[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 19, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1581-H1588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1240
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 25, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.
RES. 115, PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE 113TH CONGRESS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 122 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 122
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 25) establishing the
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2014
and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2015 through 2023. The first reading of the concurrent
resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the concurrent resolution are
waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with
three hours of general debate confined to the congressional
budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and
one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals
and policies equally divided and controlled by Representative
Brady of Texas and Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York
or their respective designees. After general debate the
concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under
the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be
considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except
those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as
read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. All points of order against such amendments are
waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of
consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment.
After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent
resolution for amendment and a final period of general
debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise and report
the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and
amendments thereto to adoption without intervening motion
except amendments offered by the chair of the Committee on
the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The
concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question of its adoption.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
March 22, 2013, through April 8, 2013--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved;
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment; and
(c) bills and resolutions introduced during the period
addressed by this section shall be numbered, listed in the
Congressional Record, and when printed shall bear the date of
introduction, but may be referred by the Speaker at a later
time.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 4. Each day during the period addressed by section 2
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the
expenses of certain committees of the House of
Representatives in the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Administration; and (2) one motion to
recommit which may not contain instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the ranking member from New
York, pending which time I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, that was a mouthful as the Clerk was
reading through this resolution, and it was an exciting mouthful. I'm
not sure that folks actually were able to get from just the prose the
excitement that is in this rule today.
What this rule provides for is two very important things. I'm going
to take them in order of my personal passion, but they're both equally
important. Number one, this rule provides that every single Member of
this House--not just Republicans, not just Democrats, not just folks
who are favored, not any particular category--but every single Member
of this House who represents a constituency back home had an
opportunity to submit their own budget for the United States of
America.
So often, the problem in this town is not enough good ideas, Mr.
Speaker.
[[Page H1582]]
We don't have that problem today because every Member of the House that
chose to submit a budget is going to have their budget considered and
debated on the floor of this House if we pass this rule today.
Now, that is only five budgets, Mr. Speaker, five plus the Budget
Committee's mark, because it's not easy to put together a budget. A lot
of folks talk a good game about what they would do if they were king
for a day; but when you try to craft your own budget, you've got to
put, literally, money where your mouth and ideas are.
In this rule, we make in order a Congressional Black Caucus
substitute budget, a Progressive Caucus substitute budget, and a
substitute budget by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). We make in order a budget
introduced by Mr. Mulvaney from South Carolina that tries to capture
the essence of what the Senate is working on right now, and we make in
order a budget produced by the Republican Study Committee. All of those
exist as an alternative to the budget that was produced by the Budget
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of sitting on the Budget
Committee. What you see here in my hand is the Budget Committee report.
We produced this on March 15. It's bound and it's published. They did a
very nice job. It's been proofread, and the minority has had a chance
to add their views. That was March 15 that we produced this budget.
But as we sit here today with March quickly leaving us, what we do
not have yet is a budget from the United States President. I only point
that out, Mr. Speaker, to say I understand that it's hard to produce a
budget. I know because I produced one in this cycle. I had the great
pleasure of working with a team that produced the Republican Study
Committee budget and produced the House budget. So in a time period
where the President has failed to follow the legally required mandate
of introducing a budget by the first week of February, I've had the
great pleasure of producing two budgets.
My friends on the Progressive Caucus have produced a budget. My
friends on the Congressional Black Caucus have produced a budget. My
friend, Mr. Van Hollen, has produced a budget. And I think it is fair
when we ask in this debate why we have been denied a chance to look at
the President's budget. We didn't see it in February. We didn't see it
in March. Word has it now we might see it in April.
It's hard work to produce a budget, but it's important work. In fact,
it's legally required work. I take great pride not just that the House
will meet its statutory deadline, but that we're meeting it in this
very open and honest forum as this rule proposes.
But the second thing this rule does, Mr. Speaker, is it provides for
consideration of the committee funding resolution. This Congress
doesn't have a penny to spend except for pennies that we take from the
American taxpayer. That's the only place any revenue comes into this
United States Government. Part of that revenue goes to fund this very
institution.
Thrift begins at home, Mr. Speaker. Before you and I arrived in this
body, Mr. Speaker, the committee process here in this House was
authorized to spend $300 million a year. Now, the committees do amazing
work. It's important work to produce reports like this Budget Committee
report, and they do the oversight on the executive branch. I don't for
a minute suggest that the work that the committee structure does isn't
critical to the functioning of our Republic. But every single account
in the United States Government has to be looked at, examined,
critiqued, and reformed if we are to get our fiscal books back in
order.
The very first committee funding resolution you and I had a chance to
vote on, Mr. Speaker, we reduced that committee funding from $300
million back in the 111th Congress down to around $260 in the 112th.
{time} 1250
Here we come down again to $240 million in this resolution. In the 26
now short months that you and I have served in Congress, Mr. Speaker,
this body has examined its own books and reduced its spending by 20
percent on committees. That is not an easy task. That's not a task that
came lightly. That's a task that has taken tremendous effort by both
the majority and the minority.
But my question is, Mr. Speaker, if we can do it, as the American
people expect us to do, what could the executive branch do? If we in
the people's House can take 20 percent out because our constituents
have demanded that we view every single dollar with an eye toward
thrift, what could the executive branch do if only they would partner
with us as we begin the leadership right here in this body?
None of the easy decisions are left, Mr. Speaker. The only decisions
left to be decided in this budget, to be decided in this rule, are the
hard decisions. We have provided in this rule the opportunity to
consider every alternative that Members have proposed to decide these
solutions, Mr. Speaker.
With that, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Through numerous budget resolutions and campaign pledges and
appearances on Sunday talk shows, the majority has made clear that
their vision for America is a vision that says the Nation can no longer
care for our seniors, that we must halt vital scientific research and
that we should let our bridges and schools crumble because we can't
afford to invest in the future.
In short, I believe that it is an extreme and cynical version for
America and one that I strongly reject.
For more than a decade, the needs of our country were neglected while
the majority led two unfunded wars and gave unaffordable tax breaks to
millionaires and billionaires, and we now have the cost for the last
war in Iraq of $3 trillion borrowed. In all the discussions on the
deficit and what bad shape we are in, nobody ever talks about that war
and how that has kept us from rebuilding the infrastructure in the
United States that cries out for it.
These two decisions unraveled the balanced budget achieved by
President Clinton and exploded our Nation's debt. Now after a decade of
reckless financial management, the majority is proposing another budget
that is as unserious as it is extreme.
Take, for example, the field of scientific research. More than 50
percent of our economic growth since World War II can be attributed to
the development and adoption of new technologies, yet the budget
proposes drastic cuts to research at the National Institutes of Health,
the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, among others.
As any scientist will tell you--and I am one--you cannot turn
research on and off like a faucet. Across the Federal Government,
researchers are on the brink of discoveries that could cure diseases or
open entire new fields of commerce. But under the majority's budget,
that valuable research will be ended and these important discoveries
will probably not be made in the United States.
The majority wants to impose such cuts on top of cuts contained in
the sequester, even though the effects of the sequester are just
beginning to be felt. For example, in the coming weeks, airport control
towers will begin to close, affecting flight schedules and stranding
travelers. Many of these towers are located in the rural parts of our
country where there are no other alternatives for long-distance travel.
In addition, border patrol agents will be furloughed, which not only
affects security but the success of our economy. According to the
Congressional Research Service, more than $1.3 billion a day in trade
crosses the U.S.-Canada border. This trade is dependent upon the
effective operation of our border security agents. The effects of the
sequester are already impacting trade by causing backups at the border
and leaving goods and supplies stranded en route to their destination.
Furthermore, it is often forgotten that 5 years after I-35 collapsed
above the Mississippi River, we have still failed to repair our
crumbling infrastructure.
Earlier today, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a
2013 report card for America's infrastructure. They found that one in
eight bridges in my home State of New York is structurally deficient
and one in nine
[[Page H1583]]
bridges across the United States is the same. A very prominent engineer
stated just this past week that there are bridges in major cities in
areas of the United States which he would not cross for fear of falling
into the water. At the same time, more and more engineers and
transportation experts are warning that our bridges will soon be too
unsafe to cross unless we act.
These bridges aren't alone. Everything from schools to airports to
train stations and highways are literally crumbling before our eyes.
Water systems in many of the major cities in parts of the United
States are almost a century old and almost unusable.
Think, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, think of the jobs that would be
created, as badly as we need them to put people back to work, if we
could not decide to starve again our country's needs and instead start
to rebuild the needs and put people back to work.
I think it's inexcusable that instead of responding to the crisis
that we have, the majority spent the last 2 years lurching from crisis
to crisis and repeatedly introducing legislation such as today's budget
legislation that guts investment in the Nation's infrastructure instead
of putting us back to work rebuilding the country.
A telling illustration of the failed approach is that they have
included the repeal of the Affordable Care Act as the central tenet of
their budget proposal. During the 112th Congress, the majority held
more than 30 votes in the last 2 years just to repeal the Affordable
Care Act, eating up valuable time and costing taxpayers millions of
dollars in the process. Despite this expensive folly, the majority
wants to do it again. In order to balance the budget, the majority
believes we should repeal the lifesaving law and once again legalize
health insurance discrimination based upon preexisting conditions,
force young adults off their parents' health insurance and open the
doughnut hole for our Nation's seniors.
Mr. Speaker, before we were able to pass the health care bill, eight
States and the District of Columbia in the United States considered
domestic violence to be a preexisting condition and insurance companies
were not required to cover victims. Are we going to go back to that if
this repeal is achieved?
The majority also wants to cut financial assistance to students in
need. The budget cuts Pell Grant assistance by $83 billion over the
next 10 years and allows the interest rates on need-based student loans
to double. In a time when we are falling so far behind all other
industrial countries in the number of persons who go to college, the
United States that used to be first now is about 12th.
By all objective measures, drastic and extreme cuts such as these can
be seen as unnecessary cruelty not needed to balance the budget.
Indeed, just this past weekend both Speaker Boehner and Budget
Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on Sunday television shows that this
Nation does not face a debt crisis. When asked about it yesterday,
Chairman Ryan indicated that, yes, he had said that.
So despite saying that to everybody, scaring America half to death,
keeping businesses from being able to plan the future, they continue to
promote a dystopian vision of the future in order to convince Americans
that we have to adopt their extreme policies today. It is under this
guise that the majority proposes their most extreme transformation of
America's social safety net in today's budget.
Once again this year, the majority proposes to end Medicare as we
know it and turn the promise of guaranteed health care into a voucher
program. Unlike Medicare, the majority voucher program would not
guarantee seniors access to the health care they need. I think we
thoroughly discussed that last year when it failed and certainly during
the last election when it failed. This would drive senior citizens into
the market with a defined income that they could use to buy their own
insurance if they were physically or mentally able to do so.
This is the same failed proposal, and it has been opposed by
Americans, as I said, at the ballot box. But we continue today to defy
the wishes of the American people with a quest to end Medicare as we
know it, and it should be a telling reminder of where priorities lie.
These extreme cuts stand in sharp contrast to the tax reform
contained within their budget. According to the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, in order to enact the majority's tax reform and to
not increase the deficit, middle class families would have to pay
$3,000 more a year and the wealthiest Americans receive a $245,000 tax
break.
{time} 1300
Once again, the majority has shown they would rather take away vital
programs from our Nation's most vulnerable than raise a single dollar
in taxes on America's wealthiest citizens.
Mr. Speaker, such a budget is neither original nor serious, nor is it
acceptable to the American people. We've been down this road before,
and it is discouraging and dangerous that the majority insists that we
go down it yet once again. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the
majority's budget proposal and today's rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to refer the
gentlelady to the House Budget Committee report.
If she were to read just the first few pages, she would see that
spending increases under this budget by $500 billion in the next 5
years and by $1.5 trillion over the next 10. I promised myself I would
count how many times we heard the words ``extreme cuts'' applied to
what is a half-trillion dollars in new and additional spending, but I
confess I've lost track already today.
With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes, Mr. Speaker, to the
chairman of the Rules Committee, a man who crafted this rule that has
allowed all ideas on the budget to be considered today. He would be the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Georgia, who sits on the Rules Committee and who also sits on the
Budget Committee and is doing an awesome job on behalf of this body and
the people of Georgia.
Today, the American people have a chance, really, to see firsthand
the rolling out of what we call the Ryan budget. Paul Ryan, who is the
chairman of our Budget Committee, once again leads, I believe, the
intellectual thought process on talking about the future that we should
have in this country. Certainly, the budget is that primer--that
guiding post, that opportunity for us to lay out a philosophy about
what Republicans stand for. Today, the American people are having a
chance to hear from our colleagues, the Democrats.
Of course, as you listen to our colleagues--our friends, the
Democrats--talk, everything about a budget, if you're a Republican, is
about harming the middle class, is about ruining the country, is about
our heading in the wrong direction. That is because they've taken the
simple approach. They will try and fund everything: they will try and
fund hospitals; they will fund airports; they will fund schools. They
will do all of these amazing things, but the facts of the case are that
that process and that future do not work.
Yesterday, Paul Ryan, before the Rules Committee, very carefully
argued the point that really is embodied on this slide, which talks
about a responsible way forward for this country, because, you see, we
have the authority and the responsibility to make sure that what we do
sustains our future: that it's something that creates not only more
jobs but opportunities for the future of not just ourselves but of our
children and our grandchildren.
For 4 years, this House was led by Democrats, and you can see the
laws that they passed and the amazing amount of spending that it would
place upon our country. We don't even show in here individually where
Social Security is as that will go bankrupt--Medicare, bankrupt;
Medicaid, insolvent; our inability to be able to pay for our future by
creating jobs today.
The free enterprise system is exactly what Republicans support and
believe in because that is the American Dream--not government spending
and government jobs but, rather, a vibrant free enterprise system
whereby there are employers who want to hire people to become
employees, to have careers, to then make this country better and
stronger. The way you do that is by lowering government spending, by
having a public-private partnership, not by having the Federal
Government be responsible for everything from a one-
[[Page H1584]]
size-fits-all health care industry to the government control of every
part of our lives.
So, yesterday, Paul Ryan--very effectively, I believe--came before
the House Rules Committee and talked about a vision forward. What's
very interesting is that everybody else talked about let's just stick
it to the rich. Let's raise taxes trillions of dollars. Let's go and
stick it to special interests, like people who provide gasoline at the
pump, and raise taxes on oil companies. Well, ladies and gentlemen,
every time you raise taxes, you raise prices, and every time you raise
prices, the consumer has to pay more for it. These are the ideas that
make America less able to be prepared for its future and that cost more
money.
That's why, when you look at this slide, you see where the laws
already enacted by the Democrats are leading America to where we will
be functionally bankrupt. We are following the European model--exactly
what they have done over there for a number of years--and now we are
seeing firsthand Iceland, Greece and, just yesterday, Cyprus. This is
the pathway down which our friends, the Democrats, if they get their
say, will lead us.
Republicans, through Paul Ryan, spoke about we want to make sure that
Medicare, that Social Security, that the free enterprise system are
alive and well by making these plans and the process therein ready for
the employers and the workers of tomorrow. That is what we are talking
about. We are talking about reforms that will ensure the things that
the American people want and need--and, yes, even at the National
Institutes of Health so that they will be prepared for our future.
Mr. Speaker, this is what we're talking about today. I can't wait
until Paul Ryan and the Republicans engage Democrats on the floor with
facts and figures. This is a primer to what we'll see.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to a
member of the committee on the budget, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentlelady for yielding and
for her continued tremendous leadership on the Rules Committee.
I rise in strong opposition to the rule; and I think the previous
speaker, the chairman of the Rules Committee, really laid out why I'm
totally opposed to this rule and the bill.
As a member of the Budget Committee, let me just say that I've had a
chance to study this GOP budget, which is full of choices that would
undermine our Nation's future for the continued benefit of special
interests, the wealthy and, yes, big oil companies--oil subsidies. It
creates more income inequality, and it shreds the safety net. It is in
keeping with the overall effort we've seen over and over again to
dismantle government, increase inequality and leave the most vulnerable
people on their own.
We should reject this very warped vision of America, and we should
call this budget for what it is. Republicans call it a Path to
Prosperity, but it really is a path to poverty for the middle class,
for working families, for children, and for our seniors.
Mr. Speaker, the majority did not support the amendment that I
offered in the Budget Committee that would set a goal of cutting
poverty in half in 10 years, which listed and reaffirmed those
government-supported programs, such as the earned income tax credit,
which lifts people out of poverty even though we tried to come to some
agreement on language; but, quite frankly, if they supported that goal,
they would have accepted my amendment, and their budget would have made
some radically different choices.
The reality is we hear the rhetoric that claims to support a goal of
ending poverty while at the same time making devastating cuts that put
more people into poverty. The fact of the matter is you cannot pretend
to fight poverty while you make brutal cuts to the very programs that
lift millions of Americans out of poverty.
The Republican budget would make devastating cuts that will increase
child hunger, cut off millions of seniors from access to health care,
and throw struggling families off TANF during the middle of a jobs
crisis. Blocking Medicaid, turning Medicare into a voucher program, and
gutting food assistance to our children and our seniors will not reduce
poverty. It will just make it worse.
When you look at this Republican budget, for example, it takes 66
percent of the budget cuts from programs for people with low or
moderate incomes. It would cost 2 million jobs in 2014, and it would
slash $135 billion over 10 years by cutting 8 million to 9 million
people from the SNAP program--our nutrition program, our food stamps
program--which is one of the most effective anti-poverty programs in
the United States.
The American people deserve more. They deserve a budget that creates
jobs, a budget that creates opportunity for all, not a budget that
creates more poverty. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
rule and to vote ``no'' on this budget because it is a pathway to
poverty.
{time} 1310
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. If I can just ask
my colleague from California before she leaves, and I have the great
pleasure of serving with her on the Budget Committee, and I would
certainly disagree with most of her characterizations about the work
product there, and look forward to dispelling those tomorrow, but today
with this rule, I heard you encourage our colleagues to reject this
rule. This is, of course, a rule that has made every single idea of
every single Member who had a budget plan in order. Does that not
satisfy the gentlelady's need for a full and open debate on our budget
priorities?
Ms. LEE of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I'm happy to yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. LEE of California. I don't think I mentioned a full and open
debate. What I wanted to talk about was the rule that allows for the
presentation of this budget and listed all of the support programs that
really keep people out of poverty. And also the fact that yes, we
tried, as you know, in the committee to put together an amendment that
would actually do that on a bipartisan way. But you can't ignore the
fact that we need SNAP. We need food assistance for children and women.
We need all of those programs.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I would not ignore those at all. I
believe we have made priorities of those in this budget. I look forward
to debating that tomorrow.
With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole), another one of my colleagues on the Budget Committee.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I have the privilege, as Mr. Woodall mentioned, of serving with him
on the Budget Committee and serving with him on the Rules Committee,
and being a fellow member of the Republican Study Committee with him.
And I want to thank him for all he's done, quite frankly, to fashion
both the Ryan budget and the RSC budget, and to bring us such an
excellent rule today.
Writing a budget in the end is always about making choices. And,
fortunately, this rule provides this House with multiple choices, a
variety of options, and a great deal of time for debate. We'll have an
opportunity to debate the budget offered by our friends in the
Congressional Black Caucus. We're going to have an opportunity to
debate the Progressive Caucus's budget, the Republican Study
Committee's budget, and what we think will be the Senate budget--or at
least as close to it as we can determine at this time. Obviously our
friends on the other side of the aisle will present their substitute
budget, and we'll have the underlying budget, the so-called Ryan
budget, the Republican budget. So I think those are a lot of choices
that this body will have to work through in the next couple of days.
I'm proud that this rule allows that degree of choice and facilitates
debate.
Personally, I support both the Republican Study Committee budget, and
should it fail to achieve majority, the underlying Ryan budget. Both of
them make tough choices. First and foremost to me, they both come into
balance. Now our Republican Study Committee budget, which my friend Mr.
Woodall had more to do with than any other Member in crafting, comes in
a little faster. I actually think that's a good thing. But the Ryan
budget also comes into balance within 10 years. That's important not
just for the sake of bookkeeping; it's important because
[[Page H1585]]
we all know that private sector growth depends on the confidence that
taxes aren't going to continually go up, and that the public sector
will remain in check.
I think by giving that kind of assurance, both of those budgets
facilitate what I know all of us want, and that's the creation of more
and better jobs for the American people. After all, if budgets that
never balanced and record deficits got job creation, we would be coming
off the four best years in modern American history because we've had
four $1 trillion deficits in a row, another that will ``only be'' $850
billion this year. That has yielded us less than 2 percent growth a
year. We all know if we took the number of Americans that have left the
workforce and recalculated our unemployment rate, it wouldn't be 7.8
percent; it would be about 10.5 percent.
So the path that my friends on the other side recommend doesn't work,
and the balance in both the RSC budget and the Ryan budget are a much
more promising course. And they achieve that balance while not raising
taxes. I think that's very important, too. We certainly aren't
undertaxed in this country. Now my friends on the other side clearly
believe that we are. They are going to offer multiple tax increases in
all their budgets. I like a budget that does not require tax increases.
Finally, both these budgets, the Republican Study Committee budget
and the Republican budget, come to grips with the reality that we have
to reform entitlements. Now we have our preferred way of doing that,
but there could be others. Unfortunately, our friends on the other side
are largely silent about that important choice.
As my friend, Mr. Woodall, mentioned in his remarks, the Ryan budget
in particular is hardly a radical budget. It's going to increase
spending every single year over a 10-year window by about 3.5 percent.
The main Democratic alternative is at about 5 percent. Can't we live at
3.5 percent and have a balanced budget in 10 years as opposed to going
to 5 with higher taxes and not balance the budget within that 10-year
window?
Again, I'm proud of my Democratic colleagues for joining in the
debate. I appreciate the fact that they're going to put multiple
budgets on the floor. I wish the President's budget was available. I'm
going to assume some day it will be. It should've been here months ago,
quite frankly. But sooner or later he will get it into debate.
In my view, all of the Democratic budgets are unacceptable for three
very simple reasons: each and every one of them calls for much bigger
government, much bigger than we've had historically, and all of them
call for higher taxes. And frankly, most of them never, ever, ever
balance at all--not in 10 years, not in 20, not in 30. So effectively,
our friends are offering more expensive government, bigger government,
and an eternal and ever-expanding debt. I don't think that's a choice
that the American people want to make.
I want to urge support of this generally excellent rule. It provides
every Member of this House an opportunity to participate in this
important debate. I want to urge passage of the Republican Study
Committee budget, and failing that, the underlying Ryan or Republican
budget.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a member of the Appropriations
Committee.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Ranking Member Slaughter for yielding me this
time and rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill
that essentially is the Ryan budget.
I want to say to the prior speaker that the way you balance budgets
is to put people back to work. This budget, the Ryan budget, will
actually cause 750,000 more people to be added to the ranks of the
unemployed. When you have 12 million people in our country who've been
out of work for a long time or they can't find a decent-paying job, you
can't balance budgets with that level of unemployment. This is an anti-
growth budget.
I want to focus my remarks, however, mainly on senior citizens and
the impact of this budget on seniors. The Ryan budget turns a very cold
heart to America's senior citizens. It ends the Medicare guarantee. It
throws nearly 50 million Americans receiving earned health care
benefits through Medicare to the cruel marketplace and rising health
care prices. And it takes away the 10-year guarantee of Medicare's
solvency that we passed in the Affordable Care Act. Forty-one million
Americans over the age of 65 will be affected, as will 9 million
disabled Americans receiving Social Security benefits. That's evidence
of a cold heart.
Now the poorest citizens in America are senior women over the age of
80 years. Over half of Medicare's beneficiaries earn annual incomes of
less than $23,000. The Republican Ryan budget doesn't even see them.
The Ryan budget hurts the poorest seniors by putting senior farmer's
market nutrition coupons, for example, on the chopping block. To
qualify for $50 to buy fresh fruits and vegetables, a senior has to
earn less than $15,000 a year. Now, under that budget, 863,000 more
seniors will be cut off of a fragile lifeline of coupons for better
nutrition. Fifty dollars.
The Ryan budget already cut a million meals for fragile seniors
across this country. Now, the Ryan budget piles more harm on them.
Meanwhile, Wall Street titans, who took our Nation to the brink, have
earned record bonuses, millions and millions and millions of dollars.
So it's $50 for seniors, or multibillions for those who have so much
already. That's not even on the scale of justice.
The Ryan budget will cause more illness among our seniors. Seniors
will be forced to pay thousands of dollars for medicines they can't
afford. It will eliminate free preventive screenings for seniors for
cancer and diabetes. So America will yield more illness. The Ryan
budget will eliminate free annual checkups for seniors who can't afford
to pay for a checkup, and it'll stop free mammograms and prostate
screenings for them. It's a cold-hearted budget for seniors.
{time} 1320
The Ryan budget will hurt them. It is bad for Medicare. It is bad for
seniors. It's bad for our country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman another minute.
Ms. KAPTUR. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this
rule and the underlying budget. Stand up for America's seniors. You
know, if you go to any food bank in this country, senior citizens are
coming in at an increasing rate of 37 percent. Just look at the lines.
I ask every one of my Republican colleagues this weekend, when you go
home, go to your food banks. Look who's in line. Ask yourself what
you're going to do to fix the budget for our senior citizens across
this country.
Stand up against the coldhearted Republican budget. It's really the
forces of darkness at work in here. Open your eyes to what is happening
across this country. Vote against this rule and vote against the
underlying budget.
Stand up for the seniors of America. In every family in this country,
they've earned the right to have a worry-free existence. This budget
hurts them.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Ryan budget and vote against
this rule.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to speak to
accusations of forces of darkness. I've found in my time that light is
one of those great illuminators. How convenient in that route.
And I would just refer folks to the budget that's posted online. It's
budget.house.gov.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the budget report is there that goes
through line item by line item by line item and increases spending, not
by the 5 percent that current law would do it, that current law that is
sending our children and our grandchildren to bankruptcy, but increases
spending by 3.5 percent instead. And within that, the gentlelady from
Ohio, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely right. We've got to make priority
choices about where it is we want our dollars to go.
But I would say to the gentlelady--and I know her heart is pure as
she talks about the investment and where she wants to make it in this
country--tell me what it is that you and I are willing to pay for
today, and let's make that investment.
[[Page H1586]]
You know, I think about Hurricane Sandy, for example, all those
families in need that we wanted to help; and, you know, we didn't raise
a single penny here to do it. We asked our children and our
grandchildren to pay for every nickel.
I don't need encouragement to visit those food banks. I've been there
already, and I know exactly what the gentlelady's talking about.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman be kind enough to yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. KAPTUR. Well, then you've seen them in the line. You've seen the
senior women in the line in all these food banks, a third of an
increase, sir.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, indeed I have. I've seen our
neighbors there filling those needs as well.
Again, it is so frustrating to me, Mr. Speaker, in this body, we do
not argue about who are the poorest and the neediest among us. We know
with certainty who those folks are. What we argue about is whether it's
your and my obligation to feed and clothe those folks, or whether we
should pass that obligation along to our children and our
grandchildren.
And I say, Mr. Speaker, it is immoral. It is immoral for us to ask
our children and our grandchildren to pay bills for charity that you
and I are not willing to do ourselves today.
I'm so pleased that this rule has made every idea available on the
floor of the House for a vote today, but we must choose to do it
ourselves. The time for passing the bill to our children and
grandchildren is long gone.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'm pleased to yield another minute to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
I would say to the gentleman, what you said was very, very important,
because we do have choices in a budget. And you know, sir, at the food
banks around this country, there isn't enough food being provided.
They're absolutely at the edge. There isn't enough to go around. That's
where the Government of the United States has to come in.
We can't ask our seniors to have any less meals. We can't ask our
seniors to take any other nutrition cuts. There simply isn't any slack
there.
Now, maybe you live in a community that's more affluent, I'm not
sure. I represent three of the lowest income communities, urban areas
in this country, and I see what's happening there. And you know, if you
look at the amount of subsidy going out to the producers in our
country, we could nick that just a little bit, and we could find the
funds to help our seniors.
I would invite you to Ohio. I would invite you to see a State that
still has 7 percent unemployment and what happens at these food banks.
It's vitally important that we not cut help for senior citizens. There
isn't any loving child or grandchild in this country that wants to hurt
their grandmother or their mother or father.
I think that your budget is misguided, and I would commend the
gentleman, please look at those lines. Restore the funds I'm asking
for. And I invite you to Ohio.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds just to say to
the gentlelady, my sister and brother-in-law and two beautiful nieces
live in Athens, Ohio, one of the poorest regions in southern Ohio. I
know exactly what the gentlelady is saying.
We do have to make these choices, and I commend our friends in the
Congressional Black Caucus budget and the Progressive budget for laying
out their guidelines for raising taxes by $4 and $6 trillion,
respectively, to try to pay for some of those priorities; but even in
those budgets, they still never balance.
I'm saying that you and I today, from the great wealth that is in
this country today, have a chance to either pay for things that we
think are important or borrow money from our children and our
grandchildren to pay for things that we think are important. You and I
are closer to death than we are to birth. These bills are going to be
paid by our children and our grandchildren. And today, for example, the
President's budget, we've never seen a budget that projected paying
back even a penny over the next 75-year window.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
I would welcome the opportunity to work closer across the aisle than
we are here today to address those needs that we all agree on. I would
say to the gentlelady, our disagreement is not on whether or not those
needs exist; it's whether or not you and I are obligated, morally,
spiritually, as a function of our community, to serve those needs or
whether we can pass that bill on to others.
I know the gentlelady has a strong passion for doing that. I hope she
would join with me so that we can do it together, not ask someone else
to do it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman kindly yield just for a couple of
seconds here----
Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. KAPTUR.--Just to say that the first obligation is to feed the
hungry, feed the hungry. And I don't think the gentleman would want to
have on his conscience any harm to the senior citizens of this country,
so I'd ask you to rereview your budget and fix it.
Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank both of my colleagues. I thank the
gentlelady and the manager of this rule.
I vigorously rise to oppose this rule, the underlying bill, the
Republican proposal for a budget. And I really do speak from the heart,
because when you go home, it is often the best time of the service to
your Nation because you get to see hardworking Americans, no matter
what region you live in. And so I'm very proud to associate myself and
support the Van Hollen Democratic budget substitute, the Congressional
Black Caucus, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
The singular theme that rides through all of these budgets, which is
the very question that is raised, whether or not it's a teenager coming
out looking for a summer job; whether or not it's a college student
with their bright, new diploma holding it up, looking for America's
great opportunity; or whether it's someone who has worked for a period
of time, well-qualified, but just can't find the job to get back into
the market. I know there are those who are listening, my colleagues,
who have constituents like that. Every single budget, including the Van
Hollen budget, the Democratic budget, helps to create jobs, gets rid of
the sequester and, in actuality, brings back the 775,000 or 750,000
jobs lost by the Ryan budget, plus more.
The Congressional Black Caucus focuses on maintenance for public
transit and highway and airports, creating jobs. The Congressional
Progressive Caucus focuses on making work pay and emergency
unemployment compensation.
But here's the story that I think is under the underlying Ryan
budget--good friend of ours, of course, we work together--and the
underlying premise.
I am tired of raising up the generational fight. Just because the
Greatest Generation fought in World War II, are we to say to our
children and grandchildren, ``You know what, we don't want to burden
you when the military calls you, when your Nation needs you; we don't
want to burden you''?
{time} 1330
There's no way to protect what our grandchildren and children will
have with this budget, other than the fact that the Democratic budget
invests in people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. When you have a preschool program, when you have
programs that transition women out of their homes after raising their
children and into jobs, when you have a program that allows young
people with a college degree to get a job, when you have programs that
invest in infrastructure and build highways and bridges that America is
begging for--like the Hoover Dam--that our grandchildren and children
will receive in
[[Page H1587]]
America, that we invested in, they'll receive a gift. And they'll be
able to work with their hands and their minds, and they will have the
ability to pay down any debts and they'll close any deficit. And
they'll be grateful to do it, because America will be the greatest
Nation that it can.
Don't constantly pound us with our grandchildren and our children.
Right now, today, America can afford to pay for what we are doing in
the Van Hollen Democratic budget because we are creating jobs, we're
building infrastructure, we're making America greater--the very America
that people around the world admire.
So I want to vote for a growth budget. I want to vote for one that
reduces unemployment under 5 percent. I want to vote for one that lifts
America so that our children and grandchildren will have the benefit of
all that we've done for them, and they'll have the benefit of paying
for what America promises.
Vote for America's promise. Vote against the Ryan budget.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my great pleasure to
yield 5 minutes to a new member of the Rules Committee, but a senior
member and leader of this House, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and certainly thank
him for leading this rule on the floor this afternoon.
This is an important vote we're going to have today. The rule that
will bring various budgets to the floor is a very fair product. As the
gentleman knows, as we sat through the hours of debate in the Rules
Committee last night, this is not just the product of the Budget
Committee that is coming to the floor. It's not just Chairman Ryan's
budget that is coming to the floor. But these are budgets that have
been proposed by a number of different groups within the Congress--the
Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Democratic
substitute, the Senate budget is going to be offered as a substitute,
where people can vote, and the Republican Study Committee. At the end
of all that time, if none of the budgets receive the majority vote in
the House of Representatives, then and only then will the product of
the Budget Committee be voted on by the entire House. My expectation is
that that is the budget that will pass.
But our argument here today is not over what is contained within the
Budget Committee's product anymore than it is what's contained with the
Progressive's budget product. After all, what we're voting on today is
the rule that will allow us the ability to debate these differences in
philosophy on the floor of this House tomorrow, on C-SPAN, transparent
for all the country to see; and they'll able to see the big
philosophical differences that exist.
We heard in the Rules Committee last night that it's unfair to bring
the Senate budget to the floor of the House for a vote because the
Senate budget has not been voted on on the floor of the Senate and that
obstructionist Republicans in the Senate will keep the Senate from
voting; but, actually, that's not true. The Senate, under its own
rules, can bring the budget to the floor of the Senate and pass it with
a simple majority. That's a 50-plus-1 majority. There's not enough
Republicans in the Senate to block that or any other budget.
So the discussion that it's unfair to bring the Senate budget to the
floor of the House to vote on before the Senate has a chance to vote,
the Senate could have voted on their budget at any time. The Senate
could have voted last year for a budget. The Senate could have voted
the year before for a budget. They chose not to because they did not
want to put it out for the American people to see what their core
philosophical belief is, which is that you have to raise taxes by a
trillion dollars on the American people in order to pass a budget.
We hear it time and time again that the greatest antipoverty program
in this country is a job. The growth that is provided for in the budget
that will be debated upon--and I hope pass tomorrow--we can't discount
the importance of that growth.
I just came from a hearing in the Energy Subcommittee of Energy and
Commerce. We were fortunate to hear from one of the members of the
Railroad Commission in Texas. The Railroad Commission doesn't have
anything to do with trains anymore. It has all to do with energy. And
Commissioner Smitherman from Texas was at the committee hearing, and I
asked him a question. I said, In the Ryan budget that we will hear
about tomorrow, there is an estimate of $11 billion over the next 10
years that will be paid to the Federal Government because of
development of oil and natural gas on Federal lands. I said, I'm from
Texas. That number seems a little bit light to me. I would expect the
amount of revenue produced on Federal lands from oil and gas
production, assuming we don't legislate it out of existence through the
Environmental Protection Agency. And he said, In Texas, the 2-year
budget figure for oil and gas severance taxes is $7 billion.
Well, that would be a significantly greater amount than the $11
billion estimated in the Ryan budget. I asked Mr. Ryan about this last
night at the Rules Committee. This is the amount that is allowed under
Congressional Budget Office expectations. But, honestly, if we free up
the energy that we have available within our own shores, within our own
borders, that is a jobs program that would go a long way towards
producing that unemployment rate of 5 percent that the gentlelady from
Texas just referenced.
I know this because in the district that I represent in north Texas,
gas production from a geologic formation known as the Barnett shale has
yielded significant economic benefits and significant employment as a
result. In fact, when the Nation entered into a recession in December
of 2007, constituents in my district basically read about it in the
newspapers because it wasn't until 12, 13, or 14 months later when the
price of natural gas came down so low that we actually felt the
recession in Texas.
So let's utilize that energy that's at our disposal. Life without
energy is cold, brutal, and short. We have the ability to produce
energy on our own shores. One of the things where I think we can look
to the Ryan budget for leadership is allowing that energy to be
produced on Federal lands.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May
I inquire from my colleague if he has further requests.
Mr. WOODALL. I will say to the gentlelady I do not have further
requests for time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. In closing, Mr. Speaker, my Democrat colleagues and I
have spoken at length today about the dangerous shortcomings of the
budget proposal of Mr. Ryan. Fortunately, Representative Chris Van
Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, has an alternative
proposal that significantly reduces the Nation's deficit while creating
jobs and protecting programs like Medicaid and Medicare. And unlike the
majority's proposal, Mr. Van Hollen's budget repeals the sequester,
which is estimated to cost the Nation 750,000 jobs this year.
Mr. Van Hollen has repeatedly tried to avert the sequester. He has
come to the Rules Committee numerous times with proposals to replace
the sequester with responsible budget cuts and has been repeatedly
denied the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the House floor.
By voting for Mr. Van Hollen's budget, every Member of this Chamber
can vote to do away with the sequester. On behalf of the thousands of
Americans who are facing pay cuts, furloughs, and job losses, I urge my
colleagues to repeal the sequester today and vote to balance the budget
in a responsible way.
Mr. Speaker, while the majority would like you to believe that a
looming debt crisis is imminent, it is simply not true. Even this last
weekend, both Speaker Boehner and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan
said on television there is no immediate budget crisis facing our
Nation. Please think of that, my colleagues, as you vote.
In acknowledging this reality, it is important to realize that it is
possible to make investments in our economy today, create jobs, repeal
the sequester, and still reduce our deficit in a responsible and
balanced way.
In closing, I urge my colleagues not to be scared by the rhetoric
that sometimes we hear. Instead, I urge my colleagues to support one of
the multiple
[[Page H1588]]
budget proposals that reduce our deficit responsibly while creating
jobs today and protecting the important programs like Medicaid and
Medicare for generations to come.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1340
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the gentlelady for being with me on the floor today.
I'll say that we sometimes have some controversy in the Rules
Committee, Mr. Speaker. There's a lot of responsibility that lies in
the Rules Committee. With 435 folks here in this Chamber, and we all
would like to have our say--and we'd all like to have our say probably
more than once--the Rules Committee is tasked with managing that
debate.
I'll tell you, I think the rule we passed last night is the best rule
we've done all year along. Now, my colleague from New York may think
I'm damming it with faint praise. But I would say that having this open
debate that we will have tomorrow on budgets is about the best we can
do in this institution, Mr. Speaker. To allow every single idea, every
single individual from the most junior Member who was just elected 2
months ago to the most senior Member who has been here 40 years, if you
have a budget idea, you get to have it heard on the floor of the House.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, that's going to be six budgets we're going
to look at tomorrow.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe having an open process is important. We
made in order the Progressive Caucus budget. That Progressive Caucus
budget raises taxes by $5.7 trillion--unashamed, unabashed. Tough
economy; let's raise taxes by $5.7 trillion, and let's increase
spending even more than we are today. I'm glad that that budget is
going to be here on the floor.
The Congressional Black Caucus raises taxes $4.2 trillion. Mr. Van
Hollen's substitute raises taxes $1.2 trillion.
As you saw from the chart that the chairman of the Rules Committee
had on the floor of the House earlier, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a tax
problem in this country, we have a spending problem in this country. If
we took everything from everybody, we still wouldn't have enough money
to pay for all of the promises that previous Congresses and previous
Presidents have made. What that translates into is fear.
We can do better for the American people than election after election
to scare them with the looming bankruptcy of programs that they depend
on. Yet we know the Social Security Disability Insurance program--
already out of money, Mr. Speaker. The Medicare program--which my mom
and dad depend on--going out of business in 2023. The Social Security
retirement program, Mr. Speaker, not enough money to fund future
promises. We have a chance to either ignore those promises or embrace
those challenges.
I will tell you we do not have a crisis in this country; we have an
opportunity in this country to do the things that we have long known we
needed to do.
In 1983, Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats came together,
extended the life of the Social Security program and provided certainty
and security to another generation of America's seniors. We have an
opportunity tomorrow to do the same thing for the Medicare program, or
to kick the can down the road and ensure uncertainty, crisis, and fear
in yet another generation of Americans who depend upon these programs.
I urge all my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support this rule that will
allow every single idea to be considered tomorrow. And when you come to
the floor tomorrow, choose that budget that makes the tough decisions.
It takes no courage at all to let someone else pay the bills, Mr.
Speaker. It takes no courage at all to let the next generation sort out
the problems. The courage is coming together today to say, even though
the weight is going to fall on our shoulders to solve the problem, we
owe it to the next generation. We owe them nothing less.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
rule. I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________