[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6183-6190]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 223 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 34.

                              {time}  1655


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with 
Mr. Terry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is 
considered read the first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 4 hours, with 3 hours confined to the 
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on 
the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and 
controlled by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey) or their designees.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 90 minutes of debate on the 
congressional budget.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier today we passed a continuing resolution that 
will ultimately save billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Today we 
are converting and switching this debate to now saving trillions of 
dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just begin by saying this: The spending spree is 
over. We cannot keep spending money we don't have.
  The American people deserve the truth. They deserve an honest, fact-
based conversation about this budget. We have got to get on to the days 
of no more budget gimmicks, timing shifts, accounting tricks. And we've 
got to get on to fixing our country's fiscal problems while we still 
can and while they're still within our control.
  Mr. Chairman, specifically what our budget does is it cuts $6.2 
trillion in spending from the President's budget. It brings the 
government's spending as a share of our economy back down to where it 
historically has been, contrary to where the President is taking it.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have a revenue problem in Washington. The 
problem here today is not that people don't pay enough taxes; the 
problem is Washington borrows and spends too much money.
  This shows you where Washington is headed, where the President's 
budget goes, the path we are on.
  Mr. Chairman, I am 41 years old. My wife and I have three beautiful 
kids who are 6, 7, and 9 years old. By the time our children are my 
age, the government will be twice the size it is today. When they're my 
age, double the government, double the taxes just to keep this current 
government afloat.
  What we are really trying to do, Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day 
is fulfill the legacy that we have been given by our parents and by our 
predecessors in Congress. We're going to have a vigorous debate about 
how to do this. We're going to have a vigorous debate of our priorities 
and processes, and it's going to be emotional.
  At the end of the day, this is what we are trying to do: We know, 
according to every fiscal expert out there, that we are giving the next 
generation a mountain of debt. So we have a choice of two futures, Mr. 
Chairman. Which future do you want your children to have? One, where 
the debt gets so large, it crushes the economy and it gives them a 
diminished future, a stagnant economy; or, two, this budget, using CBO 
numbers, that literally not only gets us on the way to balancing the 
budget but pays off our debt, gets our debt manageable, preempts and 
prevents a debt crisis, and fixes this so we can preserve this great 
legacy of giving the next generation a higher standard of living.

                              {time}  1700

  Now, Mr. Chairman, we had a speech yesterday from the President--not 
a plan, so to speak, but a speech. And unfortunately, I think the 
speech, which was a framework with no details, was really not about 
solutions but about partisanship.
  I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, that leaders here in town are more 
concerned about the next election than the next generation. I hope that 
that's not the case. I hope that leaders in this town change their tune 
so we can fix this problem, but it's going to require them to change 
their tune. We don't need good politicians; we don't need clever 
politics.
  We need real leadership and real solutions to fix this country's 
problem because, Mr. Chairman, if we don't make some tough decisions 
today, our children are going to have to face much, much tougher 
decisions tomorrow.
  I want to talk about one particular program, and I will yield myself 
2 additional minutes to do that.
  Medicare. Medicare is one of the most important programs we have; 
it's one of the most successful programs we have. Medicare is in 
trouble. Medicare is going broke. CBO tells us that in 9 years it has 
exhausted its trust fund. We need to save Medicare. This budget doesn't 
change anything for anybody on Medicare now and within 10 years of 
retiring, and it saves the system for the next generation.
  Contrary to what the President proposed yesterday, he wants to 
delegate more authority to 15 people on a bureaucracy that was created 
in his new health care law to do price controlling and rationing of 
Medicare for current seniors. He wants these 15 people--without a 
consent of Congress, just to do it directly--to impose more price 
controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting 
services to current seniors.
  We repeal this agency. We don't think Congress should be delegating 
this kind of power and authority to unelected people to make unilateral 
decisions on senior health care. So we preserve, protect, and save 
Medicare for current seniors and those 10 years away from retiring, and 
then I'll get into the details about how we save it for future 
generations.
  Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, this budget is about choices. We 
do four things. We want to grow the economy so we create jobs and have 
a climate for job creation with tax reform. We want to save the mission 
and preserve the mission of health and retirement security. We do that. 
We want to preserve our social safety net and make it more sustainable, 
more reliable, more adaptive, and more conducive to the 21st century 
and geared not toward keeping people on welfare, but getting people 
back on their feet and into jobs and careers to have flourishing lives. 
At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, what it's really about is giving 
our children a debt-free Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone in this Chamber loves America and everybody in 
this Chamber wants to preserve the dynamism of this country and 
American exceptionalism. We also all agree that we have to reduce our 
deficits in a

[[Page 6184]]

steady and predictable way. The question is how we do that, and we have 
very different views of how we should do that.
  Later this evening and tomorrow, we will debate a Democratic 
alternative budget which will strengthen our economy, promote job 
growth, and decrease the deficit in a steady, predictable and 
responsible way, but the Republican budget is the wrong choice for 
America. I urge every American to read this budget because if you do, 
no amount of spin can hide the fact that this is a wrong turn for 
America. It is a yellow brick road for the already prosperous, but it's 
a dead end for the rest.
  Just today, we had an analysis come out from the former economic 
adviser to John McCain when he was running for President, Mark Zandi, 
the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, who said that the Republican 
plan will cost Americans 1.7 million jobs by the year 2014, with 
900,000 jobs lost next year. And the Republican budget violates the 
warning from the bipartisan commission that we need to do the cuts and 
the deficit reduction in a responsible way.
  The cochairs of the President's fiscal commission stated that the 
Republican budget ``falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach 
that we need for a responsible plan.'' They are absolutely right. It is 
not balanced; it is a totally one-sided approach to deficit reduction. 
Because when you sweep away all the soothing, sweet-sounding talk of 
reform, at its core this Republican budget is not bold. In fact, it's 
the same old formula of increasing tax breaks to the very wealthy in 
this country and to the special interests, like Big Oil, at the expense 
of the good of the rest of the country, except this time it's the same 
old plan on steroids.
  We all know that to govern is to choose, and the choices made in the 
Republican budget are wrong for America. It is not bold to give tax 
giveaways to the oil companies and executive board rooms while slashing 
investments in our kids' classrooms, in scientific research, and in 
critical infrastructure for this country.
  It is not courageous to provide additional tax breaks for 
millionaires while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and 
sticking seniors with the cost of the rising health care. It is not 
visionary to reward corporations that ship American jobs instead of 
products overseas while we terminate health care for tens of millions 
of Americans here at home. It is not brave to give Governors a blank 
check of Federal taxpayer money and a license to cut support for 
seniors and nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and low-
income kids on Medicaid. And it's not fair to give yet another tax 
break to the very wealthy and ask middle-income Americans to pay for 
it. Yet, if you read the Republican budget, those are the choices they 
make.
  We ask, where is the shared sacrifice? We have American men and women 
putting their lives on the line as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan 
while others hide their income in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland 
and refuse to pay their fair share to support our Nation. That is not 
right.
  The pattern is clear: first you cut taxes for special interests and 
the very wealthy, and then mathematically what happens? Yeah, when you 
do that, the deficits go up. You drive up the deficit, and then you 
say, well, we've got to handle this--not by going back and asking the 
folks at the very top to do more, but by cutting investments for 
working families and violating our commitments to seniors and others.
  Let me turn to the Republican plan for Medicare because what the 
Republican plan does is it ends the Medicare guarantee. It forces 
seniors to go into the private insurance market and have to deal with 
the rising costs of health care that they face there, and the seniors 
have to eat that cost. And since the chairman raised this specifically 
in his opening statement, I would like to just take a look at this 
chart based on the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office--and 
the President did mention this in his speech yesterday.
  What this shows is what happens to Medicare under the Republican 
budget versus current Medicare and how much of the increased cost will 
now be shifted to seniors instead of Medicare. As you can see, compared 
to current Medicare, senior citizens are going to have to pay more than 
$6,000 on top of what they would have had to pay in the year 2022. And 
the problem gets worse and worse over time so that by the time you're 
out in the year 2030, you're talking about in the range of $11,000 more 
paid by seniors.

                              {time}  1710

  Now, let me say this. One of the talking points we've heard from our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, Don't worry, seniors, 
we're just giving you the same health care deal Members of Congress 
have.
  That's not true. What Members of Congress have is what's called a 
fair share deal agreement, just as other Federal employees do and as 
many employees around the country do where the risk of rising premiums 
is shared.
  So for every dollar increase in premiums, the Federal Government puts 
in 72 cents, thereabouts, and the Member of Congress or the Federal 
employee puts in the rest. But the point is, no matter how fast the 
costs go up, you share that risk equally. That's not what happens in 
the Republican plan.
  There's much more to talk about, but let me just say that we welcome 
this debate. Fundamentally, this is a debate about choices for our 
country, and as the bipartisan fiscal commission said, the choice made 
in the Republican budget is not balanced and it is not comprehensive. 
We agree, and we should reject this budget.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds simply 
to say the gentleman is talking about Medicare. If he had read that CBO 
letter a little later, he would see it says that Medicare is on such an 
unsustainable path that there's no way it can sustain itself where it 
is.
  So we're making comparisons to fiscal myths. We're making comparisons 
to futures that aren't going to exist. The greatest threat to Medicare 
is the status quo and those who cling to it.
  I would also simply say the President yesterday said he wants this 
unelected board of bureaucrats to cut a trillion dollars out of 
Medicare. We don't want to see that happen.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I rise today to commend Chairman Ryan in this 
effort to craft a sustainable and responsible budget proposal.
  This budget represents a valiant effort to effect real change in the 
way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. This plan couples tangible 
spending cuts with the entitlement reform necessary to get our budget 
back into balance starting now and continuing into the long term.
  This Republican majority understands that we must end the 
skyrocketing budgets of the last several years, and this budget 
reiterates our commitment to smart but limited government spending.
  The resolution includes an annual discretionary spending level of 
$1.019 trillion for next year, bringing us back to the fiscal year 2006 
funding levels for non-security programs. This is a reduction of an 
additional $31 billion from the level that we just passed in the CR.
  Based on the experience we've just had in bringing the fiscal year 
2011 budget to a close, this will present significant challenges to the 
Appropriations Committee and the body in the weeks and months ahead. It 
will not be an easy task, but I know that with the support of House 
Members, we will rise to that challenge.
  In addition, while I commend the budget resolution for making such 
significant strides to rein in spending and address long-term budget 
challenges, I do have some concerns over various budget process changes 
that may have unintended consequences.
  For example, the Appropriations Committee may be faced with 
challenges related to our emergency authority after May 31, the 
beginning of the hurricane season, due to limitations on the 
committee's ability to respond to natural disasters and other 
emergencies.

[[Page 6185]]

  Along these same lines, there may be challenges related to the 
committee's flexibility to provide for additional funding--beyond 
expected needs--for the global war on terror and our military efforts 
overseas.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Ryan and the leadership to 
address these as well as other process concerns as we go forward.
  These matters aside, I applaud this budget proposal. It will help put 
us back on a path of sustainable spending, allow for job creation and 
economic growth, and help us make the right fiscal decisions for our 
Nation's future.
  I thank the chairman for the time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee mentioned 
the IPAB, and it is true that the President indicated yesterday that 
that is a mechanism for trying to reduce the rise in Medicare costs. 
The chairman said they repeal the IPAB, which we believe will result in 
higher Medicare costs, which will mean that seniors have to absorb an 
even greater amount of the increase.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I think at the beginning of this debate we need to put it 
in context. I know that I must bore my friends on the majority side of 
the aisle, but during my 30 years in this body, there have been 
essentially three economic programs adopted: One was in 1981 when we 
adopted what is referred to as Reaganomics. The second was in 1993 when 
we adopted the Clinton economic program. The third, of course, was in 
2001 and 2003 when we adopted what was the Bush economic program.
  During the first economic program, we ran up $2.4 trillion of 
deficits. During the second, the Clinton economic program, which lasted 
for 8 years, we had $62.9 billion of surplus over 96 months. $2.4 
trillion during the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, $62.9 
billion surplus during the Clinton administration, and then another 
$2.8 trillion of deficits during the Bush economic program.
  The reason I raise that as we begin is because I want to tell my 
friends, and I know we will tell our constituents, that the message 
that we hear today from my good friend, Mr. Ryan--for whom I have a 
great deal of respect. We have a disagreement, but I do not believe 
that he speaks with a forked tongue, if you will. He speaks what he 
believes--he first of all says, correctly, that we have a deficit 
problem that must be dealt with by us all, those of us who serve here 
and with those whom we represent. We must with courage, with honesty, 
and, yes, with discipline address this deficit. In order to do so, we 
must address all items of expenditures and revenues. Revenues, of 
course, are what we use to pay for things we buy.
  Why did we run up deficits during the Reagan administration when one 
person could have stopped spending in its tracks, Ronald Reagan; or the 
George Bush, I, administration where one person could have stopped 
spending in its tracks? Because we bought more than we paid for--$2.4 
trillion worth.
  During the Clinton administration, what happened? Well, we had 
divided government, we constrained spending, and we constrained cutting 
revenues so that we were able to pay for what we bought.
  During the second Bush administration, we spent some $2.4 trillion 
more than we paid for. Every American knows that if you do that, you're 
going to run deficits. That's how we got to that $4.8 trillion of 
deficit because, as the gentleman today will argue, if we only adopt 
this program, we will bring down deficits, we will grow employment.
  Well, that's the argument used in 2001 and 2003. You didn't do 
either. In fact, employment disappeared--the worst employment record of 
any administration since Herbert Hoover--so that the arguments that you 
made in 2001 and 2003 that this would magnify employment did not prove 
to be the case.
  You also made the argument when you inherited a $5.6 trillion 
surplus, according to George Bush himself, you said that we could cut 
revenues, increase spending, and, by golly, we would have growing 
employment and a surplus. We had neither. We had lost employment, the 
worst economy of any administration since Herbert Hoover, an almost 
depression-like response that was called upon by President Bush in his 
last year, and an exploding deficit.

                              {time}  1720

  So now we will debate between two perspectives. We will have a number 
on our side; you will have a number on your side. Now, I think at least 
two on your side. But basically, we adopt the premise on our side first 
of all you've got to protect the most vulnerable. You've got to make 
sure that we apply the resources that we have to make sure that every 
American is in a place where we want them to be in the richest country 
on the face of the Earth. We want to grow the economy and we want to 
bring the deficit down.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. That will be the proposition on our side. Very frankly, I 
tell my friend from Wisconsin the premise on your side, in my view, has 
been consistently for the 30 years that I have been here, if you simply 
reduce revenues somehow magically the economy will recover.
  When we adopted the Clinton program in 1993, not a single Republican 
voted for it, unanimous in your conviction that it would have an 
adverse effect because we raised revenues, as you will recall, on the 
upper 1 percent. In fact, of course, what happened is exactly the 
opposite of what you argued in 1993.
  So in that context, as we have this budget debate, I hope the 
American public understands that if you repeat the same mistakes of the 
past you will be condemned to live in the same problems that were 
created then by those mistakes.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to this debate very carefully. Listen 
to the debate of the consequences of the actions that are proposed on 
both sides of the aisle, and remember what happened when that rhetoric 
was carried to fruition.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will just simply say we choose 
to reduce spending. And we don't reduce revenue; we reform the tax 
system.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget 
Committee and the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Chairman 
Ryan's FY 2012 budget. For the first time in several years, this budget 
tackles our fiscal reality and stops burying our collective heads in 
the sand. Let's start where we all agree: We are in dire financial 
trouble. But if we make some adjustments now, we will set our country 
on a long-term path of fiscal solvency. That's exactly what the 
Republican budget does.
  President Obama and my friends on the other side of the aisle lament 
the lack of tax increases in our budget. First, let's remember that we 
already have a deeply progressive tax structure. The top 5 percent of 
earners pay 60 percent of Federal income taxes collected. Yet our 
President and my friends on the left want to tax them even more.
  There seems to be a trifecta of economic strangulation under 
President Obama: increased regulation without congressional consent, 
skyrocketing energy prices and the doubling of gas prices, and now an 
attempt to increase taxes. How can businesses survive in this 
environment? We're not just talking about a precipice of fiscal 
solvency in our country; we're talking about the death of the American 
entrepreneur as we know it if we go down the path outlined by the 
President.
  Thankfully, there is a better way, the only way. The Republican 
budget recognizes that we must end the relentless drive to seize wealth 
and redistribute it. This is an alternative to the class warfare 
tactics of the left that pits one American against another. The 
Republican budget is a fair, pro-growth plan rather than a punitive tax

[[Page 6186]]

plan. Make no mistake, the budget includes tax reforms to simplify our 
Tax Code, broaden the tax base, create a more fair and equitable system 
that will provide certainty.
  The Ryan budget reflects the most basic American principles. It 
provides for the strong defense of our Nation, ensures the safety net 
for our most vulnerable citizens remains solvent, and it gets 
government out of the way of the American free enterprise system and 
makes sure that entrepreneurs can survive.
  The budget demands that we as leaders step up and make a choice 
between what's popular and what's right. I choose right.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, yes, we do ask the big oil companies to 
give up their taxpayer subsidies. And yes, we do ask the very top 2 
percent of income earners in the country to go back to the same tax 
rate they were paying during the Clinton years when the economy was 
roaring and 20 million jobs were created, instead of the dramatic job 
loss we saw between 2000 and 2008.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Budget 
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. This budget is just not my cup of tea. When the 
Republicans use the terms ``modernize'' or ``reform,'' what they really 
have in mind is a four letter word: less--less retirement security, 
less health security, less economic security.
  This budget does not share the sacrifice. It focuses the pain on the 
young, on the very old, on those who are trying to climb up the 
economic ladder, or just barely prevent themselves from slipping 
backward.
  ``Fair and balanced,'' that's a most inaccurate media logo, but it's 
a spot-on description of the budgetary path we ought to be on. Our 
budget should be balanced, but not unfairly on the backs of those least 
able to bear it, like our elderly in nursing homes. It's troubling 
enough that this Republican budget demands even more tax cuts for those 
at the top and our largest corporations. But what's truly outrageous is 
that they seek balance by cutting the opportunity for our young people 
to get all the education they are willing to work for.
  How can our economy be second to none when Republicans again and 
again turn to education to cut first? Nor can you fix this budget or 
make up revenue lost by squeezing so much out of those on fixed 
incomes. We need to be creating jobs with job training and education 
and infrastructure investment.
  The size of our deficit, the level of our taxes, those are important, 
but they are not the sole lens through which the strength of America 
should be viewed. We want an America where the young have educational 
opportunity, where the not so young have the dignity of their old age, 
and a bigger middle class shares in the success of our country. To 
secure our long-term future, every American can give a little. But this 
unfair proposal asks little from those with much, and so much from 
those who have so little.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 10 seconds to simply say, yeah, 
less spending, less government, less debt; more jobs, more prosperity.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
Appropriations and Budget Committees, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, we've heard it all before. In the 1990s, when 
Republicans proposed welfare reform, we were told that it was going to 
lead to poverty and starvation. Instead, it was the most successful 
poverty reduction program in modern American history. And when we 
pushed through Medicare part D over the opposition of our opponents, we 
were told that drug prices would go up and it was an unsustainable 
program. The reality is it came in 40 percent under cost for both the 
individual and for the government, something no other health care 
program has done. The reason why those two programs were successful 
were flexibility for States, choice, and competition for individuals.
  I am proud to support the Ryan budget, the only serious budget 
proposal that either party has offered. Frankly, it's quite a contrast 
to what we heard yesterday, which was long on political rhetoric and 
partisanship by the President and very short on specifics and 
solutions.
  In Medicare, my friends won't tell you that nobody on Medicare is 
going to have anything other than the programs that they already enjoy, 
that there is no reduction for seniors in the near term, and that we 
actually make the changes that are necessary to protect and save the 
program for the long term. If we stay on the course that they currently 
advocate, there will be no Medicare for people in their twenties and 
thirties and forties.
  The same thing's true with Medicaid. My friends on the other side of 
the aisle, frankly, forget that we are not the laboratories for 
innovation; the States are. We'll provide them with block grants, more 
flexibilities, more opportunity for change and innovation. We'll end up 
with a better program that actually protects more people.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this budget. We know we're on an 
unsustainable path. Mr. Ryan has offered us an alternative. Sadly, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle and the President of the United 
States have not.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the Medicaid program is one where the 
costs of health care have actually grown much more slowly compared to 
the growth in health care costs elsewhere. Cutting $1.4 trillion out of 
an already stretched program is not a recipe for helping more people. 
It will definitely hurt those who depend on Medicaid. You are just 
giving Governors a blank check with no accountability.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that budgets are about values. As the chairman 
of the Budget Committee has mentioned, they are about choices.
  And we know that this reckless Republican budget makes a very 
disastrous choice. It chooses to sacrifice the safety net of millions 
and millions of Americans in favor of millionaires and billionaires.
  Every time we mention that, the other side says, class warfare. Oh, 
the Democrats are engaged in class warfare. Guess what, Mr. Chairman? 
That war is over. The wealthy class has won.
  The wealthy class has already declared victory. That's why the 1 
percent of income earners, the top 1 percent, now has as much wealth in 
this country as the bottom 90 percent. So when we are talking about 
what we can do to try and get our fiscal house in order, the idea that 
we would ask that 1 percent that has accumulated enormous wealth, the 
greatest disparity of wealth in the history of this country, to pay a 
little bit more, the Republicans say ``no,'' that's class warfare. 
Instead, they would rather cut security for seniors, for our students, 
for our struggling families, because millionaires and billionaires, 
left to their own devices, will make everybody's boat rise.
  We have been down that road before, Mr. Chairman. We have seen what 
has resulted when that choice was made. This budget, when we asked for 
millionaires, people making a million dollars or more to pay a little 
bit more, to pay that 39.6 percent, the highest rate under the Clinton 
administration, the Republicans all said ``no.''
  We can't even ask people making a million dollars or more to pay a 
little extra to help balance this budget. This is unbalanced, this is 
unfair. It doesn't call for shared sacrifices. It ends Medicare. And 
while the Budget chairman says, and I know he believes this, that he is 
trying to preserve Medicare for the next generation, he does nothing. 
The Republicans do nothing in this budget to make sure that the people 
who are now in Medicare, or somebody who is 56 or 57, is going to have 
that program 30 years from now, not one reform measure to help save 
Medicare.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a senior

[[Page 6187]]

member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I want to commend you and all of my colleagues for their tremendous 
work that has been done on this budget. It's a bold vision for our 
country and a remarkable accomplishment. It's inspiring to have the 
opportunity to participate in this reform.
  As we have heard many times over the past couple of weeks, to govern 
is to choose. Last year, as the Nation well knows, the choice by our 
friends across the aisle was to do no budget at all. The Democrats 
failed in perhaps their most basic responsibility.
  Now continuing in this line of inaction, the President gave a speech 
yesterday with much preceding hype, but again the defining aspect of 
the speech was no plan. Our rudderless President decided to take the 
two biggest drivers of our national debt, Medicare and Social Security, 
and take them off the table. His solution to addressing health care 
costs is further empowering the Independent Payment Advisory Board to 
ration health care instead of dealing with structural reforms.
  What this all means is that we have a stark choice, a choice of two 
futures. One future is the President's plan, the one in red here, Mr. 
Chairman, the plan by the House Democrats that's a path to national 
bankruptcy. The other choice is a Path to Prosperity, the green, that 
gets us on a path to a balanced budget.
  It's time to address the American people in an honest and a factual 
manner. Let's face it. The American people are sick and tired of 
Washington's gimmicks and empty promises, and the Path to Prosperity is 
a bold vision for the future which relies upon facts, not dishonesty.
  As a physician, I could tell you that ObamaCare is a threat to the 
affordability and accessibility and quality of health care, all the 
principles that we hold dear in American medicine.
  The facts are that ObamaCare is a violation of these principles, and 
it takes away choices from patients and doctors while saddling workers 
and job creators and taxpayers with trillions of dollars in costs.
  So, we completely repeal and defund ObamaCare. Further, we will save 
and preserve Medicare for future generations by providing commonsense 
solutions so that folks have essentially the same kinds of health care 
choices that Members of Congress have. It's imperative that people 
recognize that no changes are made that would affect those in or near 
retirement.
  Now many folks on the other side of the aisle would rather bury their 
heads in the sand and ignore the reforms that need to be made to 
Medicare. The President has even decided to take it off the table, but 
the facts are that the current Medicare spending is growing at a rate 
twice as fast as the Nation's economy.
  Ten thousand baby boomers are reaching retirement age every single 
day. As a physician, when I talk to Medicare patients in my district 
back home, they tell me that they can't even find a doctor who is 
taking new Medicare patients.
  The system is broken and unsustainable. The status quo is 
unacceptable. By completely repealing and defunding ObamaCare and by 
saving Medicare, we advance this Nation in a positive direction, a Path 
to Prosperity.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In the Republican budget, I want to make it clear, they took some of 
the savings that we gained through Medicare reform last year. We gained 
those savings by ending the overpayments to some of the Medicare 
Advantage insurance companies that were being overpaid compared to 
others. They demagogued it when we did it, but they kept that in their 
budget, but they got rid of our initiative to close the prescription 
drug doughnut hole for seniors.
  So if you pass that budget, the moment it passes, there goes the big 
doughnut hole all opened up again because they took the money but 
didn't keep our effort to close the doughnut hole.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Frankenstein 
monster of accounting that the Republicans call a budget. The 
Republican budget, endorsed by every member of the Republican 
Conference, from John Boehner down to the rank and file, has two goals: 
One, end Medicare, and, two, provide hundreds of billions in tax cuts 
to the rich.
  A lot will be said about these two things by my colleagues, so I want 
to discuss some of the more dangerous cuts that may not make it to the 
front page of USA Today, but will still hurt every working family and 
their children. If you look at this chart beside me you will see that 
in the red that the Republicans provide the rich with $800 billion, 
with a B, in tax cuts over the next 10 years.
  How do they pay for this spending? On the backs of working families 
and children.
  We will show you charts that are very explicit with details. You will 
see other charts that may not be very explicit. But right here we show 
you the cuts to vital services to our people. The column on our right 
shows the cuts to every American in this country that needs day-to-day 
services, things like roads, access to health care and, above all, 
great schools for all our children. The Republican budget is nothing 
short of a disaster for our children.
  I am a classroom teacher, and I should know. The Republican budget 
cuts over a quarter of funding for education. This Republican budget 
cut means huge cuts for Head Start. This is the Republican budget 
paying for tax cuts for the rich on the backs of 1 million poor 
children. The Republican budget means huge cuts for K-12 education. 
This is how the Republican budget pays for tax cuts for the rich--on 
the backs of 20 million elementary and secondary students.
  The Republican budget means huge cuts to Pell Grants to help working 
class kids pay for college and secure the American Dream. This is how 
the Republican budget pays for tax cuts for the rich--on the backs of 9 
million college students.
  In short, the Republican budget requires heavy sacrifices for 
everyone except the richest Americans and the richest corporations. 
It's like the billionaire CEO who cuts a thousand jobs and gives 
himself a bonus. This is not right.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are 1 day away from Tax Day, and I 
believe that this is an appropriate time to be talking about the budget 
for our country. Many folks back in Indiana and across this country are 
talking about how they are going to meet the demands of their budget.
  I believe that this is a jobs bill. There is a lot of talk on this 
House floor about what are we doing about American jobs. I believe that 
this is the jobs bill of this Congress.
  We hear a lot from the other side of the aisle that we are going to 
revise and reform Medicare as we know it. Well, folks, we are facing 
$14.2 trillion of debt right now. We are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit 
in the current budget. Just as many families in Indiana and across this 
country do with their family budget, when the bottom line hits red, 
they start to make changes.

                              {time}  1740

  We have to start controlling spending. I would encourage every 
American to read this budget. This budget bravely saves $6.2 trillion 
over the next decade. It also calls to simplify the Tax Code and lower 
the rates for individuals and businesses. This budget not only stops 
the growth in government, it actually grows the economy and starts to 
create jobs.
  Furthermore, we eliminate hundreds of duplicative programs, ban 
earmarks, and curb corporate welfare. In addition to the trillions in 
savings, this budget will put our Nation on a sustainable path, keep 
the sacred trust of our seniors, and presents to the American people 
real leadership in the absence of

[[Page 6188]]

any from our executive branch. If you look at the President's budget, 
his budget proposes $9.1 trillion of new debt over the next decade.
  Let's talk about job creation. As a small business owner from 
Indiana, I don't need government to take more money away from the 
people that live in Indiana who are working hard. Let them keep that 
money so they can apply it to their businesses in order to grow jobs 
and grow the economy. There's no reason for more of our dollars to come 
to Washington, D.C., and be redistributed through our government.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the people of this Congress to support this 
budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we agree that you've got to make cuts. 
We just think you need a balanced approach where you also deal with the 
revenue side. And because yours doesn't deal with that piece at all, 
that's why the fiscal commission said it was unbalanced and lacked the 
comprehensive solutions that we need.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. For decades, Medicare has been a lifeline for older 
Americans, providing quality and affordable health coverage to all 
seniors in this country. The creation of the Medicare program in 1965 
addressed the fundamental challenge of ensuring aging seniors access to 
essential health care. Before Medicare, almost half of all seniors over 
65 had no insurance at all. Seniors were just not a good risk for 
private insurers, and they still aren't.
  Medicare is a promise to American seniors that we would not abandon 
them even as they age, even as they need medical care--until now. The 
Republican budget will end Medicare as we know it, offering a limited 
voucher and expecting seniors to find insurance no matter how sick they 
are or how expensive it is.
  Every day, 48 million elderly and disabled Americans count on 
Medicare for their lifesaving medications, doctor visits, and hospital 
care. Seniors know that changing Medicare to a voucher program means 
they will no longer have access to a guaranteed set of health benefits. 
Seniors know that privatizing Medicare means limits on benefits; 
obstacles to care; and uncertain reimbursements, copayments for primary 
care and specialty care; exclusions for certain services; 
discrimination based on income, illness or age; and uncertainty if 
serious illness or need for long-term care occurs. Seniors know that 
privatizing and voucherizing Medicare will mean that they pay more in 
premiums or do without.
  And it doesn't end there. The Republican budget also threatens 
Medicaid for nearly 6 million disabled and frail elderly who depend on 
it for their nursing home and home health services.
  American seniors are not looking for handouts. They're looking for 
the security that they have earned and we have promised.
  Budgets are about choices. In this very same budget where Republicans 
end Medicare as we know it, they protect billions of dollars in tax 
subsidies to the oil and gas industry. They protect billions in tax 
breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.
  Budgets are about our priorities and our values. Yes, we should get 
serious about our deficit. But let's get our priorities right and not 
threaten our obligation to our seniors, our children, and our future.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds simply 
to say the only part of this budget that mentions oil is that we want 
to drill for it in our own country so we can actually lower gas prices 
and get ourselves off foreign oil.
  The second point I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, is this budget 
saves Medicare as we know it. The President is proposing to ration 
Medicare as we know it.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. I thank the chairman.
  Imagine that you are on the bank of a river. It's deep in winter. 
It's a peaceful scene. You look out on the river, and it's frozen. 
There's a deep current of cold water under the ice. But then you see a 
small child, and he is walking out onto the ice. He doesn't fall, and 
he walks further out. You begin to warn the child, but he walks further 
out. As we know, the ice gets thinner the further out we go. And we are 
on that ice today as a country, and every day we take one step further 
out. And tragically, the young child falls through the ice and is swept 
away.
  That's what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about the 
repeated warnings that we've received.
  Chairman Bernanke told us just last week that unless we act 
immediately in a long-term way, we will not have economic growth nor 
will we have financial stability.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, told us 
that the greatest threat to our economy and to our national security is 
our debt.
  The IMF yesterday--this is unthinkable. They said of all the advanced 
countries in the world, our debt was growing the fastest, it was 
unsustainable, and it would lead to instability both here and across 
the world.
  Now, imagine those pictures of countries where the children are in 
economic distress where there's no stability. Those could be our 
children. Those could be our grandchildren. So with the warning today 
is a vote for our children and our grandchildren. We've heard the 
warning. We're not children. Let's save our children and grandchildren 
from that fall through the ice.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we share the gentleman's concern and 
view. As I said, the question is not whether we reduce the deficits but 
how we do it and the choices we make in the process.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Blumenauer, the gentleman from 
Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. The chair of the Budget Committee is a friend of 
mine, a man of sunny disposition, but he has helped shepherd to the 
floor of the House the most profoundly negative view of America's 
future that I have heard in my 15 years in Congress. They cannot reform 
Medicare, so they dismantle it for 230 million Americans who will be 
shifted to higher costs and given a voucher to insurance companies.
  It will, in fact, according to independent analysts, increase overall 
health care costs for all America while it reduces some of the burden 
for the Federal Government. It doesn't deal with the reform of the 
military. It turns an opportunity for tax reform to more tax benefits 
for those who need it the least.
  Their America and their budget cannot afford to improve our fraying 
infrastructure, and, in fact, envisions a massive $100 billion cut, 
according to the CBO. It will shortchange environmental protections and 
make college education more expensive for our young people.
  The Democratic alternative that you will hear will provide progress 
with some hard decisions, but by having shared sacrifice, by not giving 
up on health reform but by moving forward with it, to provide 
infrastructure investment and educational support.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity, and we welcome people looking 
at independent appraisals of the visions of America: one which 
basically gives up and forces the costs on middle income, elderly, poor 
and children; the alternative is to invest in our future in a 
responsible fashion, making some hard choices, to be sure, but with the 
opportunity to reform areas like the military, like health care, and 
like the tax system.
  Things that America has done in the past we think America can do in 
the future.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yesterday, President Obama had an opportunity to put forth a serious 
budget proposal, but instead, again, he called for higher taxes and 
trillions of dollars in spending we just can't afford.

[[Page 6189]]



                              {time}  1750

  The President offered nothing but lip service to serious spending 
cuts and real reform. We can't tax our way to prosperity or ignore the 
unsustainable future of Medicare and Medicaid. The President's plan 
fails to recognize that Washington has a spending problem, not a 
revenue problem. This is a time that demands leadership, and the 
President answered with a plan to nowhere.
  Today, the House is debating a serious budget that will address our 
dangerous debt and deficit while strengthening Medicare and Medicaid. 
The President missed another opportunity to engage in this debate in a 
meaningful way. He chose, instead, to deliver a campaign speech, filled 
with class warfare and scare tactics, hoping the American people 
wouldn't know any better.
  He was wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress, for 12 years, I was in 
business, and there were two things I learned in business: One, if you 
spend more than you take in, you're headed towards financial ruin. 
Second, if the government continues to take away more and more from 
small businesses, they won't create jobs; they will eliminate jobs. 
This budget deals with those two fundamental issues.
  The American people are demanding real change and an honest budget 
with no gimmicks, and that is what Chairman Ryan has produced. This 
week, the House is going to deliver for future generations by putting 
our government on a path to fiscal responsibility and prosperity.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady 
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, contrary to what Republicans have said on the floor, 
the Republican budget will impose new cuts on today's seniors.
  The Republican plan repeals the Affordable Care Act, which 
strengthens Medicare and reduces costs. For seniors on Medicare today, 
the Republican plan brings back the doughnut hole, forcing seniors to 
pay more for their prescription drugs. It repeals seniors' free annual 
checkups and gets rid of reforms to better manage their chronic 
conditions. The Republican plan eliminates Medicare altogether and, 
instead, hands seniors vouchers and kicks them into the black hole of 
health insurance.
  All Americans, pay attention. If you're 54 and younger, you've been 
put on notice. Start saving now. In addition to saving for your 
retirement, you'll need to save for the new out-of-pocket expenses your 
health care will incur.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates seniors will be 
forced to pay an additional $6,000 a year on health care--that's 
$12,000 for a couple--which is the best case scenario seniors can 
expect. The plan in front of us tonight begins to double out-of-pocket 
spending for seniors, and it's only going to increase from there.
  When you dig a little deeper, you realize that more than half of the 
Medicare beneficiaries today have five or more chronic conditions. What 
awful choices will seniors be forced to make when their health care 
costs are greater than their vouchers? Will they be able to afford 
their diabetes care? Will they be able to afford to go to their doctors 
for colonoscopies or mammographies?
  It seems to me that the only seniors who will benefit from the 
Republican proposal will be senior insurance executives.
  Vote ``no'' on the Republican plan. Vote ``no'' in order to protect 
and save Medicare.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to 
simply say, if the gentlelady had taken the time to read the CBO 
report, it's not a voucher program. In a voucher program, the money 
goes to the people, and then they go to the market. It's a premium 
support program.
  What does this look like?
  It looks just like the plan that you and I have as Members of 
Congress and that all Federal employees have. It works like the 
prescription drug benefit, which has come in 40 percent below cost. 
More to the point, it saves Medicare. It applies to people 54 and 
below, and it occurs in 2022. Guess what happens 2 years before that 
under the status quo? Medicare goes bankrupt.
  We want to prevent Medicare from going bankrupt. We want a system 
that's sustainable. We want a system that's solvent and that people can 
rely upon: guaranteed coverage options just like we have in Congress. 
That's what we are proposing.
  More to the point, what we are opposing is delegating to 15 people 
the ability and the power to ration over $1 trillion of Medicare 
against current seniors. We repeal that. The President proposes that. 
That's the big difference between us.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this fiscally responsible 
budget plan.
  For the past few weeks, Congress has been occupied, arguing over a 
continuing resolution because the previous Congress failed to put in 
place a spending bill for this year. We cannot afford to make the same 
mistakes that they did in the last Congress. We are facing a record 
$1.6 trillion deficit, a $14 trillion debt, and we need a plan to get 
spending under control--a plan, not a campaign speech and not partisan 
bickering. We've taken positive steps in the right direction. However, 
we must move from saving billions to saving trillions, and this budget 
will let us do just that.
  At the same time, we must fulfill our promises to our constituents 
and pass policies that will spur job creation and economic growth to 
strengthen and preserve Medicare and Medicaid. The proposed budget 
would create nearly 1 million new private sector jobs next year. 
Additionally, according to the studies, it would bring the unemployment 
rate down to 4 percent by 2015. It would spur economic growth by 
increasing the GDP by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It does 
this by creating a less burdensome Tax Code for families and small 
businesses and by incentivizing job growth and investment.
  We will get out of debt only when we focus on pro-growth policies and 
budget-tightening plans. This plan will do that by reforming Medicare 
and Medicaid to ensure that those programs are still available for our 
children. It is the safety net that we have promised. Without reform, 
those programs are unsustainable and will cease. The plan we will vote 
on tomorrow represents a fundamental shift in how the government does 
business--a shift back to fiscal sanity. The budget proposal saves $6.2 
trillion compared to President Obama's plan. If a person spent $1 
million a day, every day, since the first day of year 1 A.D., he still 
would not have spent $1 trillion by today. We will save six times that 
amount in 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I was taught a valuable lesson as a kid. If you weren't 
responsible with your allowance, you didn't get it again. No taxes. 
Save money.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to go back to the point 
that was raised again with respect to what Members of Congress have in 
terms of health insurance plans. We have what's called a ``premium 
support plan.'' The idea behind a premium support plan is that the 
employer and employee share the premium, and the employer--in this 
case, the U.S. Government--pays a certain percent. I have right here 
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program handbook, and it reads: 
The government's share of premiums paid is set by law.
  So Members of Congress have protected themselves by law. For most 
employees, the government contribution equals the lesser of 72 percent 
or 75 percent of the total premium for the particular plan. In other 
words, the Member of Congress/Federal employee has 72 cents for every 
premium dollar paid for. Whenever premiums go up, 72 percent of the 
cost of that premium is picked up by the government.
  The Republican plan gives seniors a raw deal. It does not give 
seniors the deal that Members of Congress give to themselves, and that 
should be put to

[[Page 6190]]

rest right now. Just look at the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program handbook.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. 
Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the vote on the Republican 
budget is one of the most important votes that I and my colleagues will 
cast as Members of Congress. The vote will tell the story of two 
distinct visions for America: how we reduce our debt, our economic 
future, and what we value as Americans.
  The Republican plan to destroy Medicare, to replace it with a voucher 
system, and to saddle our older neighbors and hardworking families with 
nearly the entire burden of reducing the Federal deficit betrays our 
American values. Medicare has allowed our parents and grandparents and 
our older neighbors to live in dignity in their retirement years. 
Medicare has kept families out of poverty for decades. It has worked 
well. With the baby boomers coming, we need to be mindful of necessary 
reforms.
  The Republicans should not use these difficult economic times as a 
reason to destroy Medicare. After all, the Republican plan will not 
save any money. It will simply shift the cost to older Americans and 
their families. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released an 
analysis, which reads: In 2022, with an increase of nearly $7,000 per 
year, the Republicans would double the cost per person. Not $1 of that 
increase in beneficiary cost goes to reducing the deficit. It all goes 
to cover the higher costs of private plans that the Republicans would 
force you to join.

                              {time}  1800

  The President said yesterday this debate over budgets and deficits is 
about more than just numbers on a page. It is about the kind of future 
that we want. It is about the kind of country that we believe in, and I 
agree. Each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and 
dignity. He said that we recognize no matter how responsibly we live 
our lives, hard times or bad luck or a crippling illness or a layoff 
may strike any one of us. There but for the grace of God go I.
  And let me say, back home in Florida under this Republican plan to 
end Medicare, life will be very different. We need to reject this 
pessimistic Republican plan. On this most important vote, I urge my 
colleagues to save Medicare and keep the promise of health security and 
dignity for older Americans.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let me say a couple of things. Let's look at current law that was 
passed here not too long ago, the President's health care law. We've 
all done town hall meetings where people have said: Why do you keep 
raiding the Social Security trust fund? Stop the raid of Social 
Security. We agree; that was wrong. We shouldn't have done it, and now 
we're out of surplus.
  Well, guess what, the current health care law raids Medicare. The 
current President's health care law takes $682 billion out of Medicare 
to spend on the ObamaCare entitlement. We're ending the raid of 
Medicare. We're making sure that those savings go to making Medicare 
solvent. It only gets it to 2021.
  More to the point, Mr. Chairman, we believe that seniors should be in 
charge. We believe that the best way to make Medicare better is to give 
seniors more choices. Give them the ability to make choices and have 
providers compete against each other for their business.
  Here's the difference: The President wants 15 people to make the 
choices in Medicare. We say let 40 million seniors have choice, have 
power, and have those providers compete against each other for their 
business so they're in charge of their Medicare.
  The President's law, the law today, has him appoint 15 people to 
ration Medicare, and Congress can't even do a thing about it. Their 
decisions go right into law. That's the future of Medicare under the 
current law. The President said, let's throw another trillion on top. 
So here's what happens: When the President is coming up with a need for 
more savings, what does he do, he calls up his Medicare rationing board 
and says, go find another $480 billion.
  That is not the future we want for Medicare. There's a difference 
between us. We don't want to have government ration health care. We 
want people to be in charge of their own health care.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Terry) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________