buffett rule in the Senate, which
would have been an important first step toward addressing our fiscal
challenges in a fair way--a way that cuts waste, not opportunity;
protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; creates jobs and
builds the economy; and asks more from those who can afford it.
This Republican budget is not a serious effort. It's a radical
proposal. But I'll give them credit for one thing: at least they're
honest in proposing this irresponsible budget.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. MOORE. I reserve the balance of my time. I would love to hear
what the opponents to my point of order have to say.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition
to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to be down here for this procedural
issue that is before us. The question before the House is: Should the
House now consider House Resolution 614? While the resolution waives
all point of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is
not aware of any points of order.
The waiver is prophylactic in nature. The Congressional Budget Office
has stated that H.R. 4089 contains no intergovernmental or private
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and would
impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. Again, Mr.
Speaker, this waiver is prophylactic, and the motion from the
gentlelady from Wisconsin is dilatory.
In order for the House to continue our scheduled business for today,
we need to continue on with this proposal and dealing with the rule
that is before us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he would yield
to a question.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Well, I would be happy to, but I don't control
the time.
Ms. MOORE. I would yield my time for the purpose of your answering my
question.
The Speaker has declined to answer my parliamentary query and said
that that would be settled during the debate. So is it your
understanding that passage of this resolution will or will not deem the
Republican budget to have been passed in all of the Congress?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would not dare to try and supersede my
interpretation over the Speaker's interpretation. That is his
responsibility. However----
Ms. MOORE. No, no, no. He said it would be determined during debate.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Would you allow me to answer the question?
Ms. MOORE. Yes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That is still the Speaker's responsibility.
However, what deeming applies to is that these are for procedural
considerations allowed to go forward until such time as an actual
budget has indeed passed. So the answer to your question is actually
both: Temporarily, yes; long term, obviously no.
Ms. MOORE. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. At some time, the Senate has to do their work.
Hopefully, they will do it soon and then this issue would be moot.
Ms. MOORE. Reclaiming my time from the point at which I said I was
reclaiming my time. And I ask that he be taxed for that extra time
because he already gave me his answer--that, yes, it would be deemed to
be passed.
I just want to remind people, in this week when we have learned how
important it is to have a stable, good budget for women, that this
program slashes funding for Medicaid--two-thirds of adults are women
who depend on it. It slashes Medicare--two-thirds of the recipients are
women. And 85 percent of Medicare recipients that are older than 85
depend on it.
It cuts support for key programs like childcare, which are important
to women, and job training. It cuts core programs like food stamps. Our
Presidential candidate said that 93 percent of women lost jobs during
the recession. Why would we want to take away the safety net of food
stamps when women put food on the table every day trying to feed their
babies?
Mr. Speaker, this program--which will be deemed to be passed--needs
more review, and I would ask you to find my point of order in order.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. MOORE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MOORE. I want to thank the gentleman for a vigorous debate--at
least on my part--and I would ask my colleagues to take a closer look.
This is the Congress of the United States of America. We are supposed
to do things very carefully. This is the budget that we're setting out,
the moral document for how this country is to be run, and we should not
be deeming it as passed, as this resolution calls for.
I would ask all my colleagues to support my point of order and ask
them to vote against this resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, once again, I wish to remind the
body that we are dealing with a procedural issue. We've heard a great
deal of policy debate here, but what we are dealing with is a
procedural issue.
The policy of the debate has been debated on this floor and will be
debated in the future as well under two criteria: one, either allowing
our committees to move forward with its authorization, appropriations,
and reconciliation efforts, in which case certain procedural techniques
must take place; or, two, actually allowing the Senate to do their work
and pass a budget, going to a conference, and then moving forward in
that manner. One way or the other, the procedure must go forward. This
is not policy we're debating here, it's procedure.
There is precedence for what we are doing. Indeed, in the last
Congress, H.R. 1500, the opposition party, the minority party, also
deemed resolutions and brought them forward--actually, it's happened
six times in our history. The only difference between the deeming that
we have here and the deeming
[[Page H1862]]
that happened in the last session of Congress is that this particular
budget--which will be debated again--actually went through a committee
and had a vote on the floor. Unfortunately, when the Democrat Party did
that a couple years ago, they had not gone through a committee, they
did not have a debate on the floor or in committee or a vote on
anything. Actually, the numbers that were deemed at that time were less
than 1-day's notice before they were actually voted on the floor. And
everyone who has spoken against this procedure voted for that
particular deeming a couple of years ago in the last Congress.
{time} 1250
There is precedence for this, and the precedence is solely a
procedural issue. This is not the time to talk about the policy. There
was a time before, and there will be time in the future. This is a
procedural precedent, and we can only move forward in doing the work of
this Congress--and I appreciate the other side for at least admitting
that the Republicans are trying to move forward in the work of this
Congress--if we have certain procedural issues done in advance. That's
what we are attempting to do.
So, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business of
this day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of the
consideration of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 175, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 154]
YEAS--234
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--175
Ackerman
Altmire
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
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
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, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
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--22
Andrews
Austria
Burton (IN)
Cardoza
Carney
Cohen
Costello
Cummings
Denham
Doggett
Filner
Fincher
Hirono
Johnson (IL)
Marino
McIntyre
Napolitano
Rangel
Scott (VA)
Slaughter
Walberg
Whitfield
Ms. CHU, Messrs. OLVER and GARAMENDI changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. SHIMKUS and Mrs. MILLER of Michigan changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
{time} 1317
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 154, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 154 due to a family health emergency.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Question of
Consideration of H. Res. 614, the resolution providing for
consideration of the bill H.R. 4089, to protect and enhance
opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for
other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, to continue on, for the purpose of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
{time} 1320
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The resolution provides for a structured rule for
the consideration of H.R. 4089, a bill to protect the traditional
rights of American sportsmen to fish and hunt on public lands free from
undue and illogical bureaucratic restrictions and unwarranted and
irrational limitations, and
[[Page H1863]]
provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources.
Mr. Speaker, I am actually pleased to stand before this House today
and support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation. Far too
often decisions are made to placate certain political special interest
groups who are headquartered far away from the locations they seek to
dominate and control, and too often the needs of local citizens and
local taxpayers who live in those areas in which the impact will occur
are ignored. This asks for our consideration.
Too often local and State considerations are not taken into account.
Too often there are inconsistencies within the public domain where the
BLM, Fish and Wildlife, and the National Park Service will have
different rules. And the difficulty, obviously, for a citizen is not
knowing where one starts and where one ends. This bill tries to bring
some consistency. And though I don't know how much of the debate will
occur on this particular issue, it is about hunting and fishing on
public lands.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, technically, this rule allows for
consideration of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act, a patchwork
quilt of four different bills that ease restrictions on guns and
hunting. This bill, a sop to the gun lobby, deserves to be defeated by
the House.
But that's not the most important part or most egregious part of this
rule. That's because of the language slipped into this rule at the last
minute by the Rules Committee--language that sets the budget numbers
for the next fiscal year, and language that, Mr. Speaker, once again
ends the Medicare guarantee for America's seniors.
That's right, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the Republicans on the Rules
Committee pulled a switcheroo just before our vote on the rule. Now,
these weren't just harmless, innocuous provisions. No, Mr. Speaker.
These provisions would effectively enact the Ryan budget and require
that Congress use it as a framework for the rest of the year.
The irony is that by adopting this language now, the Republican
leadership is admitting that their awful budget resolution isn't going
anywhere and that this so-called ``deeming resolution'' is the only way
forward. It's ironic because they are using parliamentary tricks and
sleight-of-hand to pretend that their budget has the force of law.
Where are the Tea Party folks who used to be so outraged at this kind
of abuse of regular order? Why aren't they yelling and screaming?
There hasn't been a single committee debate or markup on this
language. These provisions undercut the bipartisan budget floor
negotiated by President Obama and Speaker Boehner in the Budget Control
Act. And worst of all, these provisions end the Medicare guarantee
again.
The American people get it. They said ``no'' to the Ryan budget last
year. They don't want Medicare to turn into a voucher program. They
don't want to see their health care rationed or cut. They don't want
Washington politicians trying to pull the rug out from underneath them
after years of contributing to this important program.
We made a promise to America's seniors, Mr. Speaker. And once again,
the Republican leadership is breaking their promise.
Mr. Speaker, it's bad enough that the Republican leadership doesn't
want to focus on getting Americans back to work. It's bad enough that
they're pushing cuts that will make hunger in America worse. That's
evidenced by the fact that tomorrow in the Agriculture Committee we're
going to be asked to vote on a package to cut $33 billion out of the
SNAP program, increasing hunger in America if that would succeed. But
their insistence on continuing to push for an end to Medicare is
indescribable.
Now, I'm sure my Republican friends will deny that they want to end
Medicare for America's seniors. They'll say their idea is bipartisan,
even though it's not. They'll say that the detractors are exaggerating.
But the truth hurts. This is not bipartisan. Yes, Senator Ron Wyden
cosponsored health care legislation with Congressman Paul Ryan, but
Senator Wyden has also said that he does not support the Medicare
provisions in the Ryan budget. Once again, he said he does not support
the provisions in the Ryan budget with regard to Medicare. I'm sure
someone will, once again, try to twist his words around, but they are
very clear to me, Mr. Speaker.
This plan is not bipartisan. This is wholly owned by the Republicans
and the Republican leadership, and I know my friends will say that this
doesn't change Medicare. That, too, is a misrepresentation of their
plan. But don't take my word for it. Let me read directly from the
AARP's letter opposing the Ryan budget:
By creating a ``premium support'' system for future
Medicare beneficiaries, the proposal is likely to simply
increase costs for beneficiaries while removing Medicare's
promise of secure health coverage.
AARP goes on to say:
The premium support method described in the proposal--
unlike private plan options that currently exist in
Medicare--would likely ``price out'' traditional Medicare as
a viable option, thus rendering the choice of traditional
Medicare as a false promise. The proposal also leaves open
the possibility for private plans to tailor their plans to
healthy beneficiaries--again, putting traditional Medicare at
risk.
Finally, AARP says:
Converting Medicare to a series of private options would
undermine the market power of Medicare and could lead to
higher costs for seniors.
That's a hard-hitting analysis from a nonpartisan group, and it
shatters the myth that the Ryan Medicare plan wouldn't harm current or
future seniors.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats oppose the Ryan budget because it's the wrong
plan for America, and the deeming language included in this rule would
force the Ryan budget on this House without a direct vote. That's
right: there's no up-or-down vote on this plan. No, the rule simply
``deems'' that the Ryan budget takes effect, despite the lack of a
budget resolution conference report.
Americans want us to focus on jobs and the economy, not on partisan
games designed to throw red meat to the right wing of the right wing.
Reject this rule and reject the Ryan Medicare plan.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. As was stated on the point of order, when we talk
about deeming--a term that, obviously, most Americans have never
heard--a procedural issue, we have had the policy debate, and we will
have in the future the policy debate. But this point is about
procedure.
So, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I'd actually like to go back
to the topic of the debate we have today and the topic of the rule and,
indeed, the topic of the bill, which deals with hunting and fishing.
That ought to be what we are talking about in here, because that is the
issue before us in the underlying bill--hunting and fishing. And it is
significant because what this bill asks for those who are sportsmen in
America is that hunting and fishing be recognized as a historic and
traditional recreation activity and that our bureaucracy back here in
Washington will support and protect those hunting and fishing rights,
although we do not insist that they prioritize them.
What that means in simple language is if the agencies back here in
the bureaucracies of Washington decide that some area of public land
should be closed to public recreation, they have to have a darn good
reason to do it. In fact, the bill lists some reasons to do it--fire
safety, public safety, national security, or compliance with State laws
or regulations, and only then and there. Indeed, in addition to having
that criteria, unlike other elements when we deal with public-lands
issues, there is a specific time limit on when these decisions have to
be made; and if, indeed, the agency will not make those decisions in a
timely fashion, it reverts back to what it was and these activities may
go forward.
Do we need to do this? Of course we do. One Bureau of Land Management
official implied that recreational hunting should be eliminated on
public
[[Page H1864]]
lands because, in his words: The urbanites freak out when they hear the
sound of shots being done on public lands.
I suggest to you that is not a logical reason on why hunting and
fishing rights should be prohibited; and, therefore, you need this
language in here to make sure those hunting and fishing rights are
indeed protected.
There will be one amendment that will come forward later on that
talks about recreational shooting. I want to remind this body that
under the rules that we have, that includes such things as
reenactments. If ever the Bureau of Land Management or the National
Park Service has a reenactment, if that amendment were to be passed,
you couldn't actually shoot a flintlock because it would violate some
of the proposed rules here.
{time} 1330
It also goes on to say that Congress has, for a long time, banned EPA
from making rules or regulations dealing with lead ammunition or flying
equipment. And yet, once again, we have a nuisance lawsuit that was
filed on March of this particular year petitioning the EPA to make a
decision to try and ban this particular process. There is no scientific
evidence for that petition.
But we don't know necessarily what some of the agencies in here
making bureaucratic regulations--in effect, making a legislative
decision within the body of an executive agency--will do. Therefore,
this legislation, once again, makes it crystal clear that Congress has
spoken on this issue, that Congress has primacy on this issue, and that
Congress' decision on this issue should, indeed, be respected.
This bill stops red tape by the bureaucracies that has stopped legal
hunting trophies from coming into this country. I emphasize the word
``legal'' hunting trophies.
This bill is supported by every sportsmen's group imaginable.
Some people would say this is a Second Amendment issue. I don't
necessarily want to go that far because our Second Amendment is about
an individual right to self-defense. Hunting was not the purview of the
Second Amendment when it was adopted. But, indeed, the ability of
people to bear weapons on public lands to do hunting and fishing when
it is allowable is important, and it is important for us to step
forward and say that it should be protected.
In essence, what this bill does is say to those who like to recreate
on public lands, and that recreation includes hunting and fishing, that
is a traditional, that is a historic activity and that should be
maintained, and any of those efforts by special interest groups to try
and curtail that will be rejected by this Congress. That's why this
bill is here, that's why this bill is significant, that's why this bill
is important, and that's why this bill should be passed, including the
rule to start forward in that process.
With that, Mr. Speaker, we will talk about other elements, I'm sure,
that will come up, but we can do that at a later time, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I can see why my good friend from Utah is so desperate
not to talk about the deem-and-pass language which is included in this
rule. I would remind him, and I remind others on the other side, that
back in March of 2010, Speaker John Boehner said that the deem-and-pass
strategy was ``one of the most outrageous things I have seen since I
have been in Congress.'' That's what the current Speaker of the House
said back in March of 2010. And now, astonishingly, everybody on the
other side of the aisle is quiet about that.
Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. This place is becoming an
institution where trivial matters get debated passionately and
important ones not at all. My friend from Utah is saying this is all
about the guns, the gun issue. Well, that's the least important part of
what this rule does.
This rule deems the Ryan budget. It basically says that we're going
to operate under those very difficult numbers that Congressman Ryan and
the Republicans' Budget Committee have passed. And what it means is
that we're going to end Medicare as we know it. That's more important
to talk about than guns. What it means is that we're going to force
more people into food insecurity and hunger because it's going to
result in drastic cuts in food and nutrition programs. That's more
important to talk about than guns.
The fact of the matter is this rule undercuts the social safety net
in this country. This rule, if it is passed and these numbers become
what the House operates under, I think will destroy the middle class
and will force more people in the middle into poverty. It undercuts
programs in education, and it undercuts programs in environmental
protection and investments in our infrastructure and aid to cities and
towns helping our police, helping our firefighters.
As I said--I cannot say this enough--this ends Medicare as we know
it. If people want to end Medicare, then vote for this rule, because
that's exactly what this rule will require. And I think that's
outrageous. There are some things worth fighting for; and the
protection of Medicare is one of those things, at least on our side of
the aisle, we think is worth fighting for.
So please do not be fooled that this is some innocuous rule that
would merely bring up a bill dealing with guns. This bill deems the
Ryan budget as basically passed, as if it has gone through the House
and the Senate, and the numbers that we're going to operate under in
all of our committees.
I think that as the American people pay closer attention to what is
happening here, they get more and more outraged by the activities of
the Republican leadership. This is not what the American people want.
They rejected this attempt to undercut Medicare last year, and they're
going to reject it again.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Again, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I appreciate the concerns of some people who do not live in areas
that have a vast amount of public lands owned and controlled by the
Federal Government, who don't see the need for some of those situations
to be modified, rectified, and secured.
For those of us who have the joy of the Federal Government as an
absentee landlord, this bill is actually of significance. It's not just
another gun bill; it's dealing with ways of life and recreation
opportunities that should and ought to be maintained at all times.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is the deeming portion of this that happens
to be there. Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, that name that goes
back to my childhood, once gave a wonderful article in which he told
people that if you were a Senator not to worry about the rules of the
Senate because none of the Senators know what they are, so just go
ahead and try what you want to. He also said that if you're a House
Member, rules of the House are too complex, so just ask the
Parliamentarians; don't try to learn them. There's a load of wisdom in
that, because what we have in here, in this particular deeming section,
is a procedural issue, something that must take place according to our
rules if we, indeed, are to go forward with the work of what Congress
is supposed to be.
Unlike the rhetoric that we have heard so far, this is not the debate
on the policy issue. That has happened in the past. That will come
again in the future. This rule is simply about the procedure if we
allow Congress to move forward with our work.
I have said there is precedent for this. Six times in the history of
the House these kind of deeming provisions have been written into the
budget. Is it good? Of course not. No one wants to do it this way. But
it has to go forward simply because of the dynamics of the two Houses
that we have here right now.
As I said, this has precedent for it.
In 2010, indeed, there was another deeming motion that was made here
on the floor in House Resolution 1500 of that particular year. The
gentleman from Massachusetts was the sponsor of that on the floor, as
well, in which, at that time, under Democratic control, we also deemed.
There was a difference, though, in that deeming of that time. Under
this time, there has been a budget that has gone through the Budget
Committee and that was voted on in the Budget Committee and was debated
on the floor and passed on the floor.
[[Page H1865]]
In 2010, there was no budget that went through a Budget Committee and
did not have a vote. Indeed, the numbers were only given a day before
the actual vote took place under martial law. At that time, in 2010,
this House resolution was hereby adopted. We're not doing that this
time. What we are simply doing is allowing the process to go forward.
Now, there are two ways of doing this: either we can pass this
deeming concept for the House so that the appropriation bills and the
authorization bills and the reconciliation bills within their committee
can go forward with some kind of standard on what they are doing. To do
so without that is like playing a baseball game without any umpires
where no one is there to say what is a ball and what is a strike and if
there is an out or a safe. That's what this concept would do.
There's another way of solving that same problem, and that's asking
our good friends on the other side of this Chamber, the Senate, to
finally pass a budget so that we can work together and move forward.
Look, the Senate has refused to pass a budget in, now, 1,081 days;
1,081 days the Senate has refused to do a budget on their side. And we
should not be paralyzed because of their inaction. In 1,081 days, Henry
VIII married, divorced, and beheaded his wife in less time than that.
The Senate should be willing to move forward, and if they did, if
they passed the budget and we have this conference committee, we could
actually move forward in that time. But without that, we have to do
something else procedural so that our committees can actually pass
authorization bills, appropriation bills, and reconciliation bills and
bring them here to the floor in some kind of order.
We have to have a budget if you don't want to have a government
shutdown. You have to have a budget if you want a reconciliation that
will solve what Secretary Panetta says is that sequester meat ax that
would happen to the defense of this country.
{time} 1340
You have to have a budget because the Senate refuses to do a budget.
I find it surprising that some on the other side are basically arguing
not to do anything, which would actually lead to shutting down the
government or draconian cuts, or basically telling us we're not
supposed to do our work. That is ridiculous.
This is not a great concept. I'm not happy that we're doing this. It
would be much better if the Senate would do their work and let us work
together.
Or maybe there's a third option. Congressman Berger of Wisconsin,
back in the 1920s, suggested that a constitutional amendment would be
passed to dissolve the U.S. Senate and leave only the House. That is a
third option that would solve our problems, and perhaps our friends on
the other side would like that option better.
Sans that opportunity, we've got to move forward. This is a
procedural issue to move us forward with precedents, having been done
in the last Congress, precedents. I ask that you consider that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that if this were nothing,
my friends on the other side of the aisle would not be hiding this
deeming language in a rule dealing with guns. We'd have a straight up-
or-down-vote on the floor on the deeming provision.
The fact of the matter is that this rule magically puts the Ryan
budget into effect, and what that means is an end to Medicare as we
know it. And we're going to fight my friends on the other side of the
aisle who want to destroy one of the most important social programs
that we have in this country.
At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
giving us all this opportunity to speak about what is happening on the
floor today. It's happening just as we have returned from 2 weeks with
our constituents, listening to them talk about core challenges facing
the American people and the key priorities our families, businesses,
and workers are facing.
Americans have made it clear over and over again. It is their
constant message. We must work together to create jobs and grow our
economy. We must preserve the economic security of our seniors, the
middle class, and small business owners. This is all the backbone of
the middle class, the backbone of our democracy.
We must protect Medicare and not dismantle it. And yet, Mr. Speaker,
our Republican colleagues are at it again. Not once, not twice, not
three times, but now four times are they voting to cut the Medicare
guarantee. We must protect Medicare.
We must enact a budget that reflects our Nation's values of fairness
and opportunity and puts the American Dream in reach for every
American. Yet, House Republicans simply refuse to listen to what the
American people are saying to us. Instead, they have decided to pull a
stunt here today and ``deem and pass'' their devastating budget. They
know their budget cannot stand the scrutiny of the House, the Senate
and the rest, so they want to deem and pass it using a procedural trick
to pretend that both the House and the Senate have signed off on their
radical agenda.
But the American people know better. They know that the Republican
budget ends the Medicare guarantee, making seniors pay more to get less
on the way to severing the Medicare guarantee completely; that this
budget destroys more than 4 million jobs in the next 2 years, destroys
jobs. And three, gives a tax cut of nearly $400,000 to people making
more than $1 million per year, protects tax breaks for special
interests and Big Oil, and forces the middle class to foot the bill.
Ends the Medicare guarantee, is a job killer to the tune of 4 million
jobs, gives over $400,000 in tax cuts to people making over $1 million
a year. How can that be a statement of our national values?
We also know that the Republican budget will undermine Medicaid for
the elderly and people with disabilities, slash critical investments in
education--education, where all innovation springs from, education, the
source of America's competitiveness internationally, education, the
source of people reaching their aspirations in life. Education, jobs,
and health care would be slashed.
And we know that cuts have to be made, and important spending
decisions must be made. But you just can't say let seniors pay more for
Medicare, let's not invest in education and the rest, while we give tax
breaks to the wealthiest people in our country.
So this bill, called a budget bill, breaks the deal. It breaks the
debt agreement. It makes matters worse for the deficit. It breaks the
deal struck last summer, abandoning a firm bipartisan promise to the
American people.
Americans already rejected the Republican budget plan last year, and
this year is no different, except the Republicans think so--by bringing
it up over and over again, and this time by saying we know it can't
pass the Senate, so we'll just deem it passed in the House.
Rather than trying to fool the American people, the Republicans are
being called upon to join us today in opposing today's previous
question and simply allowing the House to vote. And our measure would
say, if the Republicans contend--and they do--that their bill does not
hurt Medicare, then let the House go on record and say that our measure
would prohibit any plan to eliminate Medicare, raise costs, ration
care, or reduce the benefits for seniors and people with disabilities.
By supporting our proposal we can keep the bedrock promise to our
seniors that, after a lifetime of work, all Americans should be able to
retire with dignity and security.
As Members of Congress, we each have a responsibility to protect
Medicare for our seniors, to create jobs for our workers, to grow our
economy, to build a strong, all-inclusive, and thriving middle class.
As Democrats, we are committed to reigniting the American Dream, to
building ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by
the rules, and take responsibility. And we want them all to succeed. We
just don't want people that make over $1 million to climb up their
ladder, make over $1 million a year, and then pull up the ladder so
that no one else can even reach some level of success.
We ask our House Republican friends, please let us work together to
reach
[[Page H1866]]
our shared goals to strengthen families, to secure a future of
prosperity for all people in our country.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to stop
the drive to deem and pass a measure that will end the Medicare
guarantee.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the former Speaker's visit to the
floor, and I have a comment to make about the verbiage of deem and
pass.
But first, before we get there, I'd like to actually have someone
talk about the resolution itself. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) to actually go back to what it's supposed
to be about, hunting and fishing.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the legislation and the rule as well.
Our Nation has been blessed with such magnificent natural wonders
that provide great enjoyment for those who hunt and fish, and today,
our sportsmen continue a wonderful and a great tradition that has
defined our Nation.
Unfortunately, far too often sportsmen are stymied in their efforts
to build upon this great American tradition and heritage because of
overzealous bureaucrats and activists who seem to want to go to almost
any means, really, to stop hunting and fishing.
Today, by passing the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012, we will make
a statement of support for our Nation's sportsmen and -women. This bill
states clearly that fishing and hunting and shooting are important
activities that create jobs and must continue on public land, and it
requires those that manage the land to make it accessible and holds
them accountable.
It takes away the power from the bureaucrats to limit types of
ammunition and fishing tackle that they've been trying to limit that
can be used on public lands. And it removes red tape that keeps hunters
from bringing home a limited number of legally-taken trophies from
Canada as well.
{time} 1350
And today, Mr. Speaker, we will send a very clear message to American
sportsmen and American sportswomen that we are on your side. We value
the important role that you play in upholding our national heritage and
its great tradition of America, and the jobs that you create through
your activities as well.
I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this very
important legislation and this rule as well.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat, this rule has very
little to do with sportsmen, but it has an awful lot to do with ending
the Medicare guarantee as we know it.
At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate.
First of all, I would like to strongly agree with the previous speakers
on our side of the aisle that this is trying to shield the public from
the full consequences of the Republican budget.
We just left the Budget Committee, where we had an opportunity for
people to start looking at what is going to happen were their budget to
move forward. And make no mistake, if our friends on the other side of
the aisle thought that this ``deem and pass'' was just a little modest
procedural thing to do and it was a good idea, we would be having the
budget discussion here with trumpets blaring. The reason we're not is
what you saw in a moment of candor by the Presidential nominee--
evidently--Romney talking about what's going to happen. About
Departments like Housing and Education that are going to be shrunk or
eliminated, talking about the massive tax increases that are going to
be necessary on middle America if they're going to give these
additional tax reductions for people who need it least.
There's a reason why this is being shuffled through without a full,
honest debate about the consequences. I'm hopeful that this falls
short. But make no mistake, this is a sad effort to back away from
assertions from the Republicans that they were going to try and open up
the process, be inclusive, engage people in a broad discussion. Instead
we get legislation like this.
I listened to my good friend from Michigan just sort of passing over,
for example, the little item about being able to bring in trophies
animals that have been hunted in Canada. Back up and look at what's
happening here. This encourages people to hunt for trophies the polar
bears, which are threatened and endangered. They know that they're not
supposed to import it back into the United States, but now these people
go out and kill these animals for trophy, for sport. Now they're going
to be able to bring them here to the United States even though for
years it's been inappropriate to do so. What sort of incentive is this
to respect our efforts to protect threatened and endangered species
like the polar bear?
Opening up public lands? We're all in favor of being able to use
public lands. I come from the West. I'm one of those States where the
Federal stewardship is over half the land. I represent Federal areas in
my district, and I represent a lot of people who hunt and fish. I also
represent a lot of people who like to hike, people who like the
wilderness experience, people who respect efforts to try and manage our
forests.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. This legislation, if it were enacted--and mercifully
it won't be--would enable some bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to trump
the decisions of local land managers to try and protect, for example,
in condition of high fire hazard. We saw forest fires in Colorado
started by recreational target shooting.
Now, of course our friends on the other side of the aisle aren't
concerned about increased global warming, increased drought, extreme
weather conditions; but for heavens sakes, taking away the ability of
the local managers to be good stewards of the land, to take away the
authority of the EPA to ever deal with appropriate regulations on
things like lead is just silly. It's not appropriate, it's not good
policy, and it's part of an effort to obscure the real efforts that are
under way, and that has to do with being able to weasel this Republican
budget legislation through with as little public scrutiny as possible.
I strongly urge rejection of the rule.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for being here.
It was exhilarating to hear someone actually talking about the bill
before us. Unfortunately, it was slightly inaccurate as well, so if I
could make a couple of corrections.
The trophy concept that is there is not opening it up for new
elements. It is simply saying those trophies that were already legally
hunted and have been denied access to this country can be accessed into
this country. It doesn't expand anything. Indeed, rather than actually
taking away State and local control, one of the provisions of this bill
is that the rules will be attuned to State and local laws, which means
State and local authorities actually have a great deal of authority
under this particular bill. They have more authority than a bureaucrat
sitting here in Washington.
But let me go back to what the other people wish to talk about, and
that is this deeming concept again--even though that is one of the
provisions and is still not the basis of the bill.
I taught debate for almost a dozen years, and I had a debate coach
when I was younger who used to say when you're totally lost on an issue
and you don't know what to do, just find an argument and keep drilling
it in over and over again and just maybe the judge will vote for you.
You've heard that happening today. No decision is being made on this
procedural vote. We did actually have a debate and vote 3 weeks ago.
That debate would have been appropriate, was appropriate 3 weeks ago,
and will be appropriate in the future, but not necessarily. This is a
procedural vote on how we move forward; it is not a policy vote on how
we move forward.
Words do have consequences and meaning. The Speaker was kind enough
to come in here and talk about how we are deeming and passing
something. I have to take umbrage of that slightly. We are not deeming
something and passing something. That actually took place in 2010 when
Speaker Pelosi presided over House Resolution 1500 that, indeed, deemed
and then passed something--passed something that had not
[[Page H1867]]
gone through committee, had not been discussed or voted by anybody. And
with less than a day of actually looking at the numbers, that was
deemed and then passed.
What we are talking about here is passing something which happened 3
weeks ago and now, so that we can go forward with the discussion in our
committees, deeming it simply because the Senate, once again, in over
1,000 days has failed to allow us, in a traditional way, to move
forward. That's why this is a procedural vote. This is not about
policy. This is not an effort where you have to pass something to find
out what's in it. This is the procedure in which we will go forward on
something we have already passed out of committee, on something which
is in the nature of what is going forward, which has been debated here
on the floor, and now allow it to be debated further. This is
procedural. This is procedural.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Isn't it the case that, in passing this rule, we
provide the process by which the budget will be implemented in the
House of Representatives? Isn't that the case?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate that. And reclaiming the time very
briefly because I know you're the next speaker and you're going to go
over this issue one more time, yeah, that's exactly what--there has to
be a procedure to go forward. But, once again, unlike what happened in
2010, we're not pulling the numbers out of thin air. You actually had
the chance to debate that earlier in your Budget Committee and will
have the chance to debate that again on the floor as well as in the
committee. That's process; it's a process. If you want to, again, go
across the rotunda and talk to your friends over on the other side,
maybe we wouldn't have to do that. But until they're willing to do
something, we have a procedural problem here.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time and look forward to
hearing the gentleman.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the ranking member of
the Budget Committee, again, I want to make it clear to everybody who's
watching this that this rule is about a lot more than a gun bill. This
rule is about how we're going to proceed with the appropriations for
the various committees. So, again, if this wasn't so controversial, my
Republican friends would have brought up this deeming language on its
own; but instead, they're hiding it in this gun bill, and they're
trying not to talk about what this means. What this means is an end to
the Medicare guarantee, among other things. It means an end to the
social safety net in this country.
I think this is a horrible, horrible way to proceed. I think the
budget that was passed by the House is horrible. But to move forward in
this manner I think is very, very disruptive.
People need to understand that this is not just a rule that allows a
gun bill to come to the floor and, oh, by the way, there's a few little
minor procedural things that are contained in this rule. This is a big
deal, this is a huge deal, and my colleagues need to know that.
At this point, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the
Budget.
{time} 1400
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend, Mr. McGovern. He is absolutely
right. The next vote will be a vote to double down on the Republican
budget.
I appreciate the answer from my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
What the next vote will allow, the vote on the rule, is for the House
to proceed with the implementation of the Republican budget. Therefore,
if you think that budget is the wrong direction for this country, you
should vote against the rule and not give the House the authority to
move forward, because that's what the next vote is all about.
Mr. Speaker, let's just remember what that budget does. I would just
remind my colleagues that the issue in the debate was not whether or
not we reduce the long-term deficit in this country. We've got to do
that. The issue was how we do that. The Republican budget did not
follow the advice of every bipartisan group that has looked at the
challenge of deficit reduction, because those bipartisan groups have
said that we need to take a balanced approach--meaning, we've got to
make some tough cuts.
We passed some of the Budget Control Act, and we needed to do more.
They also said that we needed to deal with the revenue side of the
equation, but the Republican budget doesn't ask for one penny--one
penny--from millionaires for the purposes of deficit reduction. It
doesn't close one single tax loophole for the purposes of deficit
reduction--not one. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our
Republican colleagues have signed a pledge saying they won't do that,
that they won't close one tax loophole for the purpose of deficit
reduction. Now, the American people understand the math of the budget.
If you say that we're not going to ask the wealthiest to do a little
more as part of reducing the deficit, it means you've got to sock it to
everybody else even harder.
Just this week, we saw this play out. Yesterday, in the Senate, they
had a vote on the Buffett rule. It is a very simple proposition: let's
ask millionaires to pay the same effective tax rate as their
secretaries. Every Democratic Senator but one voted for it. Every
Republican Senator but one voted against it.
Contrast that to what's going to happen in the House on Thursday.
Here in the House on Thursday, they're going to do another tax break.
Look at the Joint Tax Committee, a nonpartisan group. Where did the
bulk of those funds go--to hedge funds? to Washington law firms? There
was $50 billion added to the deficit in 1 year, and it would be $500
billion over 10 years. When you give tax cuts like that and if you also
want to reduce the deficit, it means you cut into everything else. So
what do you cut? You do cut the Medicare guarantee. You hit seniors on
Medicare. I'll just show you a chart that shows exactly what they do
here.
If you look at this chart, it shows the current support that seniors
receive under the Medicare program. That's the blue line. This is the
percentage of support they get from the Medicare program. As you can
see, if you continue the Medicare program at the current levels of
support, it maintains that at that level. This green line is the level
of support that Members of Congress get as part of the Federal
employees' health benefit plan. Members of Congress get a fixed
percentage of the premium costs as part of their plan. When the costs
go up, Members of Congress' support for the plan goes up accordingly,
and that's why the level of support from Members of Congress--that's
the green line--stays constant over time. As for the Medicare voucher
plan, huh-uh. Under the Medicare voucher plan, as costs for health care
rise, the amount of the vouchers seniors get will not keep pace. That's
how they reduce the deficit.
In other words, it's another round of tax cuts for millionaires; but
for seniors who have a median income today of under $22,000, they're
going to give them a voucher that doesn't keep pace with health care
costs. For Members of Congress, your plan keeps pace with rising health
care costs; not so for seniors on Medicare. Why? Again, it's not a
balanced approach.
What else does it do? We just had a hearing today in the Budget
Committee on what it does to Medicaid. It shreds the social safety net.
It cuts Medicaid by $800 billion over the next 10 years. According to
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, by the year 2022, Medicaid
will be cut by 30 percent and, by the year 2050, by 75 percent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would remind my colleagues that two-thirds of
Medicaid funding goes to seniors in nursing homes and to care for
disabled individuals, and another 20 percent goes to kids from low-
income families. They would whack that in their budgets, in the
Republican budget, by $800 billion. At the same time, if you'd just
take the portion of the tax cut in the Republican budget that extends
the Bush tax cuts for the folks at the very top, that's $961 billion,
but they don't want
[[Page H1868]]
to ask those Americans to go back to paying the same rates that they
were paying during the Clinton administration--the same rates. The
economy was booming and 20 million jobs were created--but no, they want
to give the folks at the very high end a tax break and cut Medicaid by
$810 billion.
Those are the choices that are made in the Republican budget, and
that's what this vote on this rule is all about: whether we should
allow this body to go forward and implement that budget. It's wrong for
the country. It's displaced priorities.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My old debate coach is looking down on our actions and is smiling,
saying his advice was right. Just keep making the same arguments over
and over again, and maybe someone will actually believe those. This,
actually, still is about a sportsmen bill and about hunting and fishing
rights on public property.
What the gentleman from Maryland just said is 99 percent accurate.
There is one slight difference in what he said, and that is that this
would be deemed until such time as there is a conference report. If
there, indeed, is another avenue to go, ask the Senate to do its work,
to do its job, to have a conference committee, and to actually move
forward in that manner. Otherwise, we have to either do it in an
improvised way, which is this, or you have to simply not do it at all.
Actually, one of the end results of what the other side is telling us
to do is to simply not do anything. Do not go forward with any ideas.
Do not go forward with reconciliation, and have a defense sequestration
go into effect that would devastate the military that Secretary Panetta
is begging you not to do. You have to do something procedurally to move
forward. This vote does not implement anything. This vote allows our
committees to go back and do the work that we were supposed to do. You
defeat this, and we go back to a policy of doing nothing.
As I said before, there is precedent for what we are doing. I don't
know why we say we are burying this in a hunting bill; but in 2010 when
we did this deeming practice over another administration, it was buried
in section 4 of House Resolution 1500. Once again, in going through a
different process back then because no committee had ever looked at
those numbers before, they were deemed and passed. This time, we
actually passed a bill. We debated it in committee. We debated it on
the floor. Now we are going to deem those numbers until such time as
the Senate is responsible enough to do its work and have a conference
committee report so that the House at least does what we are charged to
do, and that is the work of the American people.
This is a procedural resolution that allows our committees to go
forward to find solutions and to do it with some order to it. It
doesn't presuppose what the final decision will be. That's the argument
that's being made here. It does not presuppose the final decision. It
is the procedure to go forward, Madam Speaker, and that is why we so
desperately need to do this--so the House can do its work when the
Senate refuses to do its work.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just remind my colleagues that, by deeming these numbers, what
my colleagues will be doing if they vote for this rule will be to give
the Republican leadership the green light to go ahead and dismantle
Medicare, to end the Medicare guarantee for our senior citizens.
{time} 1410
It will be a green light to go after anti-hunger and nutrition
programs. It's the green light to go after education programs. As the
ranking member on the Budget Committee said very clearly, we all want
to balance the budget, we all understand we need to deal with our debt.
But the way my friends on the other side of the aisle have outlined
their plan, it is so one-sided. The burden is all on middle-income
families, all on those who are poor.
Their way of balancing the budget is to lower the quality of life for
the middle class in this country. And there are other choices to be
made. For example, making sure that Donald Trump pays his fair share or
that we close some of these corporate tax loopholes or go after some of
these subsidies for the big oil companies. Instead, all of the plans
that have been put forward by my Republican friends are all aimed at
those in the middle and those struggling to get into the middle. That
is why we are so outraged here today. We believe in Medicare. We don't
want to end the Medicare guarantee for our senior citizens.
At this point, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, our good friend from the State of Utah
posed the question: What do the American people want?
I suppose that most of us would like to hunt on public land and fish,
and the underlying bill does that. Unfortunately, tacked on to that
bill--should this rule actually pass the House--will be something that
I'm sure the American people do not want. And that is the crux of this
current debate. The debate here is really about what will be added to
the hunting and fishing legislation.
Let's consider for a moment exactly what it is. It is the end of
Medicare as we know it. It sets up a program that will, as surely as we
are here on the floor at this moment, terminate Medicare. It's also a
bill that will immediately double the interest rate on every student
loan taken out here in the United States. It's also a bill that will
put 200,000 students out of school, out of college because the Pell
Grants are reduced. It's also a bill that will take $80 billion a year
out of Medicaid, some 62 percent, 63 percent of which goes to nursing
homes. So seniors will not be able to get into nursing homes and those
who are there may not be able to stay.
What is being tacked onto the hunting and fishing bill here is
something that the American public does not want. The American public
does not want to see students thrown out of school, does not want to
see Medicare end for seniors, does not want to see seniors no longer
able to go to a nursing home, does not want to see the food stamps
terminated as unemployment increases and as we find some 20 percent of
American children in poverty unable to get a decent meal 7 days a week.
That's what the American public does not want, but what the Republicans
are offering with this rule is precisely that.
We ought to vote ``no'' on this rule. If you must deem, put it in a
separate bill and let's have an up-and-down vote on that.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member from the Committee on
Natural Resources, Mr. Markey.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
The Republican budget reads like the legislative version of the
``Hunger Games,'' pitting American families in an unfair and losing
battle against billionaires and Big Oil.
One, the Republican budget doles out tax breaks that the wealthiest
don't need and we can't afford; two, gives away $4 billion in annual
tax breaks for oil companies; three, abandons grandma and grandpa,
forcing them to pay more for health care or forgo coverage altogether;
four, takes food out of the mouths of hungry children all across our
country.
Just yesterday, Senate Republicans refused to fix a broken system
that allows CEOs to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Here
in the House, the Republican leadership has called the Buffett rule a
hoax. The real hoax is the Republican budget. The GOP used to stand for
Grand Old Party. Now it stands for Guaranteed Oil Profits; now it
stands for Gut and Get Old People; now it stands for Greed Over
Principle. One hundred years after the Titanic sank, the Republican
budget throws working Americans overboard while saving the lifeboats
for the wealthiest.
The ``Hunger Games,'' that's what the Republicans are playing. For
the entertainment of the billionaires and the oil companies, we--that
is the Republicans--are now going to sacrifice
[[Page H1869]]
the programs that help the neediest children in our country. It is a
budget that does not deserve the support of any Member of this
institution.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I would urge the gentleman to pay
particular attention to some of the amendments that are proposed under
this rule, one of which would actually probably prohibit those
Hollywood people from making movies on public lands again if any kind
of hunting and fishing action were to be required.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I would just like to say to my friend that as the lone
Republican who represents Hollywood, I don't like aspersions being cast
at my very distinguished constituents, as my friend has just chosen to
do.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, Madam Speaker, let me yield 5 minutes
to the chairman of the Rules Committee, who is here to clean up the
mess I have made so far.
Mr. DREIER. Well, it's going to take more than 5 minutes to clean up
that mess.
Madam Speaker, let me just say that while I am here to clean up Mr.
Bishop's mess, I've got to say I never in my wildest dreams believed
that the ship that my grandmother almost rode on, but didn't quite get
on, the Titanic, would be brought into this debate. I'm very impressed
that my friend from Massachusetts has proceeded to do that.
But I will say that another of his lines, Madam Speaker, was just
absolutely incredible: taking food from the mouths of hungry children.
Come on, give me a break. Madam Speaker, the notion that anyone--
Democrat or Republican alike--would in any way embrace the notion of
taking food from the mouths of hungry children is one of the most
preposterous things imaginable. We want to ensure that every single
child in this country has opportunity, as well as food. We want to make
sure that we're able to get our fiscal house in order. And frankly, as
I listened to all of the complaints being leveled about the action that
we will take with passage of this rule, it is simply unhappiness over
the fact that our friends on the other side of the aisle have lost the
budget debate.
Madam Speaker, what we're doing is very simply doing the work that
this body has charged us with doing. The work that we've been charged
with doing is to put into place a reconciliation package, getting the
authorizing committees to work on the charge of a budget.
One of the words that we regularly hear the American people use to
malign all of Washington, D.C., is the word ``gridlock.'' I'm not one
of those. I subscribe to the George Will view that sometimes the notion
of having a President of one party and a Congress of a different party
is not necessarily a bad thing. But we know that the term ``gridlock''
is used as a pejorative.
Madam Speaker, I can think of not much that would exacerbate gridlock
more than our saying the House passed its budget and we all know that
the Senate has failed in more than 3 years and 100-some-odd days since
they've passed a budget, that the Senate has failed to pass a budget.
So we have the responsibility, since we have been able to pass a budget
here, to do our work.
This notion of calling it deem and pass and somehow likening it to
the outrageous proposal that--fortunately the American people stood up
and said it was not acceptable, and finally the House responded by not
deeming and passing that incredible health care bill, which is
potentially unconstitutional. We'll see what the Supreme Court says
sometime this summer. But the idea of characterizing that with our
doing exactly what Democrats did when it came to the budget in the past
and that is that since the work hadn't been done, the reconciliation
process had to begin, we had to do the work that follows the passage of
a budget. That's exactly what we're doing.
{time} 1420
To somehow describe this as extraordinary is, again, a gross
mischaracterization of what it is that we have before us.
Madam Speaker, I will say that for us to proceed with this rule and
consideration of this very important measure, we have a $15.5 trillion
national debt. We have budget deficits as far as the eye can see. The
so-called Buffett rule, I mean its author in the Senate acknowledged
yesterday that it would do nothing--Senator Whitehouse said it would do
nothing to create jobs, and he threw out there, he said, it's not going
to solve all the ailments of society. It's not going to cure all the
ailments of society.
The fact is we need to focus on job creation, on economic growth, and
that's exactly what we're trying to do with this budget. This budget is
designed to get our economy growing, and at the same time it's designed
to, yes, ensure, with the social safety net, that those who are truly
in need are able to benefit from those programs. But it's designed to
make sure that those programs will not go into extinction completely.
And it's designed to ensure that we create opportunity for every man
and women in this country, as many people have been discouraged, as
many people are struggling to have the opportunity to find a job. The
budget that we have is designed to encourage the kind of government
structure which will make it possible for that to happen.
Madam Speaker, let me just say with that, I encourage an ``aye'' vote
on this rule. Let's get down to work. That's what the American people
want us to do.
And I hope and pray that I have cleaned up for Mr. Bishop.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I just want to respond to something that
my distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said. You know, he
implied that when my colleague from Massachusetts said that the
Republican budget plans would literally take the food out of the mouths
of children, that somehow we were engaged in hyperbole or some kind of
empty rhetoric.
I don't know whether my chairman knows that tomorrow in the House
Agriculture Committee, under the direction of the Republican
leadership, that they are going to cut $33 billion out of the SNAP
program.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I would say to my friend, obviously we have to deal with
very, very serious fiscal challenges that exist here, and I know that
these State-run programs are designed to ensure that those who are
truly in need are able to benefit, and so no one has the desire to take
food from the mouths of hungry children.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend.
Mr. McGOVERN. But $33 billion in cuts will reduce benefits to people.
It will take, literally, food off the table for many families and a lot
of working families, too.
Under the Republican leadership's direction, the Agriculture
Committee is not going after excessive subsidies and big agri-
businesses. It's going after SNAP, food stamps. I am going to have an
amendment in the Rules Committee today, when we bring up the
transportation bill I think for, like, the 15th time I have offered it,
to go after the billions of dollars that we give to oil companies in
subsidies. Taxpayers subsidize these programs. We never get an
opportunity to vote on the House floor.
But the Republican leadership is not only not allowing me to do that,
they are not saying we should go after and trim this corporate welfare.
What they are saying is $33 billion in cuts to SNAP. That is
outrageous.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. McGOVERN. I will yield to the gentleman in 1 second.
I know these are difficult budgetary times. I mean, you know, to not
ask the Donald Trumps of the world to pay a little bit more and rather,
instead, to cut $33 billion in SNAP, or to not insist that we pay for
these wars that seem to go on forever, and let that add to our debt,
but go after poor people who are on SNAP, that's where the outrage is.
I can't believe that that's the first place we are turning.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that I
agree with part of his statement here, that being that we need to look
at overall tax reform. I concur with the notion of
[[Page H1870]]
reducing any kind of subsidies. I don't like the idea of engaging in
social planning through tax policy, and so I hope in the context of
overall tax reform that we will be able to do exactly what my friend is
arguing when it comes to the issue of subsidization. I thank my friend
for yielding.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentleman from Utah how many more
speakers he has?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. How many would you like me to have?
Mr. McGOVERN. As many as you want.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Then we will have that many, but I hope I will be
the last.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will close for our side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for up to 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that Republicans can't
use so-called reconciliation procedures to force through the
elimination of Medicare as we know it or force through cuts to Medicare
benefits for seniors or people with disabilities.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we have a choice here. We can either
balance our budget and deal with our deficit and our debt in a fair and
balanced manner, or we can do it in the way that the Republican
leadership has proposed, which is to basically put the burden on
middle-income families and those struggling to get into the middle, and
to put an added burden on our senior citizens.
Make no mistake about it: if you vote for this rule, you are voting
to end the Medicare guarantee. That is their plan, and that is what
they have said. There is no question about it.
I think it is outrageous. I think when Warren Buffett pays a lower
tax rate than his secretary there is something wrong with our tax
system. When corporations get all these special loopholes so they don't
have to pay taxes but middle-income families have to, there is
something wrong with this system. We need some balance.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, there is, as I finish this, a
couple of areas I want to talk about. There are children who are
preparing to go to preschool today who have lived their entire lives
without seeing the Senate actually pass a budget. Were that not the
case, we would not be here with this particular issue, and if they
actually were to pass a budget, we would go forward without this
particular issue.
Once again, the merits of the budget notwithstanding, this vote does
not implement anything; it allows us the procedure to go forward to
implement something. The underlying bill still does talk about the
ability of those of us who live in public land States to have hunting
and fishing rights guaranteed and protected without the heavy hand of
Washington bureaucrats stopping that concept. Indeed, State law will
have to be considered before they do any kind of concept.
I also want to put one other concept before you, just in closing,
that illustrates the problem we have with the American people on how we
waste money and, indeed, that needs to be one of the first things of
our consideration.
CBO has scored this bill as potentially costing $12 million. It
doesn't make a difference. There is nothing mandated in here that needs
to have a review under the NEPA process of these bills. The
administration said that we might have to go through this process,
therefore, you should score it at $12 million.
Let's make an assumption that you actually had to go through the
reprocessing of going through all of the land management plans. And I
would ask the people the question: Does it make sense that it would
take $12 million for the Park Service and the BLM to decide whether
hunting would or would not be allowed? Could that not be done with the
Secretary and a cell phone within a week if we actually were decent
about what we were attempting to do?
When, indeed, we have bills like this in which the administration and
the government is trying to say, well, it will cost $12 million to make
the decision of whether hunting is allowed or not, it puts all of our
efforts into question. It does not make sense. And it may be one of the
reasons why we need to look at what we are doing internally first, and
that would be an appropriate thing to take place.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate that this is still a
procedural vote on a rule that is extremely fair, and it is appropriate
to the underlying legislation of H.R. 4089, which does talk about
fishing and hunting rights, preserving that time-honored tradition and,
indeed, allowing those of us in the West to make sure that we are not
precluded from those traditional areas of activity. It's a good bill
and, more importantly, this is a fair rule, and I urge you to adopt it.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 614 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
SEC. 3. PROHIBITING USE OF RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES FOR
ELIMINATION OF MEDICARE PROGRAM AND INCREASED
COSTS OR REDUCED BENEFITS TO SENIORS AND PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES.
(a) No measure reported by a committee pursuant to
reconciliation directives in House Concurrent Resolution 112
shall be considered a reconciliation bill for purposes of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if it contains a provision
that, with respect to the Medicare program under title XVIII
of the Social Security Act, furthers, promotes, provides for,
or implements any of the following:
(1) Eliminating guaranteed health insurance benefits for
seniors or people with disabilities under such program.
(2) Establishing a Medicare voucher plan that provides
limited payments to seniors or people with disabilities to
purchase health care in the private health insurance market
or otherwise increasing Medicare beneficiary costs.
(b) No measure reported by a committee pursuant to
reconciliation directives in House Concurrent Resolution 112
shall be considered a reconciliation bill for purposes of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if it contains a provision
that, with respect to seniors or people with disabilities,
furthers, promotes, provides for, or implements any of the
following:
(1) Rationing health care.
(2) Raising revenues or premiums for seniors or people with
disabilities under section 1818 of the Social Security Act,
section 1818A of such Act, or section 1839A of such Act.
(3) Increasing cost-sharing (including deductibles,
coinsurance, and copayments) under the Medicare program for
seniors or people with disabilities.
(4) Otherwise restricting benefits or modifying eligibility
criteria under such program for seniors or people with
disabilities.
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the
[[Page H1871]]
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. BISHOP of Utah. With that, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minutes votes on adopting House Resolution 614, if
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1815.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 179, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 155]
YEAS--235
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--179
Ackerman
Altmire
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
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
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
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--17
Akin
Andrews
Cardoza
Cohen
Costello
Davis (IL)
Filner
Fincher
Gallegly
Lewis (GA)
Marino
McIntyre
Napolitano
Pitts
Rangel
Slaughter
Walsh (IL)
{time} 1455
Messrs. SCOTT of Virginia, CLYBURN, and Ms. BERKLEY changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 155, I was away from the
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 155 due to a family health emergency.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Ordering the Previous
Question of H. Res. 614, the resolution providing for consideration of
the bill H.R. 4089, to protect and enhance opportunities for
recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 184, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 156]
AYES--228
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
[[Page H1872]]
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
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--184
Ackerman
Altmire
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
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
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
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
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Akin
Andrews
Burton (IN)
Cardoza
Cohen
Costello
Filner
Fincher
Gallegly
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Marino
McIntyre
Napolitano
Pitts
Rangel
Slaughter
Terry
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1505
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 156, I was away from the
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 156 due to a family health emergency.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to the
resolution of H. Res. 614, the resolution providing for consideration
of the bill H.R. 4089, to protect and enhance opportunities for
recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes.
____________________