[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6047-6058]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 34, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 223 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 223

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 34) establishing the 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 
     and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2021. The first reading of the concurrent 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the concurrent resolution are 
     waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with 
     three hours confined to the congressional budget equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget and one hour on the 
     subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and 
     controlled by Representative Brady of Texas and 
     Representative Hinchey of New York or their respective 
     designees. After general debate the concurrent resolution 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original concurrent 
     resolution for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute

[[Page 6048]]

     rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All 
     points of order against the amendments printed in part B of 
     the report are waived except that the adoption of an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the 
     conclusion of consideration of amendments to the amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for amendment and a final period of general 
     debate, which shall not exceed 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise and report 
     the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the concurrent resolution or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final 
     adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to 
     section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     of its adoption.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 223 provides for a 
structured rule for consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 34. 
This rule makes in order every complete substitute submitted to the 
Rules Committee. Continuing a bipartisan tradition, we are making in 
order four Democratic substitutes and one Republican substitute, 
providing 4 hours of general debate, with ample debate on each 
substitute. This will allow the House to work its will and adopt a 
budget blueprint for fiscal year 2012.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
bill. The underlying legislation is our budget for 2012. Our 2012 
budget is our blueprint for a strong and secure future for the next 
generation.
  Each of us is here today because those who came before us made 
amazing sacrifices for the next generation--us--keeping alive the 
American Dream. In the last century alone, our parents and grandparents 
have won two world wars, overcome the Great Depression, defeated 
communism, and created the most prosperous and vibrant society in the 
history of mankind.
  Today it is our turn. It is our turn to take a bold and necessary 
step to ensure that we pass on to our children this great blessing 
called America, and even a stronger America than the one we received 
from our parents.
  Paul Ryan calls his plan The Path to Prosperity. I call it 
leadership. It is what our country has been thirsting for. It confronts 
our problems head on, and it proposes reasonable and responsible 
solutions to get us back on track.
  Our plan creates jobs, real jobs, 1 million new jobs in America in 
the first year alone. It stimulates our economy, increasing our GDP by 
$1.5 trillion in the next 10 years. It protects and strengthens Social 
Security and Medicare. Let me say that one more time because so many 
people are trying to demagogue the issue: Our plan strengthens and 
protects Social Security and Medicare for the next generation of 
Americans. And it also reduces job-killing government spending by $6.2 
trillion in the next 10 years.
  Yesterday, our President, he got on board. Two months ago, he gave us 
his 2012 budget, and now we have 2012 2.0, the second time around. But 
the plan hasn't changed much, sir. The plan is basically the same. So 
let's compare our plan in the next 10 years to President Obama's plan 
over the next 12 years.
  President Obama would add $4 trillion to our debt, leaving us at the 
end of the next decade with $26 trillion of debt, according to the CBO. 
Even our Democratic colleagues in the House agree, and they have 
presented a plan that breaks from their own President, cutting an 
additional $1.2 trillion off the deficit. The Republican budget cuts 
$6.2 trillion, bringing spending to under 20 percent of our economy.
  The Republican plan proposes specific and responsible solutions to 
strengthen Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. The President talks 
very vaguely about a plan to cut waste and streamline Medicare and 
Medicaid, proposing to create yet another unelected commission to solve 
all of our problems. We don't need more unelected bureaucrats in 
Washington, sir, enlarging the scope of government. That's not real 
leadership.
  The President tries to tax our way out of debt, placing the burden on 
those earning more than $100,000. But the problem, sir, is a simple 
one. If we were to tax these individuals 100 percent of their income, 
we still cannot cover our deficits this year alone. As a matter of 
fact, to tax our way out of debt, we would need to increase taxes 
across the board on every man, on every woman, and on every business by 
60 percent. You simply cannot tax your way out of this debt. Imagine 
the effects this would have on our economy.

                              {time}  1130

  The President's budget cuts $400 billion out of our military. In the 
time that he has led us into Libya, in the time that we have two 
conflicts going on, it cuts $400 billion away from the men and women 
who are fighting for freedom, dying for liberty.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the underlying resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina 
(Mr. Scott) for yielding me the 30 minutes, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the urgent need to cut the Nation's 
deficit. We need to have serious discussions and make tough decisions 
about how we prevent a fiscal crisis in our country, and certainly we 
are beginning those discussions.
  But, sadly, today--and I must emphasize this--sadly, today this bill 
will end Medicare and cost shift to seniors $6,000 more a year. And why 
are they doing that? They get to pay for more tax breaks for Big Oil 
and millionaires, who are untouched in this country. That really is 
strange deficit reduction to me.
  Frankly, if I had my druthers, I would start by ending the war in 
Afghanistan. That war is costing us $8 billion a month, and we're 
paying to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan while our own infrastructure 
crumbles and while we feel we cannot afford to spend any of our money 
on those of us who live here and pay the costs.
  Just yesterday, the President presented another way to solve our 
fiscal crisis, as he laid out a budget that will responsibly reduce the 
spending and that simplifies the Tax Code, which is so important, so 
that, as the President said, and this is critical to understand, the 
taxes you pay are not going to be determined by the accountant you can 
afford. This is good news for all Americans.
  The President's budget puts us on the right track to ending the 
deficit crisis

[[Page 6049]]

while investing in the long-term success of our economy and our 
country. Unfortunately, the thought is far too prevalent in this House 
that we need not invest in ourselves, that we can just shut down 
programs and everybody will be happy and singing in the streets. Not 
likely.
  But despite the responsible vision the President presented yesterday, 
we stand here today debating a reckless Republican budget that will 
destroy programs like Medicare while extending the tax cuts to 
corporations and America's rich.
  The budget starts with Medicare, eliminating the program that 
provides secure and affordable health care in old age. And it is 
eliminated. People who are on Medicare now will be grandfathered in. In 
the future what they will get will be a voucher with a certain amount 
of Federal money that goes with it. They are then required to go do the 
best they can in the private market to meet their health care needs.
  As we watch the cost in the private market climb, we would have to 
ask ourselves, Would this government help out, as Medicare would, by 
raising the money that the government puts in to replace it? No, it 
wouldn't. So under this plan a senior in the year 2021, and I hope 
there are a lot of them in this House who will follow me on this, will 
pay $6,000 more for the private insurance than they would have under 
Medicare. Now, if your insurance costs more than that, you had better 
find a way to pay your creditors because you're going to be on your 
own.
  Today's budget bill also threatens the future of Social Security. It 
includes a trigger mechanism that would allow Social Security cuts to 
be rushed through the Congress at a future date. This trigger is an 
abuse of the legislative process and puts Social Security on the 
chopping block for future cuts.
  Furthermore, in an act that defies all logic, this bill cripples the 
watch dogs that we created just last year to police the big banks who 
created the financial crisis. Why in the world would we want to do 
that?
  In addition to Medicare and Social Security, it cuts 70 percent of 
our investments in clean energy. It cuts 25 percent of our education 
funding. It cuts out 30 percent of our transportation funding, 
including significantly less money for a high-speed rail network 
designed to free us from foreign oil.
  By stopping investments in key competitive areas, our Nation is 
abandoning jobs and future economic opportunities that come with clean 
energy, with a new transportation network, and the invaluable work of 
educating our children. This is the burden 90 percent of Americans are 
asked to share.
  Meanwhile, the Republican budget would make permanent the Bush-era 
tax cuts that further cut taxes for corporations and America's richest 
individuals, including the oil companies. Do they need a Federal 
subsidy? I think not. Had the Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire in 
December, we would almost be able to cut our deficit in half within a 
few months from now.
  The Republican majority apparently believes that the ones who have 
the most should sacrifice the least. Some have claimed tax cuts create 
jobs. We hear that a lot around here. But analysis by respected 
experts, such as Pulitzer Prize winner and former New York Times tax 
expert David Clay Johnston, have shown that tax cuts do nothing to spur 
the economy and create jobs; they simply pad the wallets of the 
wealthiest among us in times of a national need.
  As we shape a budget for 2012, we must craft legislation that truly 
shares the entire Nation's sacrifice, not a budget that ends Medicare 
while handing more tax giveaways to those who need it the least and in 
many cases are asking not to be given it.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the 
underlying resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to address a few points that 
Congresswoman Slaughter brought up.
  I have scoured the budget looking for this notion of a voucher system 
for Medicare. I've scoured the budget and simply cannot find anything 
that is, in fact, a voucher system. I have seen things about premium 
support.
  But let's just talk about Medicare for a quick second. $800 billion 
the President has suggested must come out of Medicare in order to pay 
for national health care. So we are going to take benefits from our 
senior citizens in an attempt to provide health care benefits for 19- 
and 20-year-olds. In fact, that $800 billion is one way to actually 
increase the cost to every senior citizen in our country. Increasing 
taxes by $2 trillion in the next 12 months is a wonderful way to make 
our economy stumble, and that's what the President has suggested.
  Finally, you cannot increase taxes on the very job creators 
themselves and then ask them to continue to create jobs.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are facing a crisis in the country today. Imagine 
back home in your family budget if for every dollar you spent, 40 cents 
was borrowed. Surely you would bring your entire family to the kitchen 
table and say, okay, what can we cut out? We cannot continue to borrow 
40 cents for every dollar we spend. You would make changes in your 
household budget. But for some reason, many in Washington, D.C. want to 
stick their head in the sand and say, no, we really don't have to do 
this. And yet right now the national debt is 90 percent of the GDP.
  We borrow billions of dollars a year from China, which is not exactly 
a great idea in terms of national security. I sit on the Defense 
Subcommittee of Appropriations. We watch China year in, year out 
building up their army, and yet we go to them over and over again for 
more money. And yet, while we do that, those in Washington, D.C., don't 
want to do anything.
  We heard yesterday the President's mulligan budget. As you know, Mr. 
Speaker, the President of the United States is responsible to submit 
his budget to Congress each year, which the President did in February, 
totally ignoring his own deficit commission's recommendations. The 
Simpson-Bowles language was not in there. And yet, yesterday, the 
President decided, oh, well, give me one more chance, I'm going to 
introduce another budget, which has a lot of phony numbers in there and 
a lot of false promises and calls for more studies and commissions. I 
ask my Democrat friends, is that budget going to be on the floor today? 
Are we going to be able to offer it?
  I yield to my friend from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If the Speaker would allow, we are going to be 
offering a Democratic alternative today, and everyone will have a 
chance to see the alternative.
  Mr. KINGSTON. You will be offering the budget the President talked 
about yesterday? I'm going to yield back to my friend from Maryland, 
but I want to say this: Unlike when you guys were in charge, we are 
offering the Democrats opportunities to offer budgets. We think it's 
very important, because we want the best of your ideas, and we think 
the best of our ideas can be combined together for the best of America.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield for 5 seconds? Because you 
will have that opportunity to vote on a Democratic alternative.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I am going to yield to my friend, but here's what I 
want to say, that we keep hearing over and over again in the last 24 
hours about the President's wonderful mulligan budget that he offered 
yesterday, but I don't believe it's going to be offered on the floor of 
the House.
  Now let me yield to my friend.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. As I indicated, you will have a Democratic 
alternative budget that we're going to put forward, and it will present 
a very clear choice for the Members. We will present a budget that 
achieves steady, predictable deficit reduction. Again, we make

[[Page 6050]]

different choices in how we do it, and that is the center of the 
debate. So everyone will have an opportunity to vote on an alternative 
budget.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask specifically, the mulligan budget that the 
President offered yesterday, will it be on the floor of the House 
today?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The President did not offer what we call a budget. He 
offered what was an outline, an approach, that he wants people to look 
at on a bipartisan basis. That's what the President proposed yesterday.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me thank my friend from Maryland for answering 
this, because I do think it's important for the Democrats to be given 
an opportunity to offer an alternative budget, and I'm glad that you 
will be, and there will be five such budgets. And I'm hoping even if 
your budgets don't pass, that we can still pick and choose some parts 
of those, and there will be some parts of our budget that you like and 
want to support as well.
  But I want to emphasize over and over again that the President, who 
yesterday tried to reclaim some territory because he did not take on 
the recommendations of his own deficit reduction commission, he was not 
offering a budget yesterday. What he did was give a speech. Now, the 
President is kind of becoming the Spectator in Chief or the Speaker in 
Chief. He's the guy who offers a budget, and then yesterday decides to 
give a speech. Well, the time has come and gone for speeches.
  What our budget does is take on some serious changes in our spending 
habit. It does tackle the difficult choices that we have on Medicaid 
and Medicare. It does not create a voucher system; it is a supplemental 
system which will give seniors more choices. And it doesn't affect 
anybody 55 years or older, which is very important.
  But we will hear from the liberals in this community the cage 
rattling of senior citizens over and over again, and that's why we 
can't make progress in this town, because we always reduce policy to 
politics.
  The time to put policy first is now. We've got to tone down our 
rhetoric and say, you know what, here is a plan to save and protect and 
preserve Medicaid and Medicare, not for the next election, not for 
politicians, but for America's future seniors. The baby boomers who are 
under 55 years old will have a Medicare/Medicaid plan that they can 
count on because it will be there. If we don't change, it will not be 
there for them.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, later in this debate, if we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in 
order Mr. Tonko's amendment to protect Medicare, TRICARE, and veterans' 
health care from privatization or arbitrary spending caps.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the ranking member.
  I'm glad my colleague raised the issue of the bipartisan fiscal 
commission, because the fiscal commission took a look at the Republican 
budget plan and said it was not balanced and not comprehensive and not 
a way to achieve deficit reduction in a responsible way. That was the 
verdict of the bipartisan commission.
  Why did they say it was unbalanced? Because the Republican budget 
provides big tax breaks for special interests. You don't get rid of the 
subsidies to the big oil companies. You want to give additional tax 
breaks to the very wealthy, including millionaires. And what do you do 
for the tradeoff? You cut funding for education for kids and you do end 
the Medicare guarantee. We're going to have time to talk about other 
parts of the bill later on, but I want to talk about that now because 
it's going to be the subject of the previous question.
  What this budget does is say to seniors, you no longer may stay in 
the Medicare program today; you have to go into the private insurance 
market. And the way it saves money is it says, as those costs in the 
private insurance market continue to go up, you are not going to get 
premium support that will keep up with it. You're going to get 
something that's a relatively fixed value compared to the rapidly 
rising health care costs, which is why, as the President said 
yesterday, in the year 2022 seniors would pay more under the Republican 
budget plan by over $6,300 than they do under current Medicare. And 
that continues to rise and rise and rise.
  I want to put an end today to this other talking point we keep 
hearing, that somehow they're offering seniors what Members of Congress 
have. It's not true. What Members of Congress have is something called 
a fair share formula under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. 
So as premiums go up, the risk to Members of Congress and other Federal 
employees is fixed at a certain percentage. Not true under the 
Republican Medicare plan. The way it saves money in the out years is in 
fact to make sure that share between Medicare and the senior is not 
fixed, that the senior has to pick up more of the cost. That is a fact. 
And that is how they make money in the out years, by putting it on the 
backs of seniors, even while they say they're going to bring down the 
top tax rate by 30 percent for the wealthiest people in this country. 
That's the kind of choices we're facing here.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) had an amendment before the 
Rules Committee on exactly this issue of ending Medicare and the 
guarantee that it provides in saying you've got to go into the private 
system.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. His amendment makes the point that if you think this 
is a good idea, if the Republicans think this is such a good idea, why 
don't you apply it to veterans? Why don't you apply it to active 
service personnel? If it is such a great thing, why don't you turn them 
into voucher premium support--whatever you want--a kind of plan where 
they have to eat the rising cost of health care?
  Members are going to have an opportunity. If you vote ``no'' on the 
previous question, you will be able to vote to say, let's not turn 
Medicare into a voucher premium support, let's not end the guarantee, 
and let's not do that for our military personnel or our veterans 
either.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let's just clear up a simple point here. The only 
specified savings in this budget are from raising taxes and cutting the 
military. If we really wanted to have an opportunity to make Medicare 
last longer, we could simply repeal ObamaCare, repeal national health 
care, and put the $800 billion back into Medicare.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The Democratic alternative says, yes, we should ask 
the highest income earners, the folks at the top 2 percent, to simply 
pay the same rate that they paid during the Clinton administration when 
the economy was roaring and we created 20 million jobs.

                              {time}  1150

  That's what the choices are before us, and that's exactly the point 
you're making. You want to end the Medicare guarantee for seniors at 
the same time you want to give tax breaks to folks at the very top. 
That's your choice. You can make it, but we don't think that's the 
choice the American people want to make.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Congressman, the fact is simple. We 
could tax those over $100,000 a year 100 percent and we still simply 
could not close the deficit for this year.
  The fact of the matter is people talk about this government getting 
smaller, and the President's original budget spent $47 trillion in the 
next 10 years--an $8.7 trillion increase in spending. We're talking 
about a $2 trillion increase in spending in the next 12 months in 
taxes. We're not talking about reducing the size and scope of this 
government.
  We must get ourselves on a completely different trajectory. We must 
bend the trajectory back towards the

[[Page 6051]]

American people, back towards the private sector, and eliminate the 
disincentive for growth in our economy called taxation.
  So to the extent that we can flatten the tax, spread the risk, we 
find ourselves in a more prosperous society with a stronger economy led 
by those folks in the private sector. Entrepreneurs have an opportunity 
to take those dollars and reinvest them in such a way to create more 
jobs. It is a simple formula.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Mulvaney).
  Mr. MULVANEY. I thank my colleague for the opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, it's been roughly a hundred days since I've been here. 
I'm one of the new folks in Congress. I began with my very first 
presentation several months ago congratulating my opponents across the 
aisle for saying all of the right things about where we're going to go 
this year, about how concerned they were about cutting spending, how 
concerned they were about balancing the budget. And I was actually 
excited at that time to hear folks across the aisle using a lot of the 
same language that we were using. Apparently, by now, I guess I have to 
expose myself for being somewhat naive.
  Here we are again today hearing the exact same language, that the 
other side is deathly serious about cutting spending, the other side is 
deathly serious about balancing the budget, and I've come to realize, 
as I think most of America has, that the words simply don't match up to 
the language.
  I guess, to a certain extent, I should be happy that we are here at 
least having this debate. We are here today discussing the 2012 budget 
for the first time. This will be the first time in 2 years this debate 
has taken place on this floor since there was no budget last year 
offered by my colleagues across the way.
  I can simply ask them: If you are indeed serious today about 
balancing the budget, serious today about getting spending under 
control, where have you been for the last 4 years? Where were you last 
year when this debate was not even allowed to take place on the floor 
of the House of Representatives?
  But let's put that behind us now. Let's move on to the 2012 budget. 
What are we seeing? We're seeing some wonderful language out of our 
colleagues on the other side. We saw the President in his State of the 
Union say a lot of the things that folks like me wanted to hear. And 
then we saw a budget that did absolutely nothing out of the White 
House--nothing. A budget that was decried by The Washington Post as 
actually being void of ideas and failing to lead.
  So what did our side do? We led. And in our budget, we actually 
introduced specific proposals on how to solve the problem. Did you like 
them? No. Did I like all of them? No. Are we all going to like all of 
the proposals? No chance. But at least we offered ideas, specific 
ideas.
  Then yesterday we heard the President was going to do the same thing, 
that he was going to meet us, that he wasn't going to attack us. He was 
actually going to put specific ideas on the table and invited my 
colleagues to sit in the front row while he called them un-American and 
again refused to give any specifics.
  Mr. Speaker, you will not see the President's budget offered today or 
tomorrow as an amendment. You will not see the budget that the 
President discussed yesterday offered as an amendment because it simply 
does not meet the specific requirements of being a budget amendment. It 
doesn't even come close.
  What the President talked about last night was more empty ideas and 
political rhetoric. The speech was introduced by his campaign manager, 
not by his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, not by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. It was a political speech. I'm 
extraordinarily frustrated with that.
  I have an economics background. I'd love to sit and talk about the 
economic realities that face our Nation. It is so difficult to do when 
the other side, led by the President, simply wants to engage in 
politics.
  Here again today we've seen it. We've seen talking points that 
somehow our proposal is going to require seniors to pay $6,000 out of 
pocket. We've looked for the last 12 hours to try and find that, Mr. 
Speaker, and we can't find it. What we did find, however, was the CBO 
report that says that the payment under our proposed system for 65-
year-olds in 2020, 10 years on, would be the exact same as it would be 
under Medicare, that the spending per capita on seniors under our 
proposal 10 years on would be the same as it is under the current law.
  I'm not sure where the $6,300 is coming from. My guess is it's coming 
from somebody's political office and not from some economic think tank.
  You heard my esteemed colleague from Maryland, whom I've enjoyed 
working with on the Budget Committee, talk about the fiscal commission. 
I think lost in a lot of the discussion yesterday about the President's 
speech were the comments that one of the cochairs of that committee 
made as he walked out of the room after the President gave his speech, 
and they said, ``Mr. Simpson, what do you think the course of action 
should be from here on out?'' And his answer was, ``Pray.''
  Is that what we've come to as a Nation, that the best chance we have 
to balance our budget is prayer? I'm a big believer in prayer, don't 
get me wrong, but we need to be met on the real issues. We cannot have 
the other side continuing to meet our specific proposals with rhetoric.
  To the extent that we will see specific proposals, I think we saw a 
brief introduction to it during the amendment process in the committee. 
Every single Democrat amendment--that's not fair. There were three or 
four, including one or two that I think I voted for. We did have a 
couple of bipartisan amendments pass. But the large majority of the 
Democrat proposals of amendments to this budget during the budget 
process were fairly simply described as increased taxes and increased 
spending. It was a series of increased taxes and increased spending.
  My fear, Mr. Speaker, is that's what we're going to see for the next 
few days, and it's a tremendous loss that here we are able to discuss 
the budget for the first time in 2 years that the debate will be purely 
political.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the ranking member.
  If my colleague would remember, one of the first amendments that was 
offered was to say let's be serious about the deficit. Let's have 
shared sacrifice. Let's ask those folks paying over a million dollars 
to go back to the same tax rates that they were during the Clinton 
administration and put some of that money to deficit reduction.
  We offered other amendments by saying let's let the big oil companies 
do a little less with the taxpayer subsidies and focus that on higher 
priorities.
  The gentleman asked where the figure was that a senior would have to 
pay $6,000 more in the year 2022 under the Republican proposal. That is 
from the CBO letter to the chairman of the Budget Committee where they 
did their analysis of the long-term impact. It was not a Republican 
outfit. It was not a Democratic outfit. In fact, the chairman of the 
committee has made it clear that he has used the CBO baseline for the 
purpose of his own budget. This is out of a CBO report. And I think we 
need to take it seriously, because we can all have our own arguments 
and opinions, but there are certain facts that we can't run away from, 
and that's one of them.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California, Chairman Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation 
not only to the gentleman from North Charleston for his superb 
management of this rule, but also to salute my friend from 
Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who serves from the Rules 
Committee to the Committee on the Budget.

[[Page 6052]]

  We actually have clearly changed the entire trajectory with the 
budget that we are going to consider with this rule. And I should say 
that, as I listened to the exchange that took place between Messrs. Van 
Hollen and Kingston earlier, we've changed the debate.
  In the last session of Congress, Mr. Speaker, there was not a budget 
considered. We didn't go through this. Yet we are going to have every 
single substitute--from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the 
Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Cooper, the Democratic substitute--all 
considered, and we're going to have a free-flowing debate today and 
tomorrow on that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that yesterday I stood here at 1:30 
just as the President was getting ready to deliver his speech, and I 
indicated some real hope and optimism by virtue of the fact that early 
indications were that the President would be talking about the need for 
entitlement reform. I have to say that I was more than disappointed in 
the fact that the speech was a little more political than I thought it 
could have been, and it was at best a very first step, but a little too 
modest for my tastes.

                              {time}  1200

  Madam Speaker, it is essential that we work in a bipartisan way to 
take on the burden and the cost of Medicare especially, and Social 
Security as well. Why? So that we can save, not abolish, Medicare and 
Social Security. The American people have been compelled throughout 
their entire lifetimes to pay the FICA tax. They in fact should have an 
opportunity to have what are much needed health care and retirement 
benefits. And the course that we're on right now, Madam Speaker, has 
created a scenario whereby they will be lost. That's why we are working 
to save it. It can only be done, I believe, Madam Speaker, if we do it 
in a bipartisan way.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former member of 
the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague from New York, former 
chair of the Rules Committee, who I had the privilege of serving under, 
for allowing me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak against the rule and against 
the Republican budget. Last year was a good year for CEOs at America's 
biggest companies. The average CEO got a 12 percent raise and made 
about $10 million. Now the Republicans want to give that same CEO a 30 
percent tax cut. That's right. While the average American family is 
struggling with gas prices that went up 93 cents in the last year, 
while working Americans tried to figure out how to afford health care 
or how to send their children to college, the Republicans have been 
busy trying to figure out how to cut taxes for CEOs by one-third.
  Of course, you can't cut taxes that dramatically for the richest 
Americans without cutting spending somewhere else. Someone has to pay 
for the tax cuts. And in the Republican budget, the people who pay the 
price are seniors and the middle class. Under their budget, seniors 
will pay when Medicare as we know it is ended and replaced with a 
voucher system that will be a windfall for insurance companies but will 
double health care costs for seniors. And the middle class will pay 
when deductions for home mortgages or health insurance are repealed to 
pay for those CEO tax cuts.
  Madam Speaker, Republicans simply have the wrong priorities, putting 
the burden of the budget on seniors and the middle class while giving 
big tax breaks to the wealthy and handing out handouts to insurance 
companies. I don't share those values. This is not a budget that serves 
the American people well.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a 
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan 
budget before the House today. I am pleased that the Rules Committee 
has made the submitted substitute budgets in order so that we can have 
a full debate on our Nation's priorities over the next several years. 
And in my view, the Ryan budget represents exactly the wrong 
priorities.
  It would eliminate Medicare as we know it, forcing seniors to pay 
thousands of dollars more every year for their health care. It would 
bring back the doughnut hole, allow insurance companies to once again 
discriminate based upon preexisting conditions, and kick young people 
off their parents' insurance plans. It would slash needed investments 
in education, infrastructure, medical research, environmental 
protection, and hunger programs. And it would still result in deficits 
as far as the eye can see.
  And at the same time, the Ryan budget would give a massive tax cut to 
the wealthiest Americans. The top rate under the Ryan budget would be 
the lowest since 1931, which is appropriate, Madam Speaker, because 
this is a budget that only Herbert Hoover could love. Apparently, the 
Republican leadership of this House would like to reverse the last 80 
years of social progress in this country.
  In short, I believe this budget would represent the largest 
redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the 
wealthy in American history. Now, some have called this approach 
trickle-down economics on steroids. But it's worse than trickle-down, 
Madam Speaker; it's gusher-up. Over the last several years, working 
families have been struggling, struggling to find a job, struggling to 
pay their mortgages, to pay the utility bills and their health care 
bills, struggling to put food on the table and put their kids through 
college. To them, the Republicans would say, ``Tough luck.''
  At the same time, the very wealthiest Americans and corporations have 
enjoyed record profits. And to them the Republicans would say, ``You 
need more help.'' As President Obama said so eloquently yesterday, 
``That's not the America that I grew up in. That's not the America I 
want for my children and for my grandchildren.''
  We can and we must do better. The Democratic alternative offered by 
Mr. Van Hollen is a sensible, practical, and, most importantly, fair 
way to address our long-term fiscal challenges while at the same time 
investing in our future. I urge my colleagues to support that 
alternative and to reject the Ryan budget.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
Budget Committee and my colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, in the last week I have twice offered an amendment to 
protect health care for seniors, veterans, and active duty military and 
military families. And to my great disappointment, the Republican 
majority has twice blocked this effort, first in committee, where 
Republicans voted unanimously on a party line vote to end Medicare, and 
again yesterday, when the Republican leadership refused to allow this 
amendment to be heard, debated, and voted on in this Chamber.
  I have twice asked my Republican colleagues to honor the 
Constitution. They must allow the democratically elected 
representatives of the American people to have an honest up or down 
vote on whether or not we support privatizing Medicare, a trend that 
could lead to similar privatized plans for the health coverage provided 
to our troops and veterans. For if they honestly believe that seniors 
will receive quality care at a more affordable price to the taxpayer, 
what's to stop them from going after TRICARE and the VA?
  My amendment will protect health care provided to seniors and the 
disabled from being privatized or being subject to arbitrary spending 
caps. It would extend the same protection to health coverage for active 
duty military and their families, as well as veterans. This amendment 
would protect Medicare, TRICARE, and VA health

[[Page 6053]]

care from being eliminated and replaced with voucher or premium support 
programs.
  The Road to Ruin budget ends Medicare. This is a program that 46 
million seniors and disabled individuals rely on for their health care. 
Rather than guaranteed benefits, seniors and the disabled will be left 
with a voucher, or so-called premium support, that by design cannot and 
will not keep up with rising health care costs. The private market 
views seniors as a risky and expensive investment. So too the disabled. 
So too military servicemembers and veterans who have unique health 
needs earned through their sacrifice in service to America.
  The question before us today is not whether to reduce the deficit, 
but how. We have balanced the budget before without ending Medicare. We 
can do it again without the painful consequences that the Republican 
plan would initiate, where our seniors would pay 68 cents of every 
dollar of insurance required as compared to Congress paying 28 cents on 
every dollar.
  Forty-six million people rely on Medicare today. Even more will 
depend on it in the future. Those many millions deserve a vote. That 
vote has been denied to them by the Republican leadership of the House.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
  Mr. DOLD. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I think it's time that we roll up our sleeves and get 
to work. I am delighted that we are having this debate. We hear a lot 
about job creators and business owners. Well, I am a small business 
owner, and I know what this crushing Federal debt does to small 
businesses all across our Nation and to job creators as well. It 
reduces certainty and stability, it scares away private sector 
investment that leads to growth for our economy, and it crushes the 
hopes of job creation.
  Small businesses need to be able to forecast what their expenses will 
be in the long term. Small businesses are reluctant to take risks when 
they don't know what their costs will be in the future. And if you 
listen to what the President said from his speech just yesterday, he 
made it clear that his vision of the future includes taking money out 
of the pockets of small businesses and job creators by increasing taxes 
on these very small businesses. This is the President's plan for 
addressing the deficit.
  Increasing taxes on small businesses will have a devastating effect 
on job creation in this country. Two-thirds of all net new jobs in our 
Nation are created by small business, and 75 percent of those small 
businesses file their returns as an independent return on their 
individual tax forms. Rather than introduce the specter of uncertainty 
and increased taxes on our business community, we must instead make the 
choice to be relentless in our effort to support small businesses and 
actually encourage economic growth.
  Last week Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put 
forward a budget that cuts $6.2 trillion over the decade, preventing 
the President's proposed tax increases from going into effect and 
putting the Nation on a fiscally sustainable path to give job creators 
and entrepreneurs all across the country the confidence to grow their 
business, to invest, and to create jobs.

                              {time}  1210

  Federal deficits, Madam Speaker, have ballooned over the last 3 
years, and this budget blueprint for fiscal year 2012 starts to repair 
the damage and takes the serious steps to put ourselves on a path to 
paying off the debt and reducing our deficits.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, we need to work together to change 
America, to stop borrowing so much money and jeopardizing the future of 
our country. We agree on that.
  But it's important that we understand that it's not the way to do 
that to end Medicare, and here is what ending Medicare means to the 
seniors and disabled people of this country. Today, if a person on 
Medicare has a medical problem, they choose their doctor. The doctor 
and the patient decide what should happen next and Medicare pays the 
lion's share of the bill. This is a system that works for America's 
seniors and works for America's disabled.
  How do the Republicans want to change Medicare and end Medicare? This 
is what they want to do.
  You won't choose your doctor, the insurance company will. If a doctor 
decides that a certain test or procedure is necessary, he or she will 
have to ask the insurance company's permission to get that test done. 
And the bill won't be paid by Medicare. The bill will be paid by the 
insurance company when they feel like it, if they feel like it, for the 
amount that it should.
  The Congressional Budget Office has looked at this issue at the 
request of Chairman Ryan and concluded that by the end of the 
implementation of this plan, seniors will pay an extra $6,000 a year 
out of pocket for health care expenses: $6,000 a year, $500 a month, 
$125 a week, beyond what they are paying right now for health care.
  We will stand for Medicare. We will not stand for this budget. We 
will defeat it.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. This Republican budget does offer a path to prosperity. 
Unfortunately, it's China's prosperity.
  For America, they offer a fast track to mediocrity, a descent into 
economic insecurity. It's the wrong path to global competitiveness. 
It's not that the level of our debt or the size of our tax rates is 
unimportant; it's that when you have such a narrow focus that you talk 
about little else, you forget America's other competitive strengths, 
our workforce, the need to invest to ensure the strongest and best-
educated workforce anywhere in the world, and our infrastructure that 
allows American businesses to prosper across our country. It's also 
about preserving a broad middle class so that more Americans share in 
the bounty of this country instead of going to some third-world extreme 
where all the wealth is concentrated at those at the top of the ladder.
  Today we have to choose. Instead of eliminating $4 billion from early 
education and student financial assistance so that students can achieve 
all of their God-given potential, why not ask General Electric to at 
least pay the level of taxes that the mail clerks that work for it pay?
  Instead of eliminating $3 billion from our crumbling roads and 
bridges, why not ask those giant corporations that currently get a $3 
billion annual deduction when they borrow money to build a factory 
overseas without recognizing any of the income from that factory, to 
begin to pay their fair share. And instead of accepting this Republican 
nonsense that we have to have more tax breaks for the very wealthy in 
our country, why not use the same money to ensure a little dignity for 
our seniors in nursing homes across the country?
  We need to stop exporting jobs and manufacturing and stop exporting 
our tax revenues overseas and begin developing a more competitive 
workforce right here in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I will yield my time, but I will never yield to those 
Republicans who don't demand any sacrifice from Wall Street and all 
those big-bonus recipients but do demand that the rest of us pay for 
balancing their budget.
  Oppose this Republican budget.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. I sit and listen to the conversation and the debate, 
and it is as if we are reading two entirely different documents. I feel 
like the Republicans are being portrayed as if they are going to have a 
horn grow out

[[Page 6054]]

of their heads and immediately rush into homes and jerk out the poor 
and those that are on Social Security and the needy.
  If you read the document, we are dealing with two central issues. The 
first of those issues is $14 trillion in debt. Now, we can ignore that 
fact or we can begin to take it on and make serious decisions and have 
serious adult conversations.
  The second issue that we take on is this one simple principle: Do we 
have a spending problem, or do we have a tax problem in America? In 
other words, do we need to tax a lot more, or do we need to spend less?
  I think if you look at the rate of how we have been spending in 
America versus how we are taxing in America, you would say we have a 
spending issue. In our current time there are all these statements that 
are being made that Republicans want to protect the corporations, 
Republicans want to be able to give all these benefits to the wealthy.
  Here's what we want to do with the tax rate: Leave it where it is 
now. That's not a 30 percent cut. That's not anything else. Where it is 
right now, that's the rate that we need to keep.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my good friend from New York.
  Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the seniors in my community.
  Before we enacted Medicare in 1965, almost half of all seniors in our 
country had no health insurance coverage. That's why the creation of 
Medicare was so important, and now every one of America's seniors has 
access to quality health care coverage.
  But today their care is at risk and under assault. The America we 
enjoy, as the result of the lifetimes of hard work by our seniors, and 
as they enter their well-deserved retirements, there are those who 
would callously rip away the commitment this Nation made to them.
  The Republican budget for fiscal year 2012 is a Path to the Past and 
will return us to the dark days when seniors agonized over access to 
health care. The Republican budget ends the guaranteed coverage of 
Medicare and replaces it with a grossly inadequate voucher system, 
subjugating seniors once again to the whims of private insurance 
companies and forcing them to bear the brunt of spiraling health care 
costs by themselves.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said seniors in 2030 
would pay three times more for coverage under the Republican plan. The 
Republican budget reopens the doughnut hole in Medicare part D, forcing 
seniors once again to pay thousands of dollars of out-of-pocket 
expenses for prescription drug medication.
  I was proud to fix that inequity and eliminate the doughnut hole last 
year. But the Path to the Past brings it back, roaring back, costing 
seniors thousands more.
  But this Republican budget isn't just a cost-shifting trick to 
transfer the financial burden onto seniors, though it is that. The 
Republicans would also repeal the important reforms prohibiting 
insurers from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.
  That puts every single senior with preexisting conditions at risk. 
Even those who can afford the increased costs of privatized care, they 
could find themselves denied that care in the Republican plan. The Path 
to the Past needs to be rejected, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to one 
of our new Members, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and against this budget. This 
Republican budget no longer honors our commitment to our seniors and 
doesn't reduce our deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
says that the Republican plan will add $8 trillion to the deficit over 
the next decade because the proposed cuts in spending are outpaced by 
gigantic tax cuts for the richest Americans.

                              {time}  1220

  You also can't say you care about seniors and then fight to enact 
policies that hurt seniors. Under their plan, they'll slash support for 
seniors in nursing homes while giving away tax breaks to companies that 
ship our jobs overseas.
  And what else? American seniors will literally be paying more for 
their health care and getting less in order to finance additional tax 
breaks to the wealthiest Americans, also reflected in this Republican 
budget.
  A budget is more than just about dollars and cents. It's a statement 
of our values and our priorities as a Nation. This Republican budget 
does not reflect the values of our great Nation. My friends on the 
other side of the aisle would rather cut benefits to seniors than cut 
subsidies to big oil companies and big corporations that ship our jobs 
overseas.
  They can quarrel with that argument, but these are the choices made 
in this budget. It ends Medicare as we know it. It slashes funding for 
nursing homes. It preserves tax cuts for the richest Americans and 
makes it even more generous. And it increases our debt. We have a 
responsibility to honor our commitment to our seniors. I ask my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if we can't protect our 
Greatest Generation and keep our promise to them, what is next?
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for 
yielding.
  We've got a good freshman class up there on the Rules Committee. And 
what we've been able to do under the leadership of Chairman Dreier is 
bring open processes to the floor. Can you imagine, we've got a 
multitude of budgets down here on the floor. If you want to look at the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget, you can vote for that today. If you 
want to vote for the Republican Study Committee budget, you can vote 
for that today. If you want to vote for Mr. Van Hollen's budget, you 
can vote for that today. You have your choices today about what your 
priorities are and about what your vision for America's future is.
  And when we have that conversation--and we've had it in the Budget 
Committee. I'm proud to be able to serve on both the Rules Committee 
and the Budget Committee--we've had that on the Budget Committee, an 
honest back and forth. So it pains me to come to the floor today and 
hear what can only be described as nonsense. Nonsense.
  Have you heard anybody on the House floor today say that the 
Republican budget would change things for seniors? Have you heard that 
today? I believe you have because I've heard it over and over again. 
The truth of the matter is the Republican budget changes nothing, 
nothing for seniors. It says you don't even have to be a senior. If 
you're age 55 or older, we change nothing in Medicare for you. Nothing.
  Yet my colleagues on the left are scaring today's seniors, scaring 
the folks who have the fewest number of choices in our society, scaring 
them into believing that folks are coming for them. Not true.
  Our colleagues on the left would say $6,000 is what we're going to 
charge additional to seniors. Well, two things: Number one, again, 
we're not doing anything for seniors. You've got to be 55 or younger. 
You've got to be my age to even begin to have a program change.
  And more importantly, that $6,000 figure comes from a CBO report 
looking at things 12 years down the road, which is 2 years after the 
Medicare program has gone bankrupt entirely. Hear that. Hear that 
misinformation: $6,000 per beneficiary, a number that comes from a 
report looking at the program 2 years after our trustees tell us it's 
going to go bankrupt entirely.
  Folks, this is about choices. This is about your vision for America. 
You have to put forward your plan. I applaud Mr. Van Hollen for putting 
a plan forward. He could have said, no, I don't have any ideas. That's 
what the

[[Page 6055]]

White House has chosen to do. Mr. Van Hollen did better. The 
Congressional Black Caucus did better. The Republican Study Committee 
did better.
  Look at these budgets. Look at the open process. Make the choice for 
you about what you believe a better America would look like. The Wall 
Street Journal talked about the Path to Prosperity and called it the 
most serious attempt at reforming government in a generation. It 
absolutely is. I applaud Chairman Ryan for getting that done.
  I thank my friend from South Carolina for the time, and I appreciate 
the Rules Committee giving us this open process that we have today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I want to thank my colleague from New York 
for allowing me to speak.
  The gentleman before me was correct: we have lots of options today, 
and that's great. We have the Republican budget, we have a Democratic 
budget, we have a Black Caucus budget and we have a Progressive Caucus 
budget. We have lots of options.
  I'm going to talk about the Republican budget.
  The Republican proposal we're debating today is reckless and 
misguided. It slashes taxes for the wealthy and pays for them by 
gutting Medicare. Let me explain that. It cuts over $30 billion in the 
first 10 years and will end Medicare by forcing seniors into private 
health insurance plans after 2022. They're right, if you're 54 years 
old now and you have high blood pressure and you're diabetic or 
prediabetic, you won't get Medicare. You'll get a voucher. And 
insurance companies don't want to cover those of us that may be 
diabetic or prediabetic or have high blood pressure. They're waiting to 
get on Medicare. They're not waiting to get a voucher.
  It gradually excludes seniors and eventually raises the age to 67 for 
Medicare. The CBO says that in 2022, the Republican's proposal will 
more than double the cost paid by Medicare enrollees. We are throwing 
seniors out of Medicare and into the uncertainty of the private 
insurance market while providing tax breaks to the wealthy. And it 
doesn't make sense.
  I also represent the Port of Houston, the 10th busiest port in the 
world. The port is facing a dredging crisis. Ensuring dredging means 
ensuring jobs. But the Republican budget contains deep cuts in programs 
like the Army Corps of Engineers. Dredging cannot be funded privately. 
It has to come from the Corps and the Federal Government. Hundreds of 
thousands of jobs not only in our Port of Houston but also across the 
country under this plan will be put at risk.
  There's one high point in the budget, and I commend Chairman Ryan for 
including language to put NASA on track with the authorization bill 
Congress passed last year and provide for an immediate transition for 
our next generation of human space flight program once the shuttle 
missions are concluded.
  Despite that, I'm unable to support the plan that allows massive cuts 
for the wealthiest Americans and pays for them by ending Medicare while 
neglecting our ports.
  This budget proposal makes over $30 billion in cuts to Medicare over 
10 years, seeks to eliminate Medicare, and shifts all seniors over to 
private insurance plans after 2022.
  Beginning in 2022, Congressman Ryan's budget proposal would convert 
the current Medicare system to a system of premium support payments. 
Individuals, when they turn 65 and Disability Insurance beneficiaries 
who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later, would not enroll in 
the current Medicare program but would receive vouchers to purchase 
private insurance plans. In addition, the proposal would increase the 
age of eligibility for Medicare for 2 months per year until it reaches 
67 in 2033.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Ryan budget 
proposal would more than double Medicare beneficiary costs in 2022, 
from $5,538 to $12,513, which is an increase of nearly $7,000 per year 
in beneficiary premiums and co-insurance. Not one dollar of that 
increase in beneficiary costs goes to reducing the deficit--it all goes 
to cover the higher costs of private plans that the Republicans would 
force seniors to join. Additionally, the average 65-year-old in 2030 
would have to pay about 68 percent of their health care costs (through 
premiums and copayments), compared with 25 percent under current rules.
  This is not the type of system we want for our seniors. Shifting 
individuals from a program like Medicare that works to private 
insurance plans that are only interested in making a profit is no way 
to reduce government spending and our deficit. In fact, the Ryan 
proposal once again shifts the burden of reducing the deficit onto the 
taxpayer and our seniors.
  I represent the Port of Houston, the busiest port in the United 
States in terms of foreign tonnage, second-busiest in the United States 
in terms of overall tonnage, and tenth-busiest in the world. 
Unfortunately, the Port of Houston, like many Ports in this country, is 
facing a dredging crisis.
  In my district, ensuring dredging means ensuring jobs. By maintaining 
our shipping channel we lower the cost of importing and exporting. We 
move more commerce through our city and into communities across the 
country. Workers at distribution centers, longshoremen, truck drivers, 
tug boat operators, and many other professions rely on a functional 
port.
  The Port has identified over $80 million in dredging needs and they 
were only receiving $20 million of that in the President's budget 
request. The Republican Budget contains deep cuts, beyond the 
President's Budget, to programs like the Army Corps of Engineers. No 
other entity can fund these dredging projects but the Corps. Hundreds 
of thousands of jobs rely on the Port of Houston being one of the 
busiest in the world. Our oil and gas industry relies on a well-
maintained, functioning port. It is critical to our economy and our 
Nation's strategic interests to maintain this port in the best 
condition possible, but under this plan, the budget will be cut.
  We have heard a lot from the Republican side about freeing our 
private sector to create jobs, but now we see their budget, and we find 
out this just isn't the case.
  While I am disappointed with nearly the Republicans' entire budget, I 
am pleased with one portion of it. I commend Chairman Ryan for 
including language that would put NASA on track to follow the 
Authorization bill Congress passed last year.
  The plan in the authorization, and reaffirmed in this budget, would 
provide for an immediate transition to our next generation human space 
flight program.
  If NASA follows its own plan, human space flight will be put into 
limbo once the Space Shuttle missions conclude.
  By incorporating the compromise of the NASA authorization bill, we 
can use the valuable work accomplished during the Constellation program 
for the next generation of human space flight.
  We can maximize cost-savings and offer the best value by leveraging 
tax payer dollars that have already been spent for the biggest benefit. 
These are goals that we must pursue during such difficult fiscal times.
  If we do not effectively guide NASA back toward a plan that is within 
the confines of the law, it will result in significant duplicative 
costs and unnecessary job losses.
  Local economies, like my own in Houston, home of Johnson Space 
Center, will be hit hard when we have just begun to recover.
  It is estimated by the Human Space Flight industry that at least 
10,000 employees will be laid off under the more expensive, less 
effective, NASA budget proposal.
  A failure to maintain preeminence in human space flight will have 
ripple effects that damage our education system, our technology 
industry's ability to innovate, and could handicap our global 
competitiveness for years to come.
  We spend so much time talking about the importance of inspiring our 
students to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math 
disciplines. NASA serves as the single biggest catalyst for this 
inspiration.
  Under the NASA budget proposal, there will be no new jobs for our 
STEM students. We must change the trajectory at NASA. The plan in the 
authorization bill costs less, does more, and will allow our Nation to 
maintain its role as the leader in space.
  Despite this, I am unable to support any plan that allows massive tax 
cuts for the wealthiest Americans and pays for them by ending Medicare 
while also neglecting maintaining our Ports, which are critical 
national interests.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  Republicans say their budget is a ``Path to Prosperity.'' But it's 
really a

[[Page 6056]]

``Path to More Prosperity for the Already Prosperous.'' The Republican 
budget picks high-rolling oil executives over low-income families. It 
favors CEOs over senior citizens. It helps the wealthy over the working 
class.
  How do Republicans pay for this gigantic goodie bag for the rich? 
Well, they eviscerate Medicare, turning it into an underfunded voucher 
program. Medicare becomes ``Medicare-less.'' And to help seniors to pay 
for their medicines, GOP stands for ``Grandma's Out of Prescriptions.''
  This budget is the same tired tune Republicans have been trotting out 
for decades. It's ``Play It Again, Uncle Sam.'' In the 1980s, Ronald 
Reagan tried to slash the social safety net programs. In 2005, 
President Bush tried to privatize Social Security. And today, the same 
Republicans are trying to shred the social safety net they've opposed 
since it was created. It is not just deja vu all over again. It's deja 
voodoo economics all over again.
  Vote down this misguided budget so that we can protect Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security now and into the future. Do not let 
Medicare become ``Medicare-less.'' We don't want these people who 
always opposed Medicare, always opposed Social Security, opposed 
Medicaid as we put it on the books, to now come back and say, we're 
very courageous, we want to end those programs as we know it. But, by 
the way, where their courage has to be shown, they show none. They will 
not tax the rich. They only want to harm the poor.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, the Republicans have shown with their budget proposal 
that they're intent on using the deficit as a pretense to end Medicare. 
Democrats proposed an amendment in the Budget Committee to protect 
Medicare, TRICARE for the military and VA health care from 
privatization or arbitrary spending caps. The Republicans all voted 
against it. Democrats tried again in the Rules Committee last night, 
but this rule does not allow the amendment to be brought to the House 
floor.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Tonko's amendment to protect 
Medicare, TRICARE and veterans' health care from privatization or 
arbitrary spending caps.

                              {time}  1230

  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the 
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so we can put every Member of the House on 
record as to where they stand on health care and if they want to end 
Medicare or not.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, finally, the Democrats do get it. What they get is, if 
they do not find a way to scare our senior citizens, they have no 
chance. When you cover the expenses of running this government and when 
you think about the fact that what the Democrats have proposed and what 
President Obama has proposed in his original budget is an increase of 
$8.7 trillion of new spending and $47 trillion of new spending in the 
next 10 years, the Democrats have finally found a way to cover their 
tracks, and it is on the backs of our senior citizens.
  There is no doubt that the 2012 budget plan that we have proposed has 
no impact, not only on our senior citizens who are receiving benefits 
today, but on those over the age of 55.
  Not only are the Democrats willing to scare our seniors based on 
nothing, but they want to go to 2 years after Medicare is bankrupt and 
then start having a conversation about numbers when Medicare would not 
exist under their plan.
  What we do under our plan is a simple thing. We strengthen and 
preserve Social Security and Medicare for the next generation. We 
understand that it is time to roll up our sleeves and to get serious 
about preserving the American Dream for the next generation. Our budget 
does that by cutting $6.2 trillion out of the deficit in the next 10 
years and by creating more than 1 million jobs in the next 12 months--
but we go further. We simply say that you do not create more 
disincentives or higher taxes in order to improve our economy.
  Let us do exactly what the previous generation, the Greatest 
Generation, has done for us--pass on the American Dream in its 
entirety. We have a responsibility to the next generation in taking the 
tough road today in order to make the American Dream stronger tomorrow.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 223 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution or the adoption of an amendment printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules, it shall be in order 
     to consider the amendment specified in section 3 as though 
     printed as the last amendment in part B if offered by 
     Representative Tonko of New York or a designee. That 
     amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of title VI, add the following new section:

     SEC. __ SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SAVING HEALTH CARE FOR SENIORS, 
                   MILITARY, AND VETERANS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) senior citizens and persons with disabilities highly 
     value the Medicare program and rely on Medicare to guarantee 
     their health security; and
       (2) active duty military servicemembers and their families 
     value the high-quality health care they receive through 
     Tricare and other programs run by the Department of Defense, 
     and veterans rely on the health service network run by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs to address their unique health 
     needs.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House 
     that--
       (1) the Congress should reject legislation that--
       (A) protects tax cuts for the wealthy and special interests 
     while shifting health care costs onto seniors through a 
     policy to replace Medicare with vouchers or premium support 
     for the purchase of private insurance; or
       (B) damages the excellent care provided to the men and 
     women who are serving and who have served the country in 
     uniform; and
       (2) any future health care legislation that eliminates 
     quality Federal health care programs and--
       (A) replaces them with vouchers or premium support for the 
     purchase of private insurance; or
       (B) sets caps on Federal health care spending,

     should exclude programs for seniors, military servicemembers 
     and their families, and veterans.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

[[Page 6057]]

     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 223, if 
ordered; and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 183, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               YEAS--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--183

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cassidy
     Diaz-Balart
     Giffords
     Meeks
     Moore
     Olver
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Schock
     Sewell
     Towns

                              {time}  1256

  Mr. SERRANO changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. FORBES changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 265, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 265, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 181, not voting 8, as follows:

[[Page 6058]]



                             [Roll No. 266]

                               YEAS--243

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--181

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cohen
     Garrett
     Giffords
     Meeks
     Olver
     Reichert
     Towns
     Waters


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1305

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________