[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8438-8450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2017, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 287 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 287

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2017) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2012, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled

[[Page 8439]]

     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except for section 536. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of 
     the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition 
     on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
     committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
     recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. (a) Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution 
     on the budget for fiscal year 2012, the provisions of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 34, as adopted by the House, shall have 
     force and effect (with the modification specified in 
     subsection (c)) in the House as though Congress has adopted 
     such concurrent resolution. The allocations printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     shall be considered for all purposes in the House to be the 
     allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 for the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2012.
       (b) The chair of the Committee on the Budget shall adjust 
     the allocations referred to in subsection (a) to accommodate 
     the enactment of general or continuing appropriation Acts for 
     fiscal year 2011 after the adoption of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 34 but before the adoption of this resolution.
       (c) For provisions making appropriations for fiscal year 
     2011, section 3(c) of House Resolution 5 shall have force and 
     effect through September 30, 2011.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 
287 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of 
section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota makes a point 
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentleman from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily 
out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in 
the underlying bill, H.R. 2017, because the bill slashes funding for 
our State and local governments as they prepare against homeland 
security threats and respond to natural disasters.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. ELLISON. Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. ELLISON. The rule states, ``House Concurrent Resolution 34, as 
adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the House as 
though Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution.''
  Does this mean that the rule deems that the Senate will have passed 
H. Con. Res. 34?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The content of the rule will be subject to 
debate.
  Mr. ELLISON. I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the inquiry.
  Mr. ELLISON. So voting ``yes'' on the rule is voting ``yes'' for H. 
Con. Res. 34, the Ryan budget, which ends Medicare; is that right?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is making a 
point for debate.
  Mr. ELLISON. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the inquiry.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, doesn't the Ryan budget end Medicare as we 
know it?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is not stating 
a proper parliamentary inquiry.
  The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I raise this point of order because I think it's important to 
discover whether or not the underlying rule for the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill also deems the Republican plan to end Medicare as 
we know it. It's the only vehicle we've got to actually talk about this 
rule and this bill and how we are being denied the ability to actually 
offer amendments that we would like to, to illuminate what's actually 
happening in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to address our deficit. But 
cutting the lifeline for our seniors is not an act of courage; it's 
actually cowardly. Claiming to reduce the budget deficit on the backs 
of Americans who have paid into their retirement their entire lives not 
only harms American seniors but goes against the basic values of 
fairness and security that Americans cherish.
  Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who 
pay into it their whole lives. It represents the basic American values 
of fairness and respect for those seniors which Americans cherish. 
Siding with lobbyists to give insurance company bureaucrats control of 
Medicare does nothing to address the deficit, but it does a great deal 
to reduce health care for our seniors.
  Let's put America back to work, and let's reject the rule and 
underlying bill by voting ``no'' on this motion to consider.
  I now yield 2 minutes to Mr. Cicilline of the great State of Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to this rule which allows for debate on 
the fiscal year 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  This bill makes dangerous cuts to the Urban Areas Security 
Initiative, or UASI, a program critical to the security of our 
country's urban areas that have been deemed at high risk of terrorist 
attacks. One of those urban areas is Providence, Rhode Island, in my 
congressional district, along with many other communities.
  Just last year, the greater Providence area was one of 64 cities that 
was identified either because of their capital or their critical assets 
or their geography as being areas at most risk of being targeted by 
terrorists.
  As a result of those designations, Providence has been receiving 
critical funding from the Federal Government under the UASI program to 
support efforts to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other 
emergencies. And Providence, under the leadership of Colonel Pete 
Gaynor, became the first city in America to have an accredited 
Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. However, the 
funding cuts to UASI that are contained in this bill will cripple the 
ability of key urban areas like Providence to effectively ensure public 
safety should a terrorist attack occur.

                              {time}  1240

  How?
  The loss of funds will limit the ability of Providence and other 
communities to address cyber-terrorism and to communicate with first 
responders in an emergency, among many other critical emergency 
functions.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's defense must come first. We cannot in good 
conscience spend billions of dollars protecting people all over the 
world at the expense of our own national security. I urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of restoring funding for the Urban Areas Security 
Initiative and against this rule.
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.
  Will the assault on the well-being and the health care of America 
never end? Look over the last 5 months as to

[[Page 8440]]

what has happened here. This bill takes it one more step.
  First is the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act with provisions 
in it to protect Americans from the rapacious appetite of the health 
insurance companies. Providing protections, Republicans would repeal 
that. Then the next step, which we saw just recently in the Republican 
budget, is the termination of Medicare for those who are under 55 years 
of age. What are they to do? Then, for those who are already on 
Medicare, there will be a significant, serious reduction in the 
Medicaid program, which provides essential funding for those seniors in 
nursing homes.
  Will the assault never end?
  Here in this bill, to protect the American homeland is a deeming of 
the Republican budget, which clearly terminates Medicare. Is it never 
going to end? Are we never going to step forward to actually put in 
place legislation that will assist Americans in getting the health care 
that they need?
  Step one, way back: Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. Give 
limitless opportunities to the insurance companies to go after the men 
and women of this Nation--terminating Medicare. Here, coming back in a 
Homeland Security bill, slipping in by sleight of hand a repeal, once 
again, of health care.
  By the way, how is it going to be paid for? You're going to take it 
out of seniors' pockets, but you're not going to go after the oil 
companies? Come on now. The oil companies, the richest industry in the 
world, not paying their fair share and at the same time getting 
subsidies from the American taxpayers?
  It is time for that to end. There are ways to pay for the deficit and 
to bring it down. One of the ways not to do it is to go after seniors.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on our side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 4\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ELLISON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the 
House now consider House Resolution 287?
  While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The 
waiver is prophylactic in nature. Specifically, the Committee on Rules 
is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act nor 
has the Congressional Budget Office notified the Rules Committee of any 
violation of the act. Additionally, the open rule before the House 
today allows any Member of Congress to amend or strike any provision of 
the bill, which is the ultimate failsafe.
  In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for 
the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of 
consideration of the resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. There is a lot of talk and legalese about what is 
going on today, but the reality is what the Republicans are trying to 
do underneath all of that legalese language is to enshrine in law the 
Republican Ryan budget. By voting for the rule, what you do is to put 
into force that budget.
  What does that budget do? It ends Medicare.
  Now, there are people who resent that term--that oh, no, we're really 
going to save it. Well, I'm going to tell you, when you take away the 
guaranteed benefits of Medicare--that's what seniors get right now--for 
people 55 and under, they are thrown into the not-so-loving arms of the 
insurance companies, and their costs will increase out of their own 
pockets by about $6,000. That's what the bill does.
  The bill also turns Medicaid upside down, which is not only the 
health care plan for poor children in the United States but also the 
largest payer for nursing homes and home health care. That is the 
single biggest part of Medicaid--paying for nursing home care and home 
health care. So it's another slap at the seniors.
  The other thing that the legislation does is to offer more tax breaks 
for the wealthiest Americans. It lowers the tax rates for corporation, 
many of which aren't even paying any taxes right now, a couple of which 
got tax refunds from the government. You've got major companies paying 
fewer taxes than ordinary Americans. That's what this does.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield the lady an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The American people aren't stupid. They will 
understand that this is another doubling down on cutting Medicare. It 
will be apparent by the end of this day.
  Mr. REED. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be creating jobs, not destroying Medicare. We 
should be preserving what has made America great, which is the basic 
sense that we are all in this thing together.
  Yes, it is absolutely true that people should go out into the private 
sector and try their luck in the free market--skill, ingenuity and all 
that--but America has always had a strong public sector, which has been 
essential to the survival and the success of that private sector: fair 
rules, good infrastructure, good jobs, times in America, like during 
the Depression, when Eisenhower led us to build and create that 
infrastructure. Then in 1968, when we created Medicare, this country 
has been at its best. Yes, a private sector but also a strong, vibrant 
public sector.
  We are at a point in American history today when at least the 
Republican caucus believes we don't need a public sector. We just don't 
need one. We may need one, maybe, for military stuff, but beyond that, 
they just don't see a purpose for it. I believe Americans think that 
things like Medicare, infrastructure development, Social Security, and 
things like the GI Bill are important parts of what make America 
``America'' because they are how we recognize as Americans that we are 
all in this thing together, that our senior citizens will not be 
abandoned, that our GIs coming back will not be left behind, that 
communities which need police, fire and EMT services will not just be 
left to the ravages of others.
  We need an American commitment to Social Security and Medicare, and 
that's what we're going to be arguing for today. The American people 
can count on the Democratic Caucus to never abandon our seniors even as 
Republicans want to take Medicare apart as a program that has served so 
many people so well. You want to do something to change Medicare? Why 
don't we let Medicare negotiate drug prices. That could probably save 
us several billion dollars a year, as much as $53 billion a year. 
Republicans don't want to do that because they've got their interests 
to protect.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I will note that each of the comments that 
have been offered from the other side are not relevant to the point of 
order.
  Yet, in response to the comments that have been tendered by my 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle, I would say that 
Republicans are not here to destroy Medicare. They are here to save 
Medicare.
  We have put forth a responsible plan that has been openly and 
continuously debated in the public forum and in this Chamber about how 
we're going to move forward with the problem that we have in Medicare. 
It is a problem we cannot deny. Both sides of the aisle know that 
Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy. We have put forth a plan. We have 
put forth a plan that guarantees that we can deal with the problem in 
such a way that those who are on Medicare are not impacted and that 
those within a generation of retiring into Medicare are not impacted. 
Yet we're villainized by the other side for allegedly throwing grandma 
off the cliff--for taking away Medicare.

                              {time}  1250

  That is not being honest with the American public. We will be honest

[[Page 8441]]

with the American public. We recognize the problem in Medicare. We put 
forth a plan. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not put 
forth a plan to deal with the problem. They want to engage in 
electioneering, politicking, and looking at the reelection efforts for 
2012.
  Well, we are here as members of this caucus and as Members of this 
body to deal with the problems of America in an honest and open 
fashion, and that is what we will do.
  The House-passed budget guarantees that seniors will have coverage 
that is affordable. The House-passed budget guarantees seniors will be 
able to find a plan. It does not end Medicare as we know it. It does 
not throw our seniors off the cliff. It is a responsible plan that 
leads us to a situation that deals with the problem of Medicare that is 
a known problem. If we want to continue to live in denial and not be 
honest with the American public, then I tell the American people: 
follow the Democratic proposal of engaging in name-calling rather than 
sitting down and engaging in problem-solving. That's what we're about.
  At this point in time, I urge my colleagues to continue the 
consideration of the underlying rule and reject this point of order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 183, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 380]

                               YEAS--234

     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
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     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)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     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)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     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)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     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
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     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
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Braley (IA)
     Duffy
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Lucas
     Myrick
     Olson
     Richmond
     Schwartz
     Tierney
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters

                              {time}  1316

  Mr. REICHERT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
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. REED. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REED. House Resolution 287 provides for an open rule for 
consideration of H.R. 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 287, to 
provide the rule for H.R. 2017, the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 2012. I am proud to be managing this rule, the 
first truly open rule since July 31, 2007, an Agriculture 
appropriations bill in the 110th Congress. The 112th Congress has made 
it clear that it supports an open process, and this rule exemplifies 
this initiative. For 119 Members of the 112th Congress, this is their 
first experience with an open rule, including six members of the Rules 
Committee. I am proud to be part of this body and this conference that 
is engaged in this transparency in government and this open process. 
Throughout the entire 111th Congress, only 810 amendments were 
considered. Only 6 months into this, the 112th Congress, 437 amendments 
have been considered.
  The leadership of this Congress is directly listening to the American 
people

[[Page 8442]]

and their call for an open and transparent process. In addition, this 
bill also follows the promise that we have made to the American people 
in that it does not include any earmarks either in the underlying bill 
or in the conference report. This commitment is what Americans desire 
and deserve, and this will continue the process in this Congress that 
we have committed ourselves to the American people to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, not only does this rule before the House drastically 
shortchange Homeland Security priorities, but this rule puts into force 
by deeming and passing the Republican budget resolution.
  This rule, section 2, states very clearly that the Republican budget 
resolution shall have force and effect. That is the traditional 
language of a deem and pass. Yes, this budget deems passed the 
elimination of Medicare in order to keep in place tax cuts for the 
highest earners and tax breaks for oil.

                              {time}  1320

  And while I do thank the majority for offering up the first open rule 
during my tenure in the House, I ask at what price. Well, I think there 
would be broad bipartisan support for an open rule. I, for one, cannot 
support a rule that deems passed the elimination of Medicare. Americans 
resoundingly opposed the approach of dismantling Medicare. They want us 
to put our economy on more secure fiscal footing and do it while 
strengthening our economy, creating jobs and mending, not ending, 
Medicare.
  I would like to quote former Minority Leader John Boehner in 
reference to the approach of ``deem and pass'' that was considered by 
the then-majority Democrats with regard to the health care bill. Then-
Minority Leader Boehner said, ``This legislative trick has been around 
for a long time, but it's never been used for a bill so controversial 
and so massive in scope.''
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. I will not yield.
  What could be more massive than an elimination of Medicare contained 
in a rule rather than approach a simple vote on appropriations with 
regard to Medicare, cutting Medicare, bills with regard to Medicare 
reform?
  This is the most sweeping rule that I've certainly ever faced in my 
time in the House of Representatives, and I think many of my colleagues 
agree.
  The passage of this rule alone would simply end Medicare as we know 
it by construing in the deem and pass of the bill itself the operative 
language. And let me explain how this works for some of our colleagues.
  Rules have broad authority. And I know the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, Mr. Dreier, will on his own time be able to talk of it. The 
Rules Committee, by the good graces of the House with our rules passing 
the House, has the ability to accomplish whatever the House allows us 
to through a rule.
  So in this rule, the House will deem under section 2 that the Ryan 
budget, the budget that ends Medicare, the Republican budget, shall 
have force and effect until a conference report passes and that will 
likely not occur unless the Republicans alter their negotiating 
position vis-a-vis the Senate and vis-a-vis the President.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on eliminating Medicare contained in 
section 2 of this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he my consume to the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I'm 
particularly glad that you're in the chair because it was a speech that 
you delivered last September in which you said that we were going to, 
in fact, if we won the majority, put into place an entire new structure 
that we had seen under neither political party over the preceding 
years, that is, the kind of openness, transparency, and accountability 
that the American people have said overwhelmingly that they want.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, let me just say to you personally how much I 
appreciate the stellar leadership that you've provided us on this very 
important issue.
  It is extraordinarily ironic that we last night saw the minority 
members of the Rules Committee actually vote ``no'' on the first open 
rule to be considered here in the House of Representatives. And yet 
over the past several months, they've been offering amendment after 
amendment in the Rules Committee calling for open rules. And so we 
report one out, and they vote ``no.''
  Now, the other thing that I think is very important for us to 
recognize is that we have important challenges that are ahead of us as 
it relates to Homeland Security. My colleague managing this rule who, 
by the way, is one of the two floor managers, neither of whom has been 
able to see an open rule in the House of Representatives up to this 
moment, my friend didn't even mention the very important underlying 
legislation that is before us.
  The distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations, my 
friend, Mr. Rogers, is here. He and Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Price, and others 
on that subcommittee have worked very hard to deal with this priority 
item. Mr. Rogers had served in the leadership on this subcommittee in 
the past and continues to have a great interest in it.
  And we should note that as we look at this new procedure that hasn't 
been considered since, as my friend from Corning said, July 31 of 2007, 
what we have is a structure whereby Members will have the opportunity 
to stand up and offer amendments.
  And I listened to my friend from Providence, our new colleague, Mr. 
Cicilline, who said that he opposes this bill because of the fact that 
it makes a cut that he didn't like. Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know very 
well, under this rule Mr. Cicilline or any other Member of this House 
will be able to stand up and if they can find offsets, they can have a 
vote on the amendment addressing their particular priority.
  I also have to say that in the Rules Committee our good friend from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price) was before us talking about his concerns. 
And he asked for a waiver from the Rules Committee, nearly 
unprecedented, that would have gone beyond the standard definition of 
an open rule and provided him extraordinary protection for a priority 
which he thinks needs to be addressed. Well, Mr. Speaker, under this 
open amendment process, Mr. Price will again be able to offer an 
amendment that he will be able to, if he can find an offset, have a 
vote on here in the House.
  Now I want to talk about this issue that my friend from Boulder 
addressed just a few moments ago and that we continue to hear over and 
over and over again. This so-called ``deem and pass.'' This is not, Mr. 
Speaker, a deem-and-pass provision. I will remind my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle we have already passed, with a very rigorous debate 
here on the House floor, the budget. We've passed it already.
  Now, so that we are able to move ahead with the important 
appropriations work with the 302 allocations that need to be done, it 
is essential that we deem this budget because we have yet to have a 
conference report. We've yet to see our friends in the other body pass 
out a budget. And so it is essential that we deem, which has been done 
since virtually the beginning of time, to make sure that we can proceed 
with our very important work.
  Tough decisions need to be made. Under the leadership of Speaker 
Boehner, we are poised to make those tough decisions. Mr. Speaker, it's 
important that we have a strong, bipartisan vote for the first of what 
will be more and more open rules in the 112th Congress. I urge my 
colleagues to support this.
  I look forward to sitting where Speaker Boehner is right now to 
preside over the first appropriation bill that will be considered under 
an open amendment process, and I look forward to a very rigorous 
debate.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself 30 seconds.

[[Page 8443]]

  Of course while the underlying merits of the Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill are critical, and if the rule passes 
they'll be debated under the underlying rule, eliminating Medicare as 
we know it is even more important to the American people. Hence the 
discussion under this rule as well.
  I should point out that while this is an open rule, again as a member 
of the minority I'm deeply appreciative for the chance to amend the 
provisions of the Department of Homeland Security bill. If this rule 
passes, it will be too late to save Medicare under the bill. The very 
passage of this rule itself will deem passed the budget that contains 
the elimination of Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the 
ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.
  Mr. LEVIN. This is indeed an open rule in the sense it's so open that 
if you vote for the rule, you're voting to end Medicare.
  Republicans have done this once. If you vote for this, you're going 
to do it twice. And the gentleman who is handling this for the majority 
earlier talked about Medicare and said the Republicans are trying to 
save it. You don't save something by ending it. Purely and simply. And 
to come to this floor and say you're saving it when you're ending it, 
that kind of talk is a big lie.
  We heard this with Social Security some years ago when the effort to 
privatize it was said to be an effort to save it. The public caught on. 
And the public said no. The public has now said ``no'' to ending 
Medicare. But, essentially, you're tone deaf.
  Now, you're doubling down on your plan to end it, a plan that would 
force seniors to pay twice as much for their health care, a plan that 
increases seniors' drug costs, and a plan that puts insurance companies 
in charge of seniors' health care.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. REED. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will finish.
  So instead of a bipartisan effort to save it, by this rule you are 
essentially deeming the budget that you passed that ended Medicare, 
period.
  So don't come and say you're saviors when you're eliminating a 
program. Stand up and be honest and say you want to replace it with 
something else. That something else is not Medicare. It's turning it 
over to the private insurance industry and saying to seniors who become 
eligible, who would be, instead, you are going to see double your 
costs. That's not forthright.
  If you vote ``yes'' on the rule, you are the second time voting to 
end Medicare.


                      Announcement by the Speaker

  The SPEAKER. The Chair will remind Members that their remarks should 
be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from New York, 
I would just like to make it clear that in our House-passed budget, on 
page 58, lines 8 and 9, it is clearly articulated there that current 
Medicare benefits are preserved for those in and near retirement 
without changes.
  I would also note for the record, to clarify and make sure the record 
is very clear, that the budget that we are talking about is not going 
to be presented to the President and enacted into law. What we are 
talking about here is nothing about ending Medicare as we know it.
  At this point in time, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
chairman, Mr. King from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  At the outset, let me say I am proud to vote for this rule because it 
is an open rule, and I commend the Speaker for doing this. It's really 
an important step forward, I believe, in the history of this House.
  Let me say also that, very reluctantly, in its current form, I will 
have to vote against final passage of this bill. I say this because we 
are at a stage now where the threat level, the homeland security threat 
level is the highest it's been since September 11. The killing of bin 
Laden has only made that worse. We know also from bin Laden's own 
records that he is aiming at maritime, he is aiming at mass transit, 
and he is aiming at our major cities. Yet we are cutting each of those 
programs by 50 percent, a fifty percent cut.
  Now, I can speak for New York in that I can tell you we have a 
thousand police officers. We have a Lower Manhattan security 
initiative. We have radiation detection. I can go through a whole list 
of programs. Every dollar in those programs can be accounted for. And I 
just cannot see why, at a time when the threat level is the highest 
it's been since September 11, that we are reducing Homeland Security 
grants by 50 percent.
  The Department was set up in the aftermath of September 11 to fight 
terror, yet those grants are being reduced. And I know there is 
anecdotal evidence that this program isn't working, that isn't working. 
I would say specify what's not working, but don't take a meat axe. 
Don't cut across the board the way it's being done here. We're talking 
about human life. We're talking about just a terrible threat to our 
cities, terrible threat to our ports, terrible threat to mass transit.
  And for those--and I understand the need to cut. I understand that 
need tremendously. Having said that, even from my strictly budgetary 
point of view, you have one dirty bomb go off in one subway in Boston, 
New York, or Chicago, and apart from the tragic loss of human life, 
apart from the tragic loss of human life there will be incalculable 
economic devastation, which will also cost billions and billions of 
dollars of lost revenue and jobs and have a terrible impact.
  I lived through September 11. I know what it did to New York. I know 
the impact it had then. I don't want any other city, any other area in 
the country to go through that again. And yet we're reducing our 
defenses at a time when they are most needed.
  So with that, I would just ask all the Members to give Chairman 
Rogers the credit, give Chairman Aderholt the credit, but unfortunately 
I have to vote against this.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, again, while the majority is claiming this to 
be an open rule, the very passage of the rule itself deems passed the 
Republican budget that ends Medicare. That will not be amendable in any 
way, shape, or form in the general debate. All that will be amendable 
are provisions relating to the Department of Homeland Security.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member 
of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an ordinary House rule we will be voting on 
today. The resolution deems the provisions of the Republican budget to 
have ``full force and effect.'' In other words, a vote on the rule 
today is essentially another vote on the Republican budget plan that 
protects subsidies for the Big Oil companies, while ending the Medicare 
guarantee and slashing investments in education. Those wrongheaded 
priorities were thoroughly rejected in the recent special election in 
New York.
  The American people clearly oppose a one-sided plan that would 
immediately reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole and tells 
seniors that in 10 years they will pay $9,000 more for their current 
set of benefits or take deep cuts in those benefits.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the median income of seniors on Medicare is 
less than $21,000 a year. What kind of budget says we're going to 
require seniors with median incomes of $21,000 a year to pay $9,000 
more in just 10 years while cutting the rate for millionaires, the top 
marginal tax rate for millionaires by 30 percent? What kind of budget 
would do it? Well, the budget that was passed by the Republicans a few 
months ago and the one they're doubling down on today.
  We have to have a balanced budget plan. We have to have a plan that 
addresses this from all aspects, not a plan that the former Speaker of 
the House described as a radical plan that was driven by right-wing 
social engineering.
  It is very ironic that on the very day we will be swearing in the 
next Member

[[Page 8444]]

of Congress from New York's 26th District that we will be voting again 
on a budget that the people of that district, like people around the 
country, rejected because--the former Speaker of the House had it 
right--it was radical and right wing and not the right plan for 
America.
  The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  The question we're facing here is what is the best way forward. We 
all understand we have to have a budget deficit plan that's predictable 
and addresses that issue, but why in the world would we adopt a one-
sided approach that has those priorities, that says we're going to 
slash Medicare and give tax cuts for the wealthy?
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues from 
the other side of the aisle that the budget that they so referenced 
went through an open process. It was subject to debate. It was amended 
in this Chamber and passed by this body. And if they are so disinclined 
to approve that budget or stand with that budget, I would ask them to 
reach out to their colleagues in the opposing Chamber over in the 
Senate who have not passed a budget for the last 762 days and take the 
matter up with them.
  At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I understand why this might be confusing to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle. After all, they didn't bother to pass a budget last 
year. Our friends on the other side of the Rotunda in the Senate didn't 
bother to pass a budget this year. We have a budget crisis. We've got a 
$1.5 trillion deficit. We've got a debt that is getting out of our 
control. And what do you do when you have a problem like that? You pass 
a budget.
  The reason we're doing what we're doing today is because our partners 
on the other side of the Rotunda in the Senate didn't pass a budget. 
House Republicans did. We passed a budget. And we're acknowledging and 
living within that budget. If our friends on the other side of the 
aisle bothered to pass a budget, we wouldn't be in the situation where 
we are today.
  Now, let's discuss about what our budget does and what it does not 
do. Number one, because we have a debt crisis, we think we have a moral 
obligation to our constituents, our children, and our grandchildren to 
put our budget on a path to balance and to pay off our national debt. 
We also think we need to put our economy on a path to prosperity so we 
can get job creation.
  Let's, for a moment, talk about Medicare. Medicare as we know it is 
already gone. Our friends on the other side of the aisle, when they 
passed the Affordable Care Act, they stopped the Medicare status quo. 
Under the President's new health care law, that ends Medicare as we 
know it. It does two things: It raids Medicare, and it rations 
Medicare. It takes $500 billion from Medicare to spend on the 
President's new health care law. It doesn't take that money to extend 
its solvency.
  Just like people have complained for years we're raiding the Social 
Security trust fund and we should stop doing that, the President's 
health care law does that to Medicare now.

                              {time}  1340

  The second thing it does, starting next year, the President will 
appoint 15 unelectable, unaccountable bureaucrats to put in charge of 
Medicare, to price control and to ration Medicare for current seniors. 
What's worse is the President and the Senate still have yet to put out 
a plan to save Medicare to prevent it from going bankrupt.
  We stop the raid of Medicare in our budget and make sure that half a 
trillion dollars stays in Medicare to advance its solvency.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will not yield.
  Number two, we repeal the rationing board so that we don't put 
bureaucrats in charge of determining what kind of health care benefits 
seniors do or do not get; and, number 3, we save Medicare.
  The way in which we do this is this. We say that if you are on 
Medicare, if you are 10 years away from retiring at 55 and above, 
government already made a promise to you. We want government to keep 
that promise.
  So under our budget we keep that promise. We stop the raid, we repeal 
the rationing board. And for those of us who are 54 and below, who have 
a bankrupt system that we right now cannot count on, we reform it so 
that it works like the system Members of Congress and Federal employees 
have. It's a system that looks like Medicare Advantage or the drug 
benefit that works today, where seniors get a choice of plans offered 
to them by Medicare, guaranteed coverage options from which they can 
choose, and Medicare subsidizes that plan. It doesn't subsidize people 
as much if they are wealthy, and it subsidizes them a lot more if they 
are low income, if they are sick.
  This saves Medicare. This puts Medicare on a path to solvency and, 
more importantly, by saving it for future generations we can keep the 
promise to the current generation. We repeal the rationing board, we 
stop the raid, and we save the program.
  That's what our budget proposed to do, but with respect to this rule, 
we are talking about discretionary spending. We are talking about 
paying the bills this year for all those different government agencies.
  We simply think Congress should function the way the Founders 
envisioned it where we actually pass budgets, we actually scrutinize 
spending, and we actually finance government's functions and its 
agencies. We are not dunking our responsibility; we are passing our 
budgets. Because we are deeming those numbers in this year's bill, it 
is simply because of the fact that nobody else around here seems to be 
bothered with passing budgets.
  The President hasn't put out a plan to fix the problem and the Senate 
has, for a second year in a row, failed to even pass a budget. We are 
leading, we are saving Medicare, we are getting the debt under control, 
and we are working to create jobs in this economy and we are governing 
by actually paying the bills and passing our appropriation bills.

Revisions to the Allocations of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution 
   Related to Legislation Reported by the Committee on Appropriations

       Mr. Speaker, pursuant to sections 301 of H. Con. Res. 34, 
     the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2012, I 
     hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record 
     revisions to the budget allocations set forth pursuant to the 
     budget for fiscal year 2012. The revision is for new budget 
     authority and outlays reported by the Committee on 
     Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which are 
     designated for the Global War on Terrorism. A corresponding 
     table is attached.
       This revision represents an adjustment pursuant to sections 
     302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended (Budget Act). For the purposes of the Budget Act, 
     these revised allocations are to be considered as allocations 
     included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 301 of 
     H. Con. Res. 34.
                                                        Paul Ryan,
                                 Chairman, House Budget Committee.

  ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Action..............................      BA     1,019,402
                                                        OT     1,224,119
Adjustment for Global War on Terrorism............      BA           258
Reported by Subcommittee on Homeland Security.....      OT           206
Total Discretionary Action........................      BA     1,019,660
                                                        OT     1,224,325
Current Law Mandatory.............................      BA       745,700
                                                        OT       734,871
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. POLIS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much.
  I rise in opposition to this Republican attempt to deem their budget 
passed, just deem it passed so that we can begin with this process. 
It's just wrong. It's not the way we should be conducting business, but 
it's the way they have been operating all year.

[[Page 8445]]

  Recently, radio evangelist Harold Camping calculated that the world 
would end at precisely 6 p.m. on May 21. Well, he was wrong. But much 
like Harold Camping's wildly inaccurate predictions, the House 
Republicans have come up with their own apocalyptic vision, the 
Republican Rapture. This budget decides who gets lifted up into the 
economic stratosphere and who gets left behind.
  Under this scheme, if you are a millionaire or a billionaire, you get 
raptured into heaven with all of your tax breaks remaining intact. But 
if you are Grandma and Grandpa, and you are dependent upon Medicare in 
order to take care of your health care needs, you get moved to 
political purgatory. That's their plan.
  Now, if you are one of the big five oil companies that are reporting 
record profits, you get raptured with all of your tax breaks left 
intact in this budget, which we are debating here today. You keep all 
of your tax breaks.
  But if you are a college kid hoping to get a Pell Grant, no, ladies 
and gentlemen, you are back in political purgatory. Your educational 
future is in question.
  Now, if you are an insurance company executive and you are now really 
rapturously happy because of the privatization of Medicare and the 
incredibly increased profits for the insurance industry, you are up 
here in heaven. You get raptured. This is the budget we are debating 
right now. Good news for all these wealthy people.
  But if you have Alzheimer's or cancer and you are hoping to find 
medical breakthroughs, they are cutting the NIH budget, the national 
institutes of hope budget, to find a cure for those diseases. Your 
hopes and dreams go to political purgatory.
  And if you have any hopes at all of having Medicare be saved, well, 
their budget guarantees that Medicare gets privatized, that Medicare is 
ended as we know it.
  The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MARKEY. And that Medicare budget is completely and totally 
smashed.
  So there is your debate here today, ladies and gentlemen. Are you 
with billionaires, Big Insurance, Big Oil? Are you with Grandma and 
Grandpa, making sure that Medicare remains intact for the years ahead, 
honoring the promise that we made to them for giving us this great 
country that we live in today. That's the vote today.
  Vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on Grandma, vote ``no'' on that Republican 
budget, and protect Grandma's health care into the future.
  Mr. REED. I would like to submit section 501 of House Concurrent 
Resolution 34 for the Record as we seem to be commenting about it to a 
great extent this afternoon. I just want the record to be clear.

     SEC. 501. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 46 million Americans depend on Medicare for 
     their health security.
       (2) The Medicare Trustees report has repeatedly recommended 
     that Medicare's long-term financial challenges be addressed 
     soon. Each year without reform, the financial condition of 
     Medicare becomes more precarious and the threat to those in 
     and near retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office--
       (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 
     2020 and unable to pay scheduled benefits; and
       (B) Medicare spending is growing faster than the economy. 
     Medicare outlays are currently rising at a rate of 7.2 
     percent per year, and under CBO's alternative fiscal 
     scenario, mandatory spending on Medicare is projected to 
     reach 7 percent of GDP by 2035 and 14 percent of GDP by 2080.
       (3) Failing to address this problem will leave millions of 
     American seniors without adequate health security and younger 
     generations burdened with enormous debt to pay for spending 
     levels that cannot be sustained.
       (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution to protect those in and near retirement from any 
     disruptions to their Medicare benefits and offer future 
     beneficiaries the same health care options available to 
     Members of Congress.
       (c) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes reform of the 
     Medicare program such that:
       (1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those in 
     and near retirement, without changes.
       (2) For future generations, when they reach eligibility, 
     Medicare is reformed to provide a premium support payment and 
     a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which 
     recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs.
       (3) Medicare will provide additional assistance for lower-
     income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks.
       (4) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and the 
     Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-term.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Nugent).
  Mr. NUGENT. I would like to thank my friend from New York (Mr. Reed), 
also a Rules Committee member that I serve with, for the opportunity to 
support this rule and support the underlying legislation, H.R. 2017, 
which appropriates funds for our Nation's Homeland Security operations 
for 2012.
  Just a comment: I thought that's what we are here to talk about, and 
so we are going to go back on track in regards to where we should be. 
As a member of the Rules Committee, I am proud of this rule. It is the 
first open rule in 4 years, Mr. Speaker, and that's because of you.
  It's a continuation of our promise to the American people that we are 
committed to bringing openness and free-flowing debate to this Chamber 
as a service to the American public. And just like the rule keeps our 
promises to the American people, so does the underlying legislation.
  It keeps our promise to reduce spending, to narrow the size and scope 
of the Federal Government. It also keeps our promise to provide those 
men and women who work day in and day out to keep our Nation safe with 
the tools and the resources they need.
  I have heard a lot about local first responders in connection with 
this bill. Mr. Speaker, I spent my entire career in law enforcement. I 
spent the last 40 years as a cop, and the last 10 of those years I 
served as a sheriff of a county in Florida.
  You don't need to tell me about what our local first responders need. 
I know it firsthand, I have lived it. And I can tell you this: We need 
to follow the local example that those folks in Florida and across this 
Nation and States have shown us. Our local police and firefighters know 
how to do more with less, one thing the Federal Government has never 
quite grasped.
  Would you like to have more money? Sure we would. But they understand 
our Nation is in a dire fiscal situation, and what they want more than 
anything else is for America to be here for their future and their 
children and grandchildren's future.

                              {time}  1350

  When I was sheriff, I was faced with budget shortages, and I made 
tough cuts. I eliminated programs I'm sure that I would have loved to 
have kept in place, but they didn't meet the core mission that I was 
elected to do. That's how local government works, Mr. Speaker, and 
Washington needs to learn from local governments in regards to how to 
get their act together as it relates to spending.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2017 is a good bill, and I applaud the 
Appropriations Committee for their commitment to our homeland security. 
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation and support the open rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi, the ranking member on Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule for H.R. 2017, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act of 2012.
  This year marks the 10th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist 
attacks. As Americans began to process the carnage inflicted by Osama 
bin Laden on our soil, then-President Bush challenged us as a nation to 
``confront every threat from any source that could bring sudden terror 
and suffering to America.'' For nearly 10 years, we've done just that. 
We've made major investments in intelligence, border security, 
transportation security, and emergency preparedness.
  H.R. 2017 suddenly veers away from these incremental efforts and, as 
a result, sets our Nation on a dangerously

[[Page 8446]]

wrong path. To cut homeland security preparedness grants by $2.1 
billion at a time when DHS is calling for a period of heightened alert 
because of our successful action against bin Laden is deplorable and 
reckless.
  How we can continue these efforts with an appropriation bill that 
funds DHS at 7 percent below what President Obama tells us that DHS 
needs is beyond me.
  The probability of a terrorist attack on a major domestic transit 
system has not subsided, nor has Mother Nature relented and softened 
the barrage of punishing blows to our communities, including much of my 
own congressional district. This bill sacrifices the security of our 
communities just to save a penny here and a penny there.
  Our first responders must not be treated as pawns to the political 
ideology of the day. It is the decimation of the first responder grant 
programs, at the hands of the Republican leadership, that, by far, is 
the most offensive aspect of this bill.
  The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. The second most offensive aspect of this 
bill is the shenanigans surrounding the funding of disaster 
emergencies. Lastly, ending Medicare in this rule makes absolutely no 
sense.
  For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 2017 and ask my colleagues to join 
me in voting against the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. REED. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee and the 
Budget Committee, I'm excited to be down here today. You told us, Mr. 
Speaker, when this Congress began that we were going to witness one of 
the most open Congresses in this country's history, and you have 
delivered on that each and every day.
  Now, I'm one of the new guys in Congress. I've only been here about 
125 days, but what I saw--we're talking about budgets here today. What 
I saw in the budget process was a leadership team and the chair of the 
Rules Committee who said, Bring me a budget, any budget. I don't care 
who you are, whether you're the most senior Member of this body or the 
most junior Member of this body, bring me a budget, and we will 
consider it on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. 
Come all. Come all. Give us your ideas, and we will consider them.
  Well, we had that process. I voted for two budgets on that budget 
voting day. I voted for the Republican Study Committee budget, which I 
thought was a great budget, and I voted for the Budget Committee's 
budget.
  I sit on the Budget Committee with Paul Ryan, and the Budget 
Committee put in a tremendous amount of work, and that was the budget 
that ended up carrying the day. And so that's the budget we're 
operating under right here today.
  The Homeland Security appropriations bill, the first bill out of the 
chute. And what did you do, Mr. Speaker? You said, Come one, come all. 
If you have an idea about how to improve this appropriations bill, 
bring it to the floor of the House and we'll consider it. Bring it to 
the floor of the House and we'll consider it.
  Now, you might think, if you don't know as much about this House, if 
you're a newcomer like me, you might think it goes on that way all the 
time. But it doesn't because it's hard. It's hard.
  I can only imagine, Mr. Speaker, what you get from folks back home, 
because they probably say to you, close down the process. Push your 
conservative agenda. Do it your way and make people fall in line. And 
you said no. You said the House works best when the House works its 
will. You said any Member of the House that can find 218 Members to 
agree with him can work their will on the floor.
  And that's the process that we're opening up. Not a Republican 
process, not a Democratic process, but an American process where the 
power of the ideas are what rules the day.
  Now, that's taken a huge commitment from the Speaker and a huge 
commitment from the Rules Committee chairman to make this process 
happen and a huge commitment from the Appropriations chairman to make 
this happen. But I'll tell you, for anybody out there who is thinking 
in partisan terms, it takes a commitment from both sides of the aisle. 
Open rules break down when we can't make those open rules work 
together.
  I see my friend, Mr. Polis, from the Rules Committee, who is a strong 
advocate of the open rules process, and here we are for the first time 
since July of 2007. And we're going to find out if we can make this 
work together--a new crowd on your side of the aisle; a new crowd on my 
side of the aisle. We're going to find out if we can make it work 
together. Golly, I hope we can.
  I hope we can, because it's the right thing to do, because I only 
have a voice in this body when I can bring my amendments to the floor. 
I only have a voice in this body when I can represent the 921,000 
people back home. Mr. Speaker, you have given that to us over and over 
again, and I thank you.
  Mr. POLIS. The Democrats have no problem with the open rule. What the 
Democrats have a problem with is the elimination of Medicare, which is 
deemed and passed in the language of the rule itself and cannot be 
amended after the passage of the rule.
  It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, 
the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that is on 
the floor today because voting for this rule is a vote to abolish 
Medicare.
  Here we are, once again, after the public has spoken so clearly on 
this subject of wanting to have Medicare as a pillar of health and 
economic security for our seniors, the Republicans saying we're going 
to double down. Not only did we vote to abolish Medicare, increasing 
costs for seniors, lowering benefits while giving tax breaks to oil 
companies and corporations for shipping jobs overseas, not only have we 
done that once, but we're going to do it again today, on a day that 
we're going to swear in a new Member of Congress, a reminder that all 
of us takes an oath of office to protect and defend.
  And this bill, the bill that this rule comes up on, Homeland 
Security, undermines the ability to protect and defend the American 
people.
  So, this is a double whammy. It's a threat, again, to the health and 
economic security of our seniors and those who depend on Medicare, and 
it is a threat to the safety of the American people.
  I heard my colleague, Mr. Markey, talk about purgatory and rapture 
and the rest in his original and effective presentation, and it 
reminded me what we always say when we talk about a budget: that it 
should be a statement of our values. What is important to us should be 
reflected there.
  Our budget proposals--we had one under the leadership of Chris Van 
Hollen that was heard and voted on by the floor a number of weeks ago; 
a Republican budget that is on the floor today in the form of this 
rule--are windows to the soul of whom we are as public officials. And 
this rule today which deems passage of the Republican budget is a 
window to the soul of the Republican Party and this House of 
Representatives.
  Giving tax subsidies to Big Oil would benefit corporations that shift 
jobs overseas and would give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our 
country while it says to seniors, No more Medicare for you. You're 
going to pay more, get less, and weaken the middle class at the same 
time, weakening the middle class because of abolishing Medicare and 
weakening the middle class because of what it does to education for our 
young children and making college more expensive for nearly 10 million 
young people in our country.

                              {time}  1400

  Is that an investment in the future?
  I don't think so.
  But it's really important when we talk about our soul and our values 
and what our priorities are that we note that a vote for this bill is a 
really serious assault on the middle class. People

[[Page 8447]]

are concerned about the dignity and retirement of our seniors. They are 
concerned about the education of our children. They want to reduce the 
deficit. We must create jobs. Growth in our economy will help reduce 
the deficit. This bill does none of the above.
  So, again, it's about what we believe in.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to give you credit for this, that the Republicans 
are true to what they believe in. They do not believe in Medicare, and 
they are voting today to honor their beliefs to abolish Medicare. That 
has been a consistent message over time. It is reinforced here today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I feel it is necessary to again correct the 
record that what we have done in the proposal that has just been 
referenced by my colleague from California is not to destroy Medicare; 
it is to save Medicare. In an open and honest way, it's to deal with 
the problem that we all know Medicare faces. It clearly states in the 
document, in the resolution that was passed, that any senior who is in 
Medicare, on Medicare or within a generation of retiring into Medicare 
will not be impacted by anything that we do in that budget.
  I would also remind my colleague from California that we stand here 
today under a proposed open rule, where this body, this Chamber, will 
be able to express its will in an open and traditional process of open 
amendments.
  Let me make clear to the American people what that means. That means 
that any elected Member of this Congress can come down and speak the 
voice of his or her constituents and offer amendments that can be 
debated on the floor of this House in an open and transparent manner--
on TV, in their living rooms--so that the American people know what we 
are doing in this Chamber.
  I applaud you, Mr. Speaker, for honoring that commitment that you set 
forth when you assumed that chair.
  At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
  I will tell you, I've been here for 5 months; and a few moments ago I 
was as angry as I've been in a long time because, this afternoon, we 
heard the injection of a Judeo-Christian event that I was taught as a 
little boy is precious to my faith and to the tenets of Judeo-
Christians around this world.
  I cannot sit and not rise and object and ask everyone in this body: 
Please let's identify limits to what we will say and where we will go, 
because what we say here the world listens to; but more importantly, 
the God that we pray to listens, too.
  So it bothers me greatly. I am angered--angered--at what I heard and 
what I witnessed. In trying to be in control of my emotions, I would 
just ask everyone: Please let's not inject religious events that many 
of us are looking forward to in our futures.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. POLIS. A point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. If this rule is passed, would an amendment be germane that 
would restore Medicare under the budget?
  The SPEAKER. The Chair does not respond to hypothetical questions.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. So 5 months. One of my freshman 
colleagues said 125 days in the Republican majority and no jobs bill.
  In fact, all you've tried to do is change Medicare as we know it to 
make vulnerable seniors pay more and get less. Oh, then you're also 
making education cuts to go after the dreams and aspirations of our 
young people. That's the Republican way.
  Today, we consider this rule and the Homeland Security's 
appropriations bill where you actually cut 60 percent of the moneys 
that the Federal Government sends to our local cities--yes, those 
cities that are struggling, those cities that protect us. We don't 
protect the American people from the Capitol. It's the local law 
enforcement, the local fire department, the local hospitals. If a 
terrorist attack or a natural disaster happens, the local responders 
are the ones who first help the American people, and you're cutting the 
money. They're already under attack at the local level. They have 
already let firemen and policemen go, and now you're taking away 60 
percent of the moneys that we send to protect the American people. What 
is troubling is that you're limiting the cities where we send some of 
this money, like under the Urban Areas Security Initiative.
  The SPEAKER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. You're cutting moneys to places 
like Las Vegas and Orlando and my hometown of Anaheim, California, 
where Disneyland is. The American people deserve to be protected, and 
this Congress should get its priorities straight.
  Mr. REED. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. In just moments from now, we will have a new Democratic 
colleague from my home State of New York. The Democratic Congresswoman-
elect hails from the most Republican district in my State, a district 
that John McCain won in 2008.
  Just one week ago, voters in her conservative-leaning district 
resoundingly rejected the Republican plan to end Medicare. Apparently, 
the Republican majority here in Washington didn't get the message. 
Voting to end Medicare once was not enough for them. The rule vote that 
we are about to take will, once again, deem the Ryan plan to end 
Medicare as enacted and will put us on a road to ruin where seniors 
will see out-of-pocket expenses skyrocket by at least $6,000 every year 
as Medicare is ended so as to continue the handouts of tens of billions 
of dollars to oil companies.
  In a few moments, after they've finished voting to end Medicare 
again, I hope that as my Republican colleagues congratulate our New 
York colleague on her election they will see her as yet another face 
and as yet another voice, an outspoken voice, to save Medicare.
  Mr. REED. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if this rule passes, an amendment will not be 
in order to restore Medicare under the bill. Again, while this claims 
to be an open rule--and it is for purposes of Department of Homeland 
Security amendments--it cannot be amended to undo the budget that is 
deemed passed in the rule, itself.
  With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which will end 
Medicare as we know it, and also to the underlying bill, which reduces 
Homeland Security grants by 50 percent to our cities, to our ports, to 
our transit.
  Is there any reason to believe, I ask my Republican colleagues, that 
there is a 50 percent reduction in threat?
  If anything, law enforcement tells us that the number of threats is 
up since the death of Osama bin Laden. Police Commissioner Kelly, in 
New York City, tells me that since 9/11 there have been 13 serious 
terrorist attempts, and six of these were focused on mass transit, 
which has been cut by 50 percent.
  We need to remember what law enforcement has told us: that our 
antiterrorist efforts have to be right every day, every hour, every 
second, every time. Yet terrorists just have to be lucky once.
  I ask my Republican colleagues: What would be the impact on the loss 
of lives and on our economy if we were attacked again as they are 
trying to do? The chatter is up. Law enforcement tells us the threat is 
up, not down. So why are we cutting it 50 percent?

[[Page 8448]]



                              {time}  1410

  My Republican colleagues, I say to you that you are not just gambling 
with dollars; you are gambling with lives. It is not a gamble Democrats 
are willing to take.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Yoder).
  Mr. YODER. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that we are debating here 
today so that we can debate a bill on homeland security. Now, that 
might come as a surprise to many who are watching this debate, or to 
the Speaker or anyone else in this Chamber today, that we are actually 
debating a rule that deals with homeland security.
  Now, the fantasy discussion going on on the left right now on any 
topic that comes to mind might be entertaining to some, but for the 
rest of this country, they would love to see this body actually debate 
issues that are on topic, and that issue is homeland security. Agencies 
like Border Patrol, ICE agents, Coast Guard personnel, the Secret 
Service, funding for all sorts of agencies, $1 billion for FEMA 
disaster relief fund, are these not issues important enough to discuss 
on the floor today?
  The bill prohibits the use of funds to move detainees at Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba, into the United States and denies them immigration benefits 
such as visas, admission into the United States, and classification as 
refugees, all sorts of things that are critical to homeland security, 
to protecting Americans from terrorism, keeping Americans safe.
  And we are doing it under an open rule, and that is the issue on this 
rule debate. For the first time in 4 years, we are debating an 
appropriations bill that affects hundreds of millions of Americans 
related to homeland security, and we are allowing every side to bring 
amendments down to the floor and to discuss those issues.
  This is a critical moment. No matter how many times the folks on the 
left want to come forward and obfuscate or change the subject, that's 
fine, we can have those debates. And we will continue to have those 
debates. But we are debating today a rule that will allow this body, in 
an open fashion for the first time in anyone's memory, to debate an 
open rule on homeland security. If you have an amendment that is 
germane to the bill, bring it. If it is found worthy, it will pass. 
This is the process that we used in committee, and it worked. We 
produced a good piece of legislation that will provide for the security 
of the homeland.
  We have an opportunity today to seriously debate the topic that is 
before us on homeland security. No matter how many times the left 
attempts to change the subject from what we are talking about, we know 
that the homeland security of our country, protecting us from 
terrorism, is a critical issue and we will debate it, no matter how 
many times the left tries to stop us.
  Mr. POLIS. The gentleman mentioned the open rule. The open rule 
itself is largely noncontroversial with strong support from both sides 
of the aisle.
  What is contained in this rule is the broadest sweeping policy change 
in recent history, namely, the elimination of Medicare. That is the 
controversial element of this rule, which is deemed and passed by the 
rule itself.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, for years, working Americans, paycheck 
after paycheck, week after week, have paid taxes into the Medicare 
trust fund. And after they paid those taxes, this country made a 
promise to them that Medicare's guaranteed benefits would be there for 
them for the rest of their life. The issue before the House today is 
whether we honor or dishonor that promise.
  The Republican plan to abandon Medicare abandons those guaranteed 
benefits. The Republican plan to abandon Medicare says that rather than 
seniors and their doctors deciding what care the seniors should get, 
private health insurance companies make that decision.
  Part of the promise of Medicare was that health care would be 
reasonably affordable to our seniors and retirees. The Republican plan 
to abandon Medicare violates that promise. It raises the out-of-pocket 
cost of health care for our seniors by $6,000 a year.
  We agree that Medicare needs improvement and that Medicare outlays 
need to be restrained. That's why we support giving the Medicare 
administration the same authority to negotiate prescription drug prices 
that the VA has, instead of just paying whatever the drug companies 
demand.
  The issue in this vote is not simply the value of Medicare; the issue 
in this vote is whether Americans can value the promise that we made to 
them in the future. Vote against this rule; vote to honor the promise 
of Medicare.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the record again 
that this proposed resolution that we are debating, this rule on 
Homeland Security appropriations, that is Homeland Security funding, it 
is but a simple resolution. It is not law. It will not become law. That 
is clearly articulated in the parliamentary guide entitled ``How Our 
Laws Are Made'' on pages 8 and 9.
  So I again feel compelled to clarify the record to assure that this 
rule will not end Medicare. And even as our budget clearly states, 
Medicare under our budget will be saved. Not one senior on Medicare 
will be impacted by any action in that budget.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Again, I have to disagree with my friend from New York. I 
have never seen in my 3 years on the Rules Committee such a broad and 
sweeping deem-and-pass under a rule. Section 2 of the rule clearly 
states that the House Concurrent Resolution 34 shall have force and 
effect. Again ``force and effect,'' the traditional language of 
something that is deemed and passed under a rule. The mere passage of 
this rule will deem and pass the end of Medicare as we know it as 
contained in House Concurrent Resolution 34, the Republican budget.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished manager of this 
rule, and I certainly thank Members who are on the floor of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in the baseball season and you can imagine a 
throng of teeming audience, and they are watching pitch one, pitch two, 
pitch three; and it is strike one, strike two and strike three.
  The winning side, the Republicans, of course, cheer; but the American 
people lose. They're out. They're struck out. Medicare is gone as we 
know it. Let's not fool around. Let's not try to have smoke and 
mirrors.
  This rule ends Medicare as we know it. We don't have to play games. 
The debt relief that was put on the floor ends Medicare as we know it. 
And this bill on homeland security is tone deaf to the words of the 
late Osama bin Laden who said that we're looking at your airports, 
we're looking at your airlines, and we're looking at your rail. This 
Homeland Security appropriations bill cuts all of the necessary 
security that is necessary to protect the American people.
  First we throw out the seniors on Medicare; then we don't allow for 
TSO inspectors. We cut FEMA dollars in the face of Joplin and 
Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. In my own State, there are fires that are 
burning right now, and we're telling FEMA that we don't have enough 
money to provide for you. Did you see the story on the news that 
indicated that firefighters were left watching a man drown--drown--
because they had to cut the rescue team of that community? People were 
crying. Firefighters, whose first job is to be a first responder, 
denied because they don't have the funding to be able to help the 
people that they serve.
  I tell you to vote ``no'' on this rule. Strike out those folks, and 
let the American people win.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time both 
sides have.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes remaining.

[[Page 8449]]

The gentleman from Colorado has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. REED. I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that this is a serious 
topic that we are talking about here today, the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. When you pass a responsible budget, as we did here 
in the House, you've got to make tough choices. I learned here as a 
freshman that we do these 10-year budget plans, but only year one 
matters because then the next Congress comes back and does year two and 
year three and year four. So the only serious decisions that we are 
making in this budget is what happens in year one, and that's the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill that is before us here today. How 
are we going to fund Homeland Security for year one?
  And we are down here talking about all of these ancillary issues; and 
I tell you, this one's important. This one's important. This one's 
happening. This isn't smoke and mirrors 10 years down the road. This is 
happening today. The Appropriations Committee has worked long and hard 
to craft the best delicate balance that they could.
  Mr. Speaker, 42 cents out of every dollar we're borrowing. Folks talk 
about we don't have any money. That's not a state of mind; that's a 
fact.

                              {time}  1420

  It's a fact. And we cannot afford to shortchange the work that we're 
doing on the Homeland Security appropriations bill on these--I can't 
think of a kind word to say.
  I'm not going to say anything at all, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  From the retirees that I serve in south Florida to the middle class 
families of western New York, the American people have overwhelmingly 
rejected the reckless Republican budget.
  The Republican budget ends Medicare and replaces it with a coupon, a 
coupon that fails to even approach the cost of private health 
insurance. It guts Medicaid, depended on by millions of impoverished 
children, nursing home patients, seniors who need home health services, 
and disabled Americans. Its hatchet job on our budget will destroy 2.1 
million jobs when we cannot afford higher unemployment.
  This plan is opposed by the Senate, the President, and, most 
importantly, the American people. Yet today Republicans will vote to 
deem and pass the Ryan budget.
  The distinguished Rules Committee chairman, who decried deem and pass 
during the health care reform debate and claimed ``process is 
substance,'' has apparently had a stunning change of heart. We were 
told that using deem and pass to extend health care coverage to the 
uninsured is an abomination. Apparently, we learned today it should be 
reserved for slashing benefits to seniors.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. The American people 
want a bipartisan budget that responsibly reduces the deficit, creates 
new jobs, and protects Medicare and Medicaid for disabled and elderly 
Americans. Not this Republican budget.
  Mr. REED. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The distinguished chair of the Budget Committee spoke 
here a few minutes ago. He spoke about a moral obligation.
  An interesting definition of ``moral obligation'': An obligation to 
maintain the benefits that the insurance industry has; an obligation to 
maintain the subsidy that the American taxpayers give to the richest 
industry in this world, the oil industry, billions of dollars a year; 
an obligation to maintain the tax benefits to the wealthiest 
millionaires and billionaires in the world. Apparently, that's his 
definition of a moral obligation.
  We have a different definition on our side of the aisle. We have a 
definition on our side of the aisle that says it is the obligation of 
this society to provide medical care to our seniors. Our Republican 
colleagues see their moral obligation as terminating, ending, Medicare 
for all Americans who are not yet 55 years of age.
  Say it any way you want, but that's precisely what your budget does. 
It terminates Medicare. Is that your moral obligation?
  It's not ours on our side. Our side is to maintain the promise that 
when a senior in the United States becomes 65 years of age, they will 
have Medicare.
  Our good chairman comes and he says we're not cutting benefits for 
seniors. That's not true. In fact, you're cutting $700 billion out of 
the Medicaid--Medicaid--program, a program where two-thirds of the 
money goes to seniors who are in nursing homes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schock). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.
  You say it's a moral obligation to cut $500 billion out of the health 
care bill? No way. That was money that came out of a subsidy to the 
insurance companies. And you say it's a moral obligation to leave the 
insurance companies alone so they can continue their rapaciousness 
against the people of America.
  Mr. REED. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  In addition to moving forward the Homeland Security bill under an 
open rule--which would have strong bipartisan support, and I praise my 
colleagues on the Rules Committee and hope that this is the first of 
many open rules. In addition to moving forward the Homeland Security 
bill under the rule, this rule includes language ``deeming'' the Ryan 
budget passed. That's right. We're voting once again on the same plan 
that the American people resoundingly rejected in last week's special 
election in New York.
  If this rule passes, the Ryan budget, which ends Medicare, will 
become the final, enforceable budget on the House side until a 
conference report is adopted, which is unlikely to happen in this 
Congress, especially if the House Republicans continue to insist on the 
end of Medicare as a condition of passing a final budget. A ``yes'' 
vote on this rule is a ``yes'' vote on the Ryan plan and a ``yes'' vote 
to eliminate Medicare.
  Now, this is the sixth time in 36 years that the House and Senate 
will fail to adopt a budget, and the House has used deeming resolutions 
in the past. However, never has a deeming resolution been used for such 
a tremendous policy change, namely, the elimination of Medicare.
  As then-Minority Leader John Boehner said, ``This legislative trick 
has been around for a long time, but it's never been used for a bill so 
controversial and so massive in scope.''
  Now that, Mr. Speaker, was in reference to the Democratic efforts 
last session to pass the Affordable Care Act. The deem and pass was not 
used at the end of the day to pass that bill; yet here we are in the 
112th Congress with the Republicans seeking to use it to end Medicare. 
And, yes, no bones about it, we are talking about ending Medicare.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, and our bipartisan 
study group has confirmed, a typical beneficiary would spend more for 
health care under the proposal than under the Congressional Budget 
Office's long-term scenarios. Second, the government's contribution 
would grow more slowly than health care costs, leaving more for 
beneficiaries to pay.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the elimination of Medicare 
under this rule. Not even under a bill with debate on both sides. Not 
even amendable. A rule is not amendable. Although this rule provides 
for debate of the Homeland Security bill, which will be fair and allow 
amendments to be put forth by both parties under it,

[[Page 8450]]

the rule itself, Mr. Speaker, is not amendable. It's immutable, 
unchangeable, and, if passed by this body of the House of 
Representatives, will deem a budget passed that eliminates Medicare for 
the American people.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I also will be opposing the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have had a spirited debate on the floor of this Chamber over this 
rule. I applaud that debate because that's what the American people 
sent us here to do, which is to have the debate in an open process on 
TV in front of the American people. And that's what this rule does.

                              {time}  1430

  This rule is a true open rule where any Member of this Chamber--
Democrat or Republican--can come down and submit an amendment, debate 
it in front of the American people, and have it voted on by each and 
every Member of this House so that this House will speak its will. I 
applaud our Speaker for accomplishing that clear goal he set out.
  But as we have this debate, Mr. Speaker, I remind all my colleagues 
that America also sent us a message last November that we need to be 
honest with the American people. It means that we do not play games in 
this Chamber. And nothing could be further from the truth than the 
constant arguments that we had to stand up and clarify that this rule 
kills Medicare as we know it.
  This rule has no legal effect. This rule will not be presented to the 
President for signature and become law of the land. And mind you, the 
reference to the House Republican budget, the ``Paul Ryan'' budget, the 
provision that has been talked about here to great extent clearly 
states that it is the policy of this Chamber, the policy as set forth 
in that budget, that all those on Medicare will not be impacted by that 
budget. All those seniors who are within 10 years of retiring and 
becoming eligible for Medicare will not be impacted by that budget.
  We are acting in a responsible manner on this side of the aisle. And 
we are dealing with dire times. I was a little disappointed that we 
didn't have a more spirited debate on the actual substance of the rule 
that guides the bill upon which it applies, and that is the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill.
  We live in dire fiscal times in the United States of America. And 
we're going to be honest with the American people: We have to make some 
tough choices. But this should send a message to every man, woman, and 
child in America that the days of reckless spending have caught up to 
us because we do have to have the debate of where we're going to cut. 
And we are talking about cuts in the areas of homeland security. We 
better wake up as a body and as a Chamber and recognize that if we 
don't get our fiscal house in order not only will we jeopardize our 
national security, we will go bankrupt. That ends America as we know 
it. And also, it will destroy the American market that we are trying to 
ignite in our private sector because if we do not send a message that 
we've got our fiscal house in order, then people are not going to 
invest in America, and that will not put people back to work and put 
people back onto a payroll.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________