[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5314-5315]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RAUL RUIZ

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 21, 2015

  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, due to the birth of my first children--twin 
baby girls named Sky and Sage--I was unable to be present for votes on 
the House floor the week of March 23, 2015. Below is an explanation of 
how I would have voted and why.
  I would have voted for H.R. 360, to re-authorize the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 and for other 
purposes, because it provides housing assistance to Native Americans by 
allowing tribes to determine their own low-income housing needs, 
including housing for Native American veterans who are homeless or in 
danger of becoming homeless.
  I would have voted for H. Res. 162, which calls on the President to 
provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and 
territorial integrity, because an independent, democratic and 
prosperous Ukraine is in the national interest of the United States, 
and that Russia has engaged in political, economic and military 
aggression that violates the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
  I would have voted for H.R. 216, the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Budget Planning Reform Act of 2015, which I also supported in the 
Veterans Affairs Committee. This bill requires the VA to plan ahead, 
annually submit a five-year budget plan for the agency to meet its 
commitment to veterans, including the resources necessary to meet those 
needs, and will assist Congress in holding the VA accountable for its 
obligation to our veterans.
  I would have voted against the Ellison Amendment to H. Con. Res. 27, 
the Congressional Progressive Caucus substitute budget. While I support 
some of the provisions of this alternative budget, I oppose raising 
America's tax burden by $6.9 trillion over the next decade. This budget 
would not do enough to reduce the deficit and trim wasteful government 
spending, and does not reflect the best course for the nation at this 
time.
  I would have also voted against the Butterfield Amendment to H. Con. 
Res. 27, the Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget. While this 
alternative also contains many worthwhile measures, I cannot support a 
budget that adds $2.7 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years. My 
district's priorities dictate a more fiscally responsible approach.
  I would have also voted against the Van Hollen Amendment to H. Con. 
Res. 27, the Democratic Caucus substitute budget. While I support many 
of the priorities in this budget, it also increases the deficit and 
burdens American families with more $1.8 trillion in additional taxes. 
This budget does not do enough to trim unnecessary government spending, 
and is not right for the 36th District at this juncture.
  I would have voted against the Stutzman Amendment to H. Con. Res. 27, 
the Republican Study Committee substitute budget. This extremist, 
destructive plan would render Medicare unrecognizable from the current, 
successful program. It would keep seniors from enrolling in Medicare 
until age 67, and then give them a voucher that would raise their out-
of-pocket costs substantially. It would keep seniors from receiving 
Social Security until age 70, and result in millions of individuals, 
families, and children losing Health coverage. There is no place in 
Congress for radical, extremist agendas that distract us from genuine 
solutions for hardworking Americans, and I would have vehemently 
rejected this alternative budget.
  I would have strongly opposed, spoken on the floor against, and voted 
against the Price Amendments to H. Con. Res. 27, the House Republican 
budget resolution. Once again, House Republican Leadership seeks to 
balance the budget on the backs of middle-class families and seniors, 
undermine our economic recovery, and end the Medicare guarantee.
  This disastrous Republican budget puts an end to Medicare as we know 
it, turning it into a voucher program that makes health care more 
expensive and less accessible for seniors. Thousands of seniors in my 
district rely on Medicare, and this backwards budget proposal threatens 
the retirement security of seniors living in our desert and across the 
nation.

[[Page 5315]]

Our priority should be to strengthen Medicare by reducing health care 
costs and improving patient outcomes.
  Instead, House Republican Leadership has shifted the cost of Medicare 
to seniors, prioritizing more tax cuts for billionaires and big 
business. We must work together to protect and preserve Medicare, 
reduce our deficit, and decrease health care costs. This budget would 
do the opposite--jeopardizing Medicare and threatening the well-being 
of our seniors.
  In addition, this budget would remove more than 16 million Americans 
from their health plan, swelling the ranks of the uninsured while 
callously removing consumer protections for women, young adults, and 
those with pre-existing conditions. Worse yet, this budget would not 
even offer economic benefit in return for eviscerating the health care 
system. In fact, independent studies estimate the Republican budget 
would grind economic growth to a halt, costing Americans almost 3 
million jobs by 2017.
  The House Republican budget would end Medicare as we know it, ask 
seniors and families to pay more for less health coverage, and decimate 
economic growth for the middle class, all to give huge tax breaks to 
wealthy corporations. This is not a serious effort to work across party 
lines for the good of the country, but a reflection of the extreme, 
upside-down priorities of the House Republican caucus.
  Finally, I would have voted for H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP 
Reauthorization Act of 2015. This long-overdue legislation abolishes 
the flawed SGR formula and replaces it with HR a bipartisan agreement 
to provide stability for Medicare beneficiaries and providers alike. By 
providing a reliable, value-based payment system, this bill will 
protect seniors' access to Medicare and preserve their established 
relationships with their doctors.
  Additionally, this bipartisan bill will extend the Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides crucial health coverage for 
low-income children, extend vital funding for Community Health Centers 
and other safety net providers, and avoid premium spikes or doctors 
dropping Medicare patients.
  As long as I have been in Congress, I have advocated for a long-term 
SGR fix for our seniors and physicians. I co-sponsored the bipartisan 
framework that forms the foundation of this bill, and I have written to 
House leadership multiple times asking for this solution to be brought 
to the floor. This bill is a practical solution that will protect and 
preserve Medicare for our seniors and provide stability and relief for 
our nation's health care providers, and I am proud to support it.

                          ____________________