more troops 15,000 more residency slots. that is just on the opposition side, not talking about the underside. that basically was not done because of the attendant cost to it. there are lots of ideas about how to provide the education and get service in return, but the problem is the initial cost of the training and the facilities that it requires. host: rich umbdenstock, president and ceo of american hospital association, thank you for being with us. we have been talking about the obama initiative partnership for patients. coming in now, we will head to the house. action is getting ready to get under way on the floor. thank you so much for joining us this morning. the house speaker is on the floor. coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker: monk monk -- pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 10:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1473, a continuing resolution which will fund our government and most importantly our troops' families for the rest of the fiscal year and will help generate a better environment for job creation. with this -- while this agreement is far from perfect, more cuts going forward are absolutely needed. disagreement is a victory for the american people. mr. olson: at $38.5 billion in

cuts, h.r. 1473 represents the largest spending cut since world war ii. domestic spending will actually fall by 4% this year with the passage of this c.r. we accomplish this historic cuts just months after president obama asked congress for a spending freeze. that would have meant zero, nada, nill cuts in spending this year. in fact, our federal government will spend $78.5 billion less than what president obama proposed this year with the passage of h.r. 1473. these historic cuts could not be possible without the strong and constant support of the american people, to end the out-of-control spending in washington. their voices were heard loud

and clear on november 2. house republicans will translate the people's call to rein in spending in nondefense spending in history. washington is no longer talking about insufficient cuts in spending. we are talking about how much we should cut spending. this is the american people's victory, and they deserve the support to change our debate. this bill is also a victory for my home state of texas and for the good people of the 22nd congressional district whom i represent here in washington. importantly, h.r. 1473 repeals the doggett amendment, a heavy-handed regulation that was forcing texas and only texas to violate its own constitution and spend education funds as the federal government dictated while giving every other state in the

nation the flexibility to spend their funds as they see fit. the doggett amendment, which was inserted in last year's government spending bill -- bailout bill, singled out texas by attaching unconstitution restraints to $830 million in funding. no other state faced such treatment. teachers across texas have faced the threat of losing their jobs with this expected shortfall in education money, but passage of this bill will right this egregious wrong for the great state of texas. taxes is measured in a means that we will have succeeded in reducing spending to prebailout stimulus levels. next year's budget will result in hundreds of billions of dollars in savings over the next several decades. we will set the stage for the real challenge that comes next, cutting trillions of spending through the new republican

budget. but today for the first time in years washington will begin to tighten its belt just as families across america do every day. this is just the beginning of important first step forward in changing the culture of spending america is open for business again. i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 1473. i thank the speaker and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire, for five minutes. mr. altmire: madam speaker, four years ago i began to express my concerns about the competitive bidding program that c.m.s. proposed for

durable medical equipment. the goal of the program was to save money and to cut waste, fraud and abuse from the medicare program but the implementation of the program has been fraught with problems. this issue is of particular importance to me because the pittsburgh region, which i represent, was one of the first nine regions chosen by c.m.s. to implement the competitive bidding process. it became clear that c.m.s. did not foresee the unintended consequences that could result including the possibility that patients could lose the personal relationship they've developed with their local provider. in turn compromising their quality of care. or the possibility that small suppliers, which make up well over 90% of the nation's medical equipment providers, would not be able to compete in the new market. i also realized that western pennsylvania would be disproportionately impacted by competitive bidding because of our large medicare population

and the growing medical dwoice industry that is a -- device industry that is a key to our region's economy. after a poor start to the competitive bidding program in 2008, congress intervened and passed legislation that i helped introduce to direct c.m.s. to delay the program for 18 months. critical flaws in the initial bidding process produced fewer competitors, fewer home care services and a substantial decrease in the quality of care offered to seniors and individuals with disabilities. congress also instructed c.m.s. to redesign the program to avoid these problems when it conducted the rebid. last fall, c.m.s. launched the rebid and this past january the program went into effect in the nine regions in the country, including western pennsylvania. in the first few months of implementation, the worst fears expressed by patients, providers and members of congress from both sides of the aisle have been real ithesed. it's clear that despite the

delay, no significant improvements have been made to the program or the process. providers who have served beneficiaries for years are closing their doors and patients have been left confused an unsure where to turn for their care. while c.m.s. will hope that they will have quality medical supplies and services and improve the effectiveness of the payments, the results suggest otherwise. so two weeks ago c.m.s. announced that it would delay the second round the competitive bidding program for six months until the summer of 2013. additionally, the chief medicare expert at the congressional budget office recently said the c.m.s. competitive bidding process is sear ousley -- seriously flawed. the round two delay does nothing to help the beneficiaries and small businesses that have already been negatively impacted by round one. the program continues to be a bad deal for seniors and small

business owners. that's why i join with my colleague from pennsylvania, glenn thompson, to introduce legislation to repeal the d.m.e. competitive bidding program. our bill would fully repeal the program in a budget-neutral manner, not adding one penny to the federal deficit. to date we have 75 bipartisan co-sponsors and over 30 advocacy groups that have endorsed our legislation. i cannot support the d.m.e. competitive bidding program when it has become evident that the program will unravel the d.m.e.'s small business community and compromise quality of care for seniors and others who rely on durable medical equipment devices. i will continue to work with congressman thompson to advance this legislation and i would ask my colleagues to join us in this effort to repeal d.m.e. competitive bidding. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, for five minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam

speaker. and i rise today to recognize this april as financial literacy month. each year my good friend and fellow chair of the house financial on economic literacy caucus, mr. hinojosa, and i work to bring financial literacy month to capitol hill. in that effort we are joined by our longtime senate allies, senator akaka and senator enzi. it is a way to hoe case the latest trend in financial and economic literacy. this year, however, the house is taking an understandable break from debating commenatory resolutions in order to focus on pressing items like the budget. nonetheless, i want to take opportunity today to ask my colleagues to take part in financial literacy month. it is a time when financial organizations, government agencies and others work

together to protect consumers and prepare our children to prosper in today's sophisticated marketplace. for example, from april 17 through 23, america's credit unions will hold national credit union youth week which focuses on teaching young americans about the benefits of setting goals and teaching them to reach them. in a parallel effort, the american bankers association education foundation held -- teach children to save day on april 12. it's an annual event during which america's banking professionals have volunteered to teach money skills to four million young people. madam speaker, this is a trend we ought to applaud, one that i ken urge my colleagues to participate in in joining the financial literacy caucus. members and their staffs can also join us this friday in the cannon caucus room from noon to 3:00 for a financial literacy fair featuring information from 55 of the nation's leading

financial literacy organizations, including the jump-start coalition, junior achievement and the council for economic education. madam speaker, too many americans continue to enter the work force unprepared to buy a home, save for retirement. our high school seniors are now scoring lower on financial literacy than they have during any years since 2000. and yet according to a 2009 survey from the council for economic education, only 34 states require school districts to include personal financial in their education standards for students k-12. these are troubling numbers, and that is why we must work together to give americans the tools they need to prepare against economic uncertainty, recognize deceptive practices and build credit and make dozens of other day-to-day financial decisions. these are skills that everyone

must learn to prosper in today's complex marketplace and that's what financial literacy month is all about. so i encourage my colleagues who are interested to learning more to join us this friday from noon to 3:00 in the cannon caucus room for our financial literacy day fair. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. mr. gutierrez: madam speaker, i rise today to talk once again about puerto rico, but this time it's a little different. i rise to note that the governor luis fortuno of puerto rico said something that i can agree about, speaking about a proposed gas pipeline, the governor of puerto rico said we cannot continue to depend on fossil fuels. he went on to say tying us down to natural gas for 30 years would be a grave mistake. he was referring to the construction of a natural gas pipeline on an island where beautiful beaches, mountains and rain forests are both

irreplaceable natural resources and part of the economic engine that helps tourism. mr. fortuno spoke those words two years ago. now he changed his mind. now he enthusiastically supports gas pipelines but a much bigger, more environmental loedis ruptive and more expensive pipeline. and how do construction of this gigantic supersized pipeline is being handled is why i must speak about. the ruling party would rather people not notice that mr. fortuno and governor fortuno have opposite positions on the same gas pipeline. and so they are working hard to move this project forward under the cover of night. every day the ruling party answers this question. if you want to undertake an environmental loedis ast russ and unpopular project how would

you go about doing it? here's the ruling party's answer. you circumvent the duties, avoid environmental impact studies, avoid the permitting and lng procedures and take every step possible to eliminate public hearings and public scrutiny. how do you proceed without these necessary safeguards and information? well, if you're the government of puerto rico and want to build pipelines through forests and lakes and rivers and across critical groundwater systems in puerto rico you would amend the law designed to deal with natural resources so you can bypass the normal permits and public process. what the ruling party does is declare an energy emergency on the island. this government's energy emergency allows the pipeline to proceed despite warnings from the sierra club, the u.s. fish and wildlife service. . despite rest departments'

concerns it would be constructed by schools and churches, despite that it's near an earthquake fault and there have been 2,500 seismic events in the last three years on the island and one just felt all over the island two days ago, the self-described energy emergency also helps hide the fact that you give it a $10 million contract to a pal of the governor whose no experience at constructing gas pipelines. he does, however, have experience skiing with the governor. maybe that's why you run a slick taxpayer funded p.r. campaign that renames the green way, so instead of speaking to huge financial human and environmental costs, this orr wellian ad campaign -- orwellian ad campaign calls a gas pipeline over the mountain and through the woods and rivers a greenway. like a lot of people i think it would be better to be named to screen away. a magical cleanser that you

apply to your forests and rivers and lakes and it makes them go away along with the millions of green tax dollars. here's an even more honest name for this project, the wrong way. because it's wrong to spend the people's money on a project they don't want, haven't been appropriately studied, and as the newspaper has shown in a series of reports, candidate fortuno was right, governor fortuno is wrong. it's time to shine some light on this matter. i have asked a freedom of information act request to every and all federal agencies that have acressed the pipeline in puerto rico. i will release the results so the people know who they are government is meeting with, what documents exist, and what studies have been done to show the need. furthermore, i have urged the army corps of engineers to deny permit request for pipeline until experts testify, permits are applied for, community meetings are held, and

environmental impact studies are done. maybe the government can make the case for this project in the light of day. but they shouldn't be asking for a verdict without presenting the facts to the people first. it's time they stop doing things the via vare day way and start doing things the right way. [speaking in a foreign language brackbrack the speaker pro tempore: -- [speaking in a foreign language] the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. chu, for five minutes. ms. chu: today i want to honor a man for his many years serving students in our public school system. ramon recently announced he was retiring as superintendent of the los angeles unified school district. during his distinguished 55-year career in education, he has served as superintendent of schools in los angeles, san

francisco, san jose, pasadena, and new york city. i have the great privilege to work with ramon last year when the los angeles unified school district passed a resolution calling for the immediate passage of the dream act. but ramon was not only a superintendent and advocate, he was a teacher in my district and senior advisor to the u.s. secretary of education under president clinton. a lifelong educator, ramon has taught at every level in the public school system, elementary, middle, and senior high schools. and has shaped education policy as a consultant to every entity from stanford university to the university of california. ramon came to the los angeles unified school district at a time of great challenge, yet he was able to improve school safety, increase attendance, and reduce the dropout rate. ramon has had an extraordinary record of service and he changed the lives of thousands of children.

and although he will be greatly missed, we must all continue the mission he strived for during his 55-year career and that is to ensure that every child receives a quality education. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, for five minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, madam speaker. tomorrow my republican colleagues will bring a 2012 budget to the floor of the house. a budget that rolls back generations of progress and quite simply ends medicare as we know it. 50 years ago before medicare and medicaid were signed into law, americans preparing to retire faced tremendous uncertainty. private health insurance was simply out of reach. savings put away during years of employment could barely cover those bills if they could cover them at all. seniors were forced to rely on their own children, many of whom who were struggling to raise

families. to pay for medical care. when the financial support of family and relatives was not an option, elderly americans found themselves with a choice of a life without the care of doctors or life of destitution. this was the status quo before medicare and medicaid were signed into law and the american people found it unacceptable. we believed then as we believe now that we have a responsibility to ensure that seniors, children, and the permanently disabled, the most vulnerable in our society, have access to quality health care. it was this sense of shared responsibility that congress codified in 1965 through the creation of medicare and medicaid, as president lyndon johnson said as he signed this historic legislation, no longer will older americans be denied a healing miracle of modern medicine. no longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over

a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years. today 45 million seniors depend on medicare's guaranteed quality benefits. now this year as in every year we find ourselves in the middle of a budget debate. at times both republicans and democrats can be accused of hyperbole. however it is no exaggeration to say that the republican budget headed to the house floor tomorrow abandons america's seniors and does away with the concept of guaranteed medicare benefits. it is no overstatement to say that it hands medicare over to the private health insurance industry and it is no lie to say that this plan ends medicare as we know it. this budget is no path to prosperity, for seniors it is a path to the poorhouse. you can call it premium support, you can call it a voucher, you can call it a coupon, you can call it the golden ticket if you'd like, but changing the

name won't change the fact that this republican plan will force america's seniors to hand over most of their income to america's insurers. maybe instead of premium support this plan should be called insurance company profit assistance. by the time the republican plan begins distributing coupons to seniors in 2022, most retirees will be unable to afford health care. after all, these coupons will be worth only 32% of the insurance bill. according to the nonpartisan analysts at the congressional budget office, in less than two decades a private health insurance plan as good as medicare will cost about $30,000. unfortunately the republican voucher that will be set out under this budget plan will only be worth $9,700. this means there will be an insurance bill worth about 21,000 sitting in the mailboxes

of america's seniors. the republican budget plan is no work of genius. it just shifts the burden of rising health care costs from the federal government to seniors and calls it a day. through medicare americans made a moral commitment as a people to ensure that seniors are not bankrupted by a hip replacement or diabetes medication. likewise with medicaid we made a moral commitment to ensure that elderly nursing home patients, impoverished children, the permanently disabled, and neediest in our society can afford basic care. in fact, 2/3 of all medicaid spending goes to caring for older adults and people with disabilities. the costs of long-term care like in rehabilitation centers and nursing homes is prohibitive. . medicaid serves as a lifeline for these individuals and it is not an expensive program. compared to private sector health care cost, medicaid is cheap, growing half as fast.

the g.o.p. plan cuts medicaid when physicians and hospitals can barely afford to treat these patients because of such low reimbursement rates. it's no mystery why medicaid is beginning to strain state and federal budgets. with so many americans out of work enrollment in medicaid has skyrocketed as more and more families come to rely upon this safety net. i said it before and i'll say it again, medicaid is not too expensive. people are too poor. that's why we should be focused on creating new jobs. 100 days into this new republican congress and not a single jobs bill. madam speaker, this plan is not a price that i'm willing to pay. we can do better. we will do better. america's seniors are watching. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. kissell, for four minutes. mr. kissell: thank you, madam chair. from the time that i first came to congress i have continued to

be a strong supporter of our seenors' issues. today -- seniors' issues. today i rise in support of another issue that our seniors are facing today, the issue of the future of medicare. we must stand by those who stood by us. as they enter into their senior years. and we must be strong in making sure that medicare stays as a solid medical safety net for our seniors. madam speaker, we have heard a lot about the greatest generation. that generation that fault world war ii and worked in the industries and raised families and came back and did so much to make america the great nation as we know today. but, madam speaker, america is a great nation, has been for many years, and will be for many years to come and there's not just one greatest generation. there is a continue yume --

continuum of great generations. i grew up in a very small town in north carolina. and my heroes were those people, many of which fought in world war ii, for those teachers and those store keepers and those people in a small town that raised many of my friends and myself and looked after us whether in the school or churches or where it might be. as these people that took care of us become seniors and they continue this throughout the nation for generations to come, we must take care of those that took care of us. i was a history teacher, high school history teacher for the seven years before coming to congress. and i always told my students that you're not studying history by looking at pages in a book or looking at old pictures or paintings or whatever it might

be. you are studying about people to have a story. and we can never forget that these are people, just as we talk today about our seniors and medicare, we cannot forget that these are the people who took care of us. they cannot become just political bargaining chips and political theories. they are real people. they have real stories. and i want to talk briefly about two people that are especially important to me, my mom and dad. my dad grew up in that same small town i did in north carolina. went and fought in world war ii. won a bronze star. came back, worked in the post office, and was happy just to be a part of helping in those ways that i talked about before. my mom grew up in carroll county in huntington, tennessee, came

to north carolina as a teacher and taught many generations and she's 96 years old. her birthday being last march, the 18th. these are the heroes, these are the stories that we know that all of us have whether our parents or grandparents, great grandparents, aunts and uncles, whatever they may be, we cannot forget about them as individuals. we cannot forget about their stories. and we cannot let them become just political bargaining chips. the question that we must ask, madam speaker, is why did we need medicare in the first place? what in our system didn't work, that didn't care of our seniors, that required medicare to come into being? and we know the answer to that, and we must continue to have that guarantee of a strong support structure when our medical needs for our seniors must be met this way, we must

stand by our seniors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. matsui, for four minutes. ms. matsui: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to voice my strong opposition to the republican budget plan and its effect on america's seniors. i believe we must address the national deficit but i believe we can do it in a responsible manner that does not hinder our fragile economy and does not risk important programs. . i support the democratic proposal to reduce our nation's deficit and without hurting america's seniors and sacrificing their health and financial security. madam speaker, the republican plan is irresponsible. it would hurt america's seniors while giving enormous tax breaks to the top 2% of the

wealthiest americans. it does nothing to create jobs but give billions in corporate loopholes and subsidies to big oil. most notably, the republican plan will literally end medicare. and while this may be a new plan, these are not new ideas. the republicans' 2012 budget attempts to do to medicare what president bush wanted to do to social security in 2005, privatize it and severely cut benefits. madam speaker, can you imagine if we had privatized social security in 2005? the way the republicans wanted to do just before the biggest financial collapse since the great depression. is that what we really want to do with medicare? we cannot afford to have wall street control the faith of our seniors. the republican plan would convert medicare into a voucher program that forces seniors to buy costly private insurance plans.

it asks seniors, half of whom have less than $19,000 a year in total income, to pay more and get less. if this plan were put in place, the nonpartisan congressional budget office has estimated that the average senior would end up paying nearly three times more out-of-pocket expenses. meanwhile, the health care law enacted last year is already helping to close the gap in prescription drug coverage known as the doughnut hole and has annual exams and preventive services. but the repeal of the health care law would eliminate these benefits. madam speaker, these benefits for medicare patients are making a real difference in the lives of my constituents. i recently heard from a 71-year-old woman who sacramento who requires several expensive drugs to maintain her health. in october of 2010 she was worried about her ability to pay for her medication because

she fell into the coverage gap. but she was relieved to learn that she will get $250 in 2010 and that 50% of her costs would be reimbursed this year and even more reimbursed in the future. but now republicans want to pull the rug from out under our seniors and their families. what's astonishing to me that in addition to privatization of medicare, the republican plan also goes after medicaid. instead of making real reform to the program, the republican budget calls from converting medicaid into a block grant program. but that was sharply reduce funding for seniors and low-income americans on medicaid so that it would not keep up with health care costs. medicaid helps keep our seniors in their homes and helps them afford nursing homes if they need them. but the republican plan release seniors on their own and

ignores the promise that a country has made from one generation to another. madam speaker, the federal budget should reflect our american values that have been passed down for generations, where seniors earn the benefits that they paid into and have been promised and are able to enjoy their retirement after working hard in their careers. that is why i will continue to fight for protecting the dignity of america's seniors and protect them against the devastating effects of the republican budget proposal. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. rangel: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. rangel: as we are about to close this part of the legislative morning,

expressions of belief, i would just like to say that for a decade so many people have said we can't tell the difference between democrats and republicans. well, i think that is over. that the republicans in their lined projected budget have made it abundantly clear there is a big difference. we know that we have a tremendous deficit, that the interest is just blocking out programs that we have to support. while it's abundantly clear that there is an emergency that we have to deal with it, the republicans' method of doing this through the ryan budget is to look for the most vulnerable people that we have, the poor that are sick, the older people that are sick, our young people that are trying to get an education. it seems to me if we take a look at the alternative and investing for the future of the

great country of ours, to make certain that education is a part of what we're doing, investing in our infrastructure so as we pay off the debt we are still investing for the future, this is what the democratic party's all about. and, madam speaker, i truly believe this is what america is all about. i yield back the balance of my time. i thank you for this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 11:00 a.m. >> the house returns for legislative work at 11:00 eastern. members will start with the debate rules for considering the 2012 republican budget plan for about an hour. following that vote, the house turns to the 2011 federal spending agreement reached last week among president obama, speaker boehner, and democratic senate leader harry reid, it calls for nearly $40 billion in

spending cuts over the next six months. live coverage when the house gavels back in at 11:00 eastern here on c-span. >> a few months ago i was able to sign a tax cut for american families because both parties worked through their differences and found common ground. now the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. >> watch all the event from the current spending debate and the debate about next year's budget as well from capitol hill and the house and senate floor, to the white house and around washington, online with the c-span video library. search, watch, clip, and share with everything we have covered since 1987. it's what you want when you want. >> arlington national cemetery near washington has been undergoing a review after it was discovered that bodies were buried in the wrong grave or were unaccounted for. arlington cemetery officials go before a house armed services

subcommittee this afternoon. we'll have live coverage at 2:00 eastern on c-span3. mississippi governor haley barbour will be in new hampshire this afternoon to talk about his plans to run for the republican presidential nomination. c-span3 will bring you live coverage starting at about 5:30 eastern. >> to be a parent you're training the people you can't live without to live without you. >> the college admissions process, the s.a.t.'s, college rankings, guide books, financial aid forms, "weekly standard" senior editor was not praped for crazy u. >> nothing like that happened to me when i was thinking about college in the mid 1970's. so it was starting to dawn on me this is a very much different process from what it was. >> find out if this dad catches up sunday night on c-span's "q&a." you can also download a podcast of "q&a," one of our many signature interviews online at

c-span.org/podcast. >> the u.s. house returning in about 20 minutes for a full day of legislative work. until then, part of the conversation this morning on "washington journal." conversation of our facebook and twitter pages. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman kevin brady is our guest. we saw the deal brokered friday night. how will you vote on it? guest: i will vote yes. i am always hungry for more spending cuts. i think cutting -- the bottom line, and this cuts three under $15 billion for the next decade. -- $315 billion. i would like to see more. we will fight for more. in the paul ryan budget, we will try to make that reality.

i think it is a start. it's called where talking about the budget for this year. and as you mentioned, the paul ryan and budget is on the horizon. guest: it starts a path where we do not just balance the budget, we pay off debt. it takes a long time to do it, but we are so deep in debt that reversing the course, i think it is critical that we do that. host: some house republicans are not on board with the plan? this is a tough decision for members? guest: i do not think so. a lot of members like the paul ryan plan for all of the right reason. house conservatives will be proposing a budget that balances in 10 years. it is tough stuff. it shows what we would have to do estimation. i think that will get support against -- amongst

conservatives. it is a bold vision and we support it. host: looking at the vote today, you are a member of the republican study committee that is headed up by jim jordan of ohio, and he is opposed to this deal. guest: i think his frustration is shared by a lot, which is we need to keep fighting for more. it is difficult to know exactly what you could do without shutting down the government, without not paying our troops during a time of war. that was a tough issue four conservatives. i think it is important to continue to push for bigger cuts sooner, which is the message they are giving out. i think some of the criticisms about its current cuts are sale. -- are fair. not all of them are constituted the why i would like it, but every shot i get to cut real

dollars off of the budget, i do not hesitate. host: there is a republican study committee alternative out of new jersey. what do you think about that? guest: i think it will get some strong support to mop. it shows that if we want to balance the budget in the next decade you really have to take a serious approach to social security and medicare, impacting people 59 and younger to have serious cuts in discretionary. it shows you, it shows the value of the -- how deep in debt we are, and what you have to do to balance it within the decade. i think it has real value to this debate. host: as you look to the conversation going on right now, we started our show by looking at the op-ed pieces responding to the president's talked

yesterday, and it was a very partisan response. it was a long lines of democrats largely in favor, and republicans very distressed. do you see this as a time of heightened partisanship? our people digging begin their heels more over this looming budget debate? guest: i did not think so. i think there are dramatically different visions of which direction the country ought to go. the president gave a budget two months ago that did virtually nothing, and the two months later he gives a speech but no plan. our reaction is where is the beef? where is the leadership on this issue? maybe he will give a speech in another month that lays out a different approach on the budget, but for right now, he is failing to lead. republicans are serious about leaving in social security, medicare, and medicaid, and that is what the country needs. h., let's listen to president obama reflecting on the gop's

proposed cuts. >> a 70%, in clean energy. a 20% cut in education. a 30% cut in transportation. cuts in college grants that will grow to more than $100,000 per year. that is the proposal. these are not the kinds of cuts you make when you are trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. these are not the kinds of cuts the fiscal commission proposed. these are the kinds of cuts that tell us that we cannot afford the america that i believe and, and i think you believe in. i believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. host: congressman kevin brady, what is your response? guest: i agree with one thing the president said -- we cannot afford this government if we

want to have an america we believe in. our belief is that the death, the deficit, and the size of the government we have today is absolutely unsustainable. if we do not make tough decisions and shrink the size of government, the next generation will not have the same opportunities. the president is defending a bloated federal government that is deeply in debt. we think we need to streamline its. we also do not think that the spending out of washington has revived the economy, improved education, or improved the lives of americans. host: congressman kevin brady is in his eighth term. eighthresents texas' district, says some the ways and means committee, and is the vice-chair of the joint economic

committee. let's go to regina on our republican line. caller: good morning, congressman brady. i have a question. what was the cause of the people signing up for social security and medicare? i have two sisters. 65 and 66, and when they signed up, their medicare went up to $115. these are your average workers who worked 40, 45 years. they did not even had $50,000 a year. what is going on? this is part of the obama-care? guest: you have an amazing congressman sam johnson. i have the honor of sitting next to him on the ways and means committee. you are so fortunate. on the real question of medicare, you are seeing some

increases in prescription drug costs and in medicare advantage, which was one of the victims of the president's health-care plan, because they're basically trying to eliminate that plan. over time, you will see 7 million seniors forced out of the medicare advantage plans as a result of that. it will be tougher to see doctors. fewer doctors will be available to see because of the health- care plan. there are real challenges. if we do not address medicare, it will not be there for the next generation. seniors 55 and older will not see a change as they know what, but if we want to preserve it for the next-generation, we need to address it, and a common sense reforms. we think putting this off, which congress and the president continues to do is the wrong decision.

host: catherine, a democrat in huntsville, alabama. good morning. hi, catherine? caller: hello. i am here. host: good morning. hello there. caller: good morning. my question is i am on social security disability. i worked all of my life. my disability is based on my retirement income. i had to stop working due to health reasons. i do not know if you know this, but social security automatically been is disability the first time around for people, -- denies disability the first time around for people, no matter what your elvises. i worked -- your illness is. i worked in the human service

area, which is not a high salary for people. from teachers, to mental health workers, to "community organizers" what ever. my question is this -- because of that, i am concerned that my medicare, and the insurance for it will go up to an extreme amount. it will take one-third of my salary to pay for the medicare that your party is talking about doing. do you look at those incidents? do you wonder about how those people are going to pay, because i'm not the only one? guest: if you are older than 55, you are not effected by any of these budget reform measures.

all of those on the republican side are focused on the next generation, those 54 or younger, who if we do not f will see serious cuts in medicare. it will not be there for them. you are in great shape. there are a lot of scare tactics in washington. they're getting the brunt pretty quickly. i think the biggest reason that we need to tackle medicare is that right now, it will go insolvent in the next seven, to 19 years. this, let's tackle work together to preserve social security for every generation once and for all to make sure you have the peace of mind as you go into your senior years. i'm serious about protecting medicare for my mother and a lot of other mothers as well.

you are in great shape host: let's go to richard, republican in tulsa, oklahoma. caller: hello. host: turn down your television. caller: if there was coined to be cuts in medicare, social security -- going to be caught in medicare, social security, so forth, is congress planet on cutting their own benefits -- is congress planning on cutting their own best -- benefits? guest: what republicans are proposing in medicare are not caught. we are proposing to use a plan already in place the medicare part d. it gives seniors choices.

the government pays the premiums that you pay from copays and all of that. it works very well. it has come in 40% under budget. we provide very high-quality prescription drug care for seniors. we are looking for that model for the next generation for young people coming into the workforce today. they can keep the health plan -- health plan they want. we want the seniors of the next generation to have the same choices that federal workers have -- a wide variety of choices, tailored to their needs, with the premiums paid for by the federal government. if you bring that competition choice, you strengthen medicare for every generation. members of congress that pay into social security, medicare, and their federal retirement plan, and we have to choose

among the plants, my guess is that will be part of the budget reform. host: "usa today" susan page rights -- guest: probably so. this is easy. do not propose anything. do not take leadership. do not take on the responsibility of leading this country. just say now, of any -- to any efforts about getting serious and even adults about this. i am mulling to fight the fight and we think many republicans have decided this is not about the next election. we would rather fight for a new vision and tackle the challenges like adults than to continue to delay, refuse to lead. we will take that chance.

host: let's hear from a democrat. perot in pennsylvania. caller: i have three questions, and i am not trying to look at the television. i'm looking at this gentleman here, and i am wondering, i have listened to the reports, i think it is one and a half or two and half times, and i take it apart. host: a are you talking about chairman brian's plan? -- chairman paul ryan's plan? caller: i am talking about the part president obama makes a big point about, we did this in the late-1990's, and 2000.

i have been battling illness all my life. i am on disability. i can not handle a medicare cut. i'm barely keeping my head above water now. the second question is, i would like to expound on the view of we did 10 years ago, why can't we do it again? second, i was a veteran. i would like to know if this gentleman is a veteran. thirdly, why is all -- is there all this confusing bickering? guest: i am not sure what the report is about 10 years ago. i know that in the path to prosperity the republicans are proposing to those that are on medicare today, those that will be in medicare 10 years from now, there is no change whatsoever for them.

for younger workers coming into medicare in the future, 54 or younger, there will be some more choices and options they do not have today. it will be more tailored to their needs, not washington's needs, just like our prescription drug plan for seniors which is popular and works well. there is a plan for the next generation. i am not a veteran. i wish i were. i am proud to be part of the military family. my brother is an active duty. i think there is too much partisan bickering in washington, but beneath it, i think there is a profound difference in the direction we see this country going. we see it as one that should be free of debts and deficits, where government has a limited

role, not an ever-expanding role, our people have more power. we do not think that a child today ought to have their part of the dead sea for -- part of the debt to be $46,000. the good news is young people do not actually buy luxury sedans for a local sam. what they do is pay the price in higher taxes, higher interest rates, a more sluggish economy. we will see real differences right now. host: atlanta, ga., and jonathan dodd our republicans line. -- on all republicans line. caller: i want to comment about the debt and taxes. first, what do you think about the idea of every

representative agreeing to be hooked up to polygraph machines, and every time they stretched the truth they get shocked. the bigger the law, the greater the shock. do think we would last through the day or the week? anyway. the debt situation i think it is far worse than the american people realize. three weeks ago there was a story that made the news cycle. in the month of february, we borrowed two hundred $23 billion. i did the math. that is close to $8 billion a day. i do not know what the figures for march are yet. if the federal government achieved what they achieved in february in march, that is over

$450 billion in two months, nine weeks. that is beyond astounding. guest: two thoughts. i hope i heard you right when you said we would get shocked with a polygraph, and not shot, clearly with gabrielle giffords still recovering that is not a corporate event as a joke. you are right on what deficit. washington people are in denial. average people like you have given up hope that the government will live within its means. there is a way to do it. it will not be easy. that is what the republican budget for the future is all about. it is not just about getting back to a balanced budget over time. it is paying off the debt. it will take years, but you need

to take the first step -- >> the republican 2012 budget plan. four hours of general debate, five substitute budget plans to be considered. after the vote on the budget debate rules, the house turns to the spending agreement reached last week among the president, speaker boehner, and senate democratic leader reid. one hour of general debate on the plan to cut $40 billion in spending over the next six months. now live to the house floor here on c-span.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend arthur cavitz, st. charles luonga center. the chair: in -- chaplain coughlin: in times like these, we need the almighty good shepard with us. leave us through valleys and shadows on a straight path. we need the god of a break through to give us the ability to see transforming possibilities. guide us, lord, through the challenges of our modern lives where sometimes hope is juxtapose with despair. grant that this agust body will

continue to move towards the common good, mindful of the inherent dignity that you, god, have placed within us. grant that our hards will resigned, blessed that we among nations. blessed are we who dwell in the place and claim the potential for more love, peace and inclusion for all people to partake of the fruits of this magnificent land. shepard us, lord, the promise of your goodness and compassions sustains our work and sustains our offering of thanksgiving this hour and ever more. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: pursuant to clause 1

of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the journal stands approved. mr. poe: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. mr. woodall: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, is recognized for one minute. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor our guest chaplain, one of my outstanding

constituents, father arthur cabot. father art, as he's known in st. louis, is a leader in religious outreach and educational development efforts within the african-american catholic community. his st. charles luonga center located in north st. louis city, offers bible study, pastoral care and conduct an outstanding youth ministry. his spiritual leadership through his center and as an educator is reaching thousands of young people, changing lives and helping to reclaim neighborhoods that have seen far too much violence, intolerance and pain. far art is bringing the chutch's -- father art is bringing the church's message to those in our community who

need it most. i am very honored to salute him today as our special guest. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the victims of crime act, or voca, as it's called, is wonderful idea that has convicted criminals to pay into a fund that is used by victims. it is for them to pay for the system they created. they pay rent on the courthouse, so to speak, to pay into a fund that goes to the victims. this voca fund is about $6 billion. this is not taxpayer money. it's money that belongs to victims, but federal bureaucrats seem to want to rob this fund and pay for other federal programs. we cannot allow this money to be taken from victims of violent crime.

this money should be placed in the lock box so it is only used by victims of crime and crime services. our nation must constantly be sensitive to the needs of people that have been robbed, assaulted and harmed by criminals. we as a nation are judged by not the way we treat the rich, powerful and famous but by the way we treat the innocent, the children, the elderly and victims of crime. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas rise?

mr. jenkins: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jenkins: i have the honor and privilege of representing fort riley, fort leavenworth, the 190th coyotes out of forbes field and nearly 12,000 national guard and reserve members. with this strong military presence comes a large number of military families and children. i rise in recognition april as the month of the military child. i ask my colleagues to applaud the strength, sacrifice, heroism and continued resilience shown by the children of our service men and women. kansas' proud to have more than 33,000 children with at least one parent serving in the military, and this month we recognize that when parents serve in the military their children also serve. i will continue to do everything i can to support not

only our men and women in uniform but their children who sacrifice equally for our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in 1965 when medicare was passed, only 50% of america's seniors could support or buy health insurance. mr. courtney: that was not an accident. it was because the high risk of people over age 65 made that market basically uninsurable. i'm from connecticut. we know a little bit about insurance in the state of connecticut, and looking at the ryan republican medicare plan which would give seniors vouchers to go out and buy insurance, all we're doing is repeating history which is where this country was in 1965. we must protect a guaranteed benefit for seniors. we learned that lesson throughout the early 1900's through 1965. the ryan plan takes us back to a time when seniors will be paying massive out-of-pocket

costs. c.b.o. estimates it will triple out-of-pocket costs for seniors. it is the wrong way to go. president obama's plan that he laid out yesterday, which is a thoughtful, intelligent approach to lower health care costs but protects a guaranteed benefit for seniors, is what this country needs and what our senior citizens need. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, tomorrow's tax day. i'm sure there are some folks out there that haven't quite filled out all their forms yet, haven't quite finished up that paperwork yet but it doesn't have to be that way. there are alternatives to change the tax code in this country and one of those alternatives is the fair tax, h.r. 25, as introduced in this house. the fair tax, h.r. 25, is the only bill in congress to eliminate the incentive that american companies have to move american jobs overseas. the fair tax is the only bill in congress to change the tax

code so that those jobs that have moved overseas, those dollars that have gone overseas, have an incentive to return. the fair tax is the only tax bill in congress that abolishes the payroll tax, that 15.3% fica tax that is the highest tax that 80% of working american families pay. the fair tax, h.r. 25, is a different way and a better way and we can make april 15 just another spring day. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, we will not allow the republicans to terminate medicare with extreme prejudice. we will not allow them to turn a guaranteed for seniors into a voucher program for the insurance industry. we will not allow them to turn medicare into medigone.

we will not allow them to give us 6,000 reasons to vote against their hair brained scheme because they want to put $6,000 more costs on our senior citizens. this is a normal obligation. it should not be shredded. we should reduce medical inflation, not put this burden on senior citizens. preserve medicare and reject the republican scheme. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the white house has presented its equal budget plan for america but this equal looks strangely like the prequel. heavy on new taxes for america's small business owners and job creators. as a c.p.a. who operated my own practice, i have filed thousands of tax returns for individuals and small businesses. i have not only met payroll myself but i have examined the bottom line of businesses who are trying to keep their doors

open. this plan by the white house will ultimately cripple job growth and recovery in america. chairman paul ryan has presented a plan with a vision for job growth. it supports many of the concepts as a c.p.a. i have long advocated for, such as simplifying the tax code and reducing tax levels for small businesses and families. as a c.p.a., i know the ryan plan presents a path to prosperity for america and i will support it tomorrow. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. sires: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. sires: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize national autism awareness month and to express my support for ongoing efforts across the nation that are devoted to improving the treatment of those individuals with autism and their families. today, one in 110 children are affected by autism. my home state of new jersey has

the highest rate of autism in the country. with the help of three support centers, the lives of individuals and families affected by autism are improved every day. i am proud that such a facility exists in my district. the center for autism at the north ward center provides the highest quality of care for people and families. it offers seamless and comprehensive range for the life span of individuals with autism. treating the whole person and the whole family, focusing on strength-based intervention. the centers represents a one-stop approach to relieve the burden on already stressed families dealing with autism. the center for autism in newark is only one example of concentrated care that can better the lives of individuals and families affected by autism and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, this day marks an historic moment in our country. the rise in federal spending that has defineded last three years has ended. the bill that we will pass today in the house contains the largest cuts in our budget since the end of world war ii. this bill is by no means perfect and i, like many americans, want more cuts and i believe we will get them. these cuts are just the start. . the words of winston churchill stated, this is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end but it is perhaps the end of the beginning. mr. speaker, it is time to move beyond last year's business and start doing the work the american people sent us here to do. tomorrow we will take up legislation that will save us not billions but trillions.

and as this house considers addressing the debt ceiling, the senate and president need to know these cuts do not represent the end. they represent a resolve to continue the fight. mr. speaker, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? mrs. capps: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. capps: i rise in strong opposition to gut medicaid. it is not only finding ways to improve medicaid, it's about limiting benefits to the most tees aching away access to well child visits. the medicaid program isn't just numbers on a balance sheet. it's the only access to care for millions of low-income seniors, poor children, people with disabilities. and under the republican proposal there will be less access and less care. especially in times of economic stress. like what we are going through today.

medicaid rolls swell as people lose jobs and families lose income. under the republican block grant scheme, tough times will mean even tougher times for the newly unemployed, the frail, the young. as a nurse i believe a key moral measure of our society is how we treat the least among us. this irresponsible republican proposal just doesn't msh sure up. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to commend our president for taking a mature and comprehensive approach to the problems we face. when a person has a need to lose weight, they both reduce their caloric content and increase the exercise. it's the same thing with the deficit we have. you have to have cuts or reforms but you also have to have more revenue. the president's proposal yesterday about finally getting around to taxing the millionaires and billionaires and having them contribute to the needs to reduce our deficit

are so important while at the same time reforming medicare not eliminating medicare. that's what's scary. eliminating medicare for seniors, threatening social security, and not providing an innovation program to create jobs. jobs is the issue and we need to create jobs in this country and we haven't seen it coming forth. i praise the president for his mature approach to the situation and encourage others to fall in line. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. brown: one to rend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. my name is congresswoman corrine brown and i'm from the great state of florida. the home of clawed pepper. he was the -- claude pepper. he was the champion for senior citizens and the elderly. and he would be so appalled by

the billion that the republicans are bringing to the house floor tomorrow. gutting and privatizing medicaid and medicare in order to pay or give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. that's shocking. that's shocking to me. but republicans are doing it after one hearing. which is unacceptable. you talk about open government, why is it that we have not had hearings where we bring in our stakeholders and talk about how this would affect senior citizens. how can you dare to propose that people who may not even make $6,000 a year have to pay additional $6,000 a year for health care insurance. you know, it's so sad that in the people's house only the big dogs eat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise?

mr. pallone: to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. you know it's sort of ironic that today we are going to bring up a budget, republican budget, that would end medicare as we know it, but at the same time seek to repeal the health care reform legislation, or at least defund it. i don't understand how my republican colleagues keep talking about repealing or defunding health care reform but yet either have nothing to replace it with or in this case trying to gut or eliminate or end as we know it the existing health care programs that we have for senior citizens and the disabled in the case of medicare and in the case of medicaid for low-income people. they would tell seniors in their budget that they are supposed to go out and buy their own health insurance and somehow they are going to give them help, they call it premium support, from the federal government.

but they are now going to have to pay out of pocket to buy their insurance, more and more, so we have to pay out of pocket for the premium, they have to pay out of pocket for deductible, they have to pay out of pocket for the co-pay. where does it end? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? without objection, so ordered. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm here to talk about the american dream, the american dream. that's what motivated the asian american hotel owners to come to this country. many of these hotel owners came here under circumstances similar to that of my dad. they came here to live the american dream but not just for us, but by providing over a half

a million jobs to americans throughout this great country, the asian american hotel owners association helped to provide the american dream to all of us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 223 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 31, house resolution 223, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the concurrent resolution, house concurrent resolution 34. establishing the budget for the united states government for

fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021. the first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. general debate shall not exceed four hours with three hours confined to the congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget. and one hour on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by representative brady of texas and representative hinchey of new york. or their respective designees. after general debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original concurrent resolution for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution.

that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules. each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. all points of order against amendments printed in part b of the report are waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. after the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of general debate,

which shall not exceed 20 minutes equally divided an -- and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on budget, the committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to the house with such amendment as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house or any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the concurrent resolution or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered by the chairman of the committee on the budget pursuant to section 305-a-5 of the congressional budget act of 1974 to acheeve mathematical consistency. the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to nand for division of the question -- demand for division of the question to its adoption. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina,

mr. scott, is recognized for one hour. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. scott: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. scott: thank you, sir. house resolution 223 provides for a structured rule for consideration of house concurrent resolution 34. this rule makes in order every complete substitute submitted to the rules committee. continuing a bipartisan tradition, we are making in order four democratic substitutes and one republican substitute providing four hours of general debate with ample

debate on each substitute. this will allow the house to work its will and adopt a blueprint for the budget for fiscal year 2012. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, the underlying legislation is our budget, 2012. our 2012 budget is a blueprint for a strong and secure future for the next generation. each of us is here today, each of us is here today because of those who came before us making amazing sacrifices for the next generation. keeping alive the american dream. in the last century alone, our parents and grandparents have won two world wars, overcome the great depression, defeated communism, created the most prosperous and vibrant society in the history of mankind. today it is our turn.

it is our turn to take a bold and necessary step to ensure that we pass on to our children this great blessing called america and even a stronger america that the one we received from our parents. paul ryan calls this plan, the path to prosperity. i call it leadership. it's what our country has been thirsting for. it confronts our problems head-on and it proposes reasonable and responsible solutions to get us back on track. our plan creates jobs, real jobs. one million new jobs in america in the first year alone. it stimulates our economy, increasing our g.d.p. by $1.5 trillion in the next 10 years. and it protects and strengthens social security and medicare. let me say that one more time because so many people are

trying to demagogue the issue. our plan strengthens and protects social security and medicare for the next generation of americans. and it also reduces job-killing government spending by $6.2 trillion in the next 10 years. yesterday our president, he got onboard. two months ago, he gave us his 2012 budget and now we have 2012 , 2.0, the second time around. but the plan hasn't changed much, sir. the plan is basically the same. so let's compare our plan in the next 10 years to president obama's plan over the next 12 years. president obama would add $4 trillion to our debt, leaving us at the end of the next decade with $26 trillion in debt, according to the c.b.o. even our democratic colleagues in the house agree.

they have presented a plan that breaks from their own president's, cutting an additional $1.2 trillion off the deficit. the republican budget cuts $6.2 trillion bringing spending to under 20% of our economy. the republican plan proposes specific and responsible solutions to strengthen medicare, social security, and medicaid. the president talks very vaguely about a plan to cut waste and streamline medicare and medicaid. proposing yet another un-elected commission to solve all of our problems. we don't we don't need more unelected bureaucrats in washington, sir. the president tries to tax -- to tax our way out of debt placing the burden on those earning more than $100,000.

but the problem, sir, is a simple one. that if we were to tax these individuals 100% of their income we still could not cover our deficit this year alone. as a matter of fact, to tax our way out of debt we would need to increase taxes across the board on every man, on every woman and every business by 60%. you simply cannot tax your way out of this debt. imagine the effects this would have on our economy. the president's budget cuts $400 billion out of our military in a time that he's led us into libya, in the time we have two conflicts going on, it cuts $400 billion away from the men and women who are fighting for freedom, dying for liberty.

i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the underlying bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: good morning, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague, mr. scott, for yielding me the 30 minutes, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she may consume. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, we all recognize an urgent need to cut the nation's deficit. we need to have serious discussions and make tough discussions of how we prevent a fiscal crisis in our country, and certainly we are beginning those discussions. but sadly today, and i must emphasize this, sadly this bill will end medicare and cost shift the seniors $6,000 more a year. and why are they doing that?

they get to pay for more tax breaks for big oil and millionaires who are untouched in this country. that really is strange deficit reduction to me. i think frankly -- i would start by ending the war in afghanistan. that war is costing us $8 billion a month, and we are paying to rebuild a rock in afghanistan while our own infrastructure crumbles and while we feel we cannot afford to spend any of our money on those of us who live here and pay the cost. just yesterday, the president presented another way to solve our fiscal crisis as he laid out a budget that will responsibly reduce the spending and simplify the tax code, which is so important, so that as the president said, and this is critical to understand, the president said the taxes you pay are not going to be

determined by the accountant you can afford. this is good news for all americans. the president's budget puts us on the right track to ending the deficit crisis while investing in the long-term success of our economy and our country. unfortunately the thought is far too prevalent in this house that we need not invest in ourselves and we can just shut down programs and everybody will be happy. but despite the responsible vision the president presented yesterday, we stand here today debating a reckless republican budget that will destroy programs like medicare while extending the tax cuts to the corporations and america's rich. the budget starts with medicare, eliminating a program that provides secure and affordable health care in old age and it is eliminated. people who are on medicare now will be grandfathered in.

in the future, what they will get will be a voucher with a certain amount of federal money that goes with it. they are then required to go and do the best they can in the private market to meet their health care needs. as we watch the cost in the private market climb, we would have to ask ourselves, will this government help out, as medicare would, by rising the -- raising the money that the government puts in to replace it? no, it wouldn't, so under this plan seniors in the year 2021, and i hope there are a lot of them in this house that will follow me on this, will pay $6,000 more for the private insurance than they would have under medicare. now, if your insurance costs more than that, you better find a way to pay your creditors because you're going to be on your own. today's budget bill also

threatens the future of social security. it includes a trigger mechanism that would allow social security cuts to be rushed through the congress at a future date. this trigger is an abuse of the legislative process and puts social security on the chopping block for future cuts. furthermore, in an act that defines -- defies all logic, this bill cripples the watchdog that we created just last year to police the big banks who created the financial crisis. why in the world would we want to do that? in addition to medicare and social security, it cuts 70% of our investments in clean energy, cuts 25% of our education funding, cuts out 30% of our transportation funding, including significantly less money for high speed rail network designed to free us from foreign oil. but by stopping investments in key competitive areas, our nation is abandoning jobs and

future economic opportunities that come with that clean energy with a new transportation network and the invaluable work of educating our work. this is the burden 90% of americans are asked to share. meanwhile, the republican budget would make permanent the bush-era tax cuts that further cuts taxes for corporations and america's richest individuals, including the oil companies. do they need a federal subsidy? i think not. had the bush tax cuts been allowed to expire in december, we would almost be able to cut our deficit in half within a few months from now. the republican majority apparently believes that the ones who have the most should sacrifice the least. some will claim tax cuts create jobs. we hear that a lot around here. but analysis by respected experts, such as pulitzer prize winner and former "new york

times" expert, david k. johnson, has shown that tax cuts do nothing to spur the economy and create jobs. they simply pad the wallets of the wealthiest among us in times of a national need. as we shape a budget for 2012, we must craft legislation that truly shares the entirely nation's sacrifice, not a budget that ends medicare while handing more tax giveaways to those who need it the least and in many cases are asked not to be given it. accordingly, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule, the underlying resolution, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to address a few months that congresswoman slaughter brought up. i have scoured the budget looking for this notion of a voucher system for medicare. i scoured the budget and simply cannot find anything that is in fact a voucher system.

i have seen things about support. let me talk about medicare for just a second. $800 billion the president has suggested must come out of medicare in order to pay for national health care. so we are going to take benefits from our senior citizens in an attempt to provide health care benefits for 19 and 20-year-olds. in fact, that $800 billion is one way to actually increase the cost to every senior citizen in our country. increasing taxes by $2 trillion in the next 12 months is a wonderful way to make our economy stumble, and that's what the president has suggested. and finally, you cannot increase taxes on the very job creators themselves and then ask them to continue to create jobs. mr. speaker i yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes.

mr.: i thank the gentleman for -- mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding. imagine back home in your family budget if for every dollar you spent 40 cents was borrowed. surely you would bring your entire family in on the kitchen table and say, ok, can we cut out? we cannot continue to borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend. you would make changes in your household budget. but for some reason many in washington, d.c., want to stick their head in the sand and say, no, we really don't have to do this. and yet right now the national debt is 90% of the g.d.p. we borrow billions of dollars a year from china which is not exactly a great idea in terms of national security. i sit on the defense subcommittee of appropriations. we watch china year in, year out, building up their army and yet we go to them over and over again for more money. and yet while we do that those in washington, d.c., don't want

to do anything. we heard yesterday the president mulligan budget. as you know, mr. speaker, the president of the united states is responsible to submit his budget to congress each year, which the president did in february, totally ignoring his own deficit commission recommendations. the simpson-bowles language was not in there. the president said, well, give me one more chance. i am going to introduce another budget which has a lot of phony numbers in there and cut a lot of false promises and asks for measure studies and commission. can that budget going to be on the floor today, i will ask my friend, are we going to be able to offer it? let me yield to my friend. >> we are going to be offering a democratic alternative today. mr. kingston: will you be offering the budget that the president offered yesterday?

the democrat had the opportunity to offer a budget. we think it's a very important. we think the best of your ideas and the best of our ideas can be combined. >> will the gentleman yield for five seconds? mr. kingston: i yield to my friend, but here's what i want to say, we keep hearing over and over again about the president's wonderful mulligan budget that he offered yesterday, but i don't believe it's going to be offered on the floor of the house. now, let me yield to my friend. mr. van hollen: you will have a democratic budget that will present a very clear choice to the members. it will present a steady predictable cut. that's the center of the debate. so everyone will have an opportunity to vote on the budget. mr. kingston: let me ask specifically, the mulligan budget that the president offered yesterday, will it be on the floor of the house today?

mr. van hollen: the president did not offer what we call a budget. he offered what was an outline, an approach that he wants people to look at on a bipartisan basis. that's what the president prosewsed -- proposed yesterday. mr. kingston: i thank my friend for saying this. i think it's an important for the democrats to offer an alternative budget and i'm glad that you will be and there will be five such budgets. if your budgets don't pass we can pick and choose of those and hopefully there will be some of ours that you'll support as well. the president, who yesterday tried to reclaim some territory because he did not take on the recommendations of his own deficit reduction commission, he's not offering a budget yesterday. what he did was give a speech. now, the president is kind of becoming the spectator in chief or the speaker in chief. he's the guy who offers a budget and then yesterday decides to give a speech. well, the time has come and

gone for speeches. what our budget does is takes on some serious changes in our spending habits. it does tackle the difficult choices that we have on medicaid and medicare. it does not create a voucher system. it's a supplemental system which will give seniors more choices and it doesn't affect anybody 55 years or older which is very important. but we will hear from the liberals in this community, the cage rattling of senior citizens over and over again and that's why we can't make progress in this town because we always reduce policy to politics. the time to put policy first is now. we got to tone down our rhetoric and say, you know what, here is a plan to save and protuct and preserve medicaid and medicare, not for the next election, not for politicians, but for america's future seniors, the baby boomers who are under 55 years old will have a medicare and

medicaid plan that they can count on because it will be there. if we don't change it will not be there for them. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. later in this debate, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to make in order mr. tonko's amendment to protect medicare, tricare and veterans' health care from privatization or arbitrary spending caps and i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. i'm glad my colleague raised the issue of the bipartisan fiscal commission because they took a look at the budget republican plan and said it was not balanced and not comprehensive and not a way to achieve a deficit reduction in a responsible way. that was the verdict of the

bipartisan commission. why did they say it was unbalanced? because the republican budget provides big tax breaks for special interests. you don't get rid of the subsidies to the big oil companies. you want to give an additional tax break to the very wealthy, including millionaires. what do you do? for the tradeoff? you cut funding for education and kids and you do end the medicare guarantee. we'll have time to talk about other parts of the bill later on but i want to talk about that now because it's going to be the subject of the previous question. what this budget does is say to seniors, you no longer may stay in the medicare program today. you have to go into the private insurance market. and the way it saves money is it says, as those costs in the private insurance market continue to go up, you are not going to get premium support

that will keep up with it. you are going to get something that's of relatively fixed value compared to the rapidly rising health care costs. which is why, as the president said yesterday, in the year 2022, seniors would pay more under the republican budget plan by -- over $6,300 than they do under current medicare. and that continues to rise and rise and rise. i want to put an end to this other talking point we keep hearing that somehow they are offering seniors what members of congress have. it's not true. what members of congress have is something called the fair share formula under the federal employees health been fit plan. so as premiums -- benefit plan. so as premiums go up, the risk to members of congress and other federal employees is fixed a certain percentage. not true under the republican medicare plan. the way it saves money in the

out years is in fact to make sure that share between medicare and the senior is not fixed. that the senior has to pick up more of the claus. that is a fact and that is how they make money in the out years by putting on the backs of seniors, even while they say they are going to bring down the top tax rate by 30% for the wealthiest people in this country. that's the kind of choices we are facing here. now, mr. tonko from new york had an amendment before the rules committee on exactly this issue of ending medicare and the guarantee that it provides in saying you got to go to the private system. if i could have an additional 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: his amendment makes the point that if you think this is a good idea if the republicans think this is such a good idea, why don't you apply it to veterans? why don't you apply it to active service personnel? if this is such a great thing,

why don't you turn them into voucher premium support, whatever you want? a kind of plan where they have to eat the costs, rising costs of health care. so people are going to have an opportunity, if you vote no on the previous question, you'll be able to vote to say let's not turn medicare into a voucher premium, let's not end the guarantee, and let's not do that for our military personnel or our veterans, either. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. let's just clarify. the only specific savings, only specified savings in this budget are from raising taxes and cutting the military. raising taxes and cutting the military. if we really wanted to have an opportunity, an opportunity to make medicare last longer, we could simply repeal obamacare, repeal national health care and put the $800 billion back in,

back in to medicare. mr. van hollen: would the gentleman yield? mr. scott: yes, sir. mr. van hollen: the democratic alternative says, yes, we should ask the highest incomers, the folks at the top 2% to simply pay the same rate that they paid during the clinton administration when the economy was roaring and we created 20 million jobs. that's what the choices are before us. that's exactly the point you are making. you want to end the medicare guarantee for seniors, at the same time you want to give tax breaks to folks at the very top. that's your choice. we can make it. we don't think that's the choice the american people want. mr. scott: we could tax those over $100,000 a year 100% and we still simply could not close the deficit for this year. the fact of the matter is, people talk about this government getting smaller and the president's original budget spent $47 trillion in the next 10 years. $8.7 trillion increase in spending. we are talking about a $2 trillion increase in spending in

the next 12 months. in taxes. we are not talking about reducing the size and scope of this government. we must get ourselves on completely different trajectory. we must bend it back towards the american people, back towards the private sector and eliminate the disconsecutive for growth in our economy called taxation. so to the extent that we can flatten the tax, spread the risk, we find ourselves in a more prosperous society with a stronger economy led by those folks in the private sector, entrepreneurs have an opportunity to take those dollars, reinvest it in such a way to create more jobs. it is a simple formula. mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. mulvaney: i thank my colleague for the opportunity to speak. it's been roughly 100 days since i've been here. i'm one of the new folks in

congress. i began with my very first presentation several months ago congreat lag my opponents across the aisle for saying all the right things about where we were going to go this year. about how concerned they were about cutting spending and balancing the budget and i was actually excited at that time to hear folks across the aisle using a lot of the same language that we were using. apparently by now i guess i have to expose myself for being somewhat naive. here we are again today hearing the exact same language that the other side is deathly serious about cutting spending. the other side is deathly serious about balancing the budget. i have come to realize as i think the world has the words simply don't match up to the language. to a certain extent i should be happy we are here having this debate. we are here today discussing the 2012 budget for the first time. this would be the first time in two years this debate has taken place on this floor since there was no budget last year offered by my colleagues across the way. i can simply ask them if you are

serious today about balancing the budget, serious today about getting spending under control, where have you been for the last four years? where were you last year when this debate was not even allowed to take place on the floor of the house of representatives? let as you put that behind us now. let's move on to the 2012, because what are we seeing? we are seeing some wonderful language out of our colleagues on the other side. we saw the president in the state of the union say a lot of the things that folks like me wanted to hear. then we saw a budget that did absolutely nothing out of the white house. nothing. a budget that was decried by "the washington post" as actually being void of ideas and failing to lead. so what did our side do? we led. in our budget we actually introduced specific proposals on how to solve the problem. did you like them? no. did i like all of them? no. are we going to like all of the proposals? no chance. but at least we offered ideas, specific ideas. yesterday we heard the president was going to do the same thing.

that he was going to meet us. he wasn't going to attack us. he was actually going to put specific ideas on the table and invited my colleagues to sit in the front row while he called them un-american and again refused to give any specifics. mr. speaker, you will not see the president's budget offered today or tomorrow as an amendment. you will not see the budget the president discussed yesterday offered as an amendment because it simply does not meet the specific requirements of being a budget amendment. it doesn't even come close. what the president talked about last night was more empty ideas and political rhetoric. the speech was introduced by his campaign manager not by his director of office and management and budget. not but the secretary of treshry. it was a political smeach. i'm -- tresh it was a political speech. i would love to talk about the economic realities that face our nation. it is so difficult to do when the other side led by the president simply wants to engage in politics. here again today we have seen it. well, you have seen talking

points. somehow our proposal is going to raise -- require seniors to pay $6,000 out of pocket. we have looked for the last 12 hours to find that, mr. speaker, and we can't find it. what we did find, however, is the c.b.o. report that says that the payment under our proposed system for 65-year-olds in 2020, 10 years on, would be the exact same as it would be under medicare, that the spending per capita on seniors under our proposal 10 years on would be the same it is under the current law. i'll not sure where the $6,300 is coming from. i'm guessing is from a political office not some think tank. you heard my esteemed colleague who i have enjoyed working with on the budget committee from maryland talk about the fiscal -- give me a few minutes, mr. van hollen. i will give you the opportunity. to talk about -- you mentioned the fiscal commission. i think lost in a lot of the discussion yesterday about the president's speech was the comments that one of the co-chairs of that committee made

as he walked out of the room after the president gave his speech and they said, mr. simpson, what do you think the course of action should be from here on out? his answer was pray. pray. is that what we have come to? is that what we have come as a nation the best chance to balance our budget is prayer? i'm a big believer in prayer, don't get me wrong. we need to be met on the real issues. we cannot have the other side continuing to meet our specific proposals with rhetoric. to the extent that we will see specific proposals, i think we saw a brief introduction to it during the amendment process in the committee, every single democrat amendment -- that's not fair. there were three or four, including one or two i voted for. we did have a couple of bipartisan amendments passed, but the large majority of the democrat proposals to amendments to this budget during the budget process were fairly simply described as increase taxes and increase spending. it was a series of increase taxes and increase spending. my fear, mr. chairman, is that -- mr. speaker, is that's what

we are going to see for the next few days and it's a tremendous loss here we are able to discuss the budget for the first time in two years. the debate will be purely political. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield a minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: how much? ms. slaughter: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. van hollen: i thank the ranking member. if my colleague would remember, one of the first amendments was offered to say let's be serious about the deficit. let's have shared sacrifice. let's ask those folks paying over $1 million to go back to the same tax rates that they were during the clinton administration. and put some of that money to deficit reduction. we offered other amendments by saying let's let the big oil companies do a little less with the taxpayer subsidies and focus that on higher priorities. the gentleman asked where the figure of a senior would have to pay more than $6,000, more in the year 2022 under the republican proposal, that is

from the c.b.o. letter to the chairman of the budget committee where they did their analysis to the long-term impact. it was not a republican outfit. it was not a democratic outfit. in fact, the chairman of the committee has made it clear that he has used the c.b.o. baseline for the purpose of his own budget. this is out of a c.b.o. report. i think we need to take it seriously because we can all have our own arguments and opinions, but there are certain facts that we can't run away from. that's one of them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, chairman dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california the distinguished chairman of the rules committee is recognized for two minutes. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. let me begin by expressing my appreciation not only the gentleman from north charleston for his superb management of the rule, but also salute my friend from lawrenceville, georgia, mr. woodall, who serves on the rules committee, committee on the

budget. we actually have clearly changed the entire trajectory with the budget we are going to consider with this rule, and i should say that -- as i listen to the exchange that took place between messrs. van hollen and kingston earlier, we have changed the debate. in the last session of congress, the last session of congress, mr. speaker, there was not a budget considered. we didn't go through this. yet we are going to have every single substitute from the congressional progressive caucus, congressional black caucus, mr. cooper, the democratic substitute all considered and we are going to have a free flowing debate today and tomorrow on that. mr. speaker, let me just say that yesterday i stood here at 1:30 just as the president was getting ready to deliver his speech and i indicated some real hope and optimism by virtue of the fact that early indications were the president would be talking about the need for entitlement reform. i had have to say i was more than disappointed in the fact

that the speech was a little more political than i thought it could have been, and it was at best a very first step, but a little too modest for my taste. mr. speaker, it is essential that we work in a bipartisan way to take on, to take on the burden and the cost of medicare, especially, and social security as well. why? so that we can save not abolish medicare and social security. the american people have been compelled throughout their entire lifetimes to pay the fica tax. they in fact should have an opportunity to have what is much needed health care and retirement benefits. and the course we are on right now, the course where we are right now, mr. speaker, has created a scenario whereby they will be lost. that's why we are working to save it. it can only be done, i believe, mr. speaker, if we do it in a bipartisan way. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is

recognized. . ms. slaughter: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from maine, ms. pingree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for two minutes. ms. pingree: thank you, thank you, madam speaker. and thank you to my colleague from new york, former chair of the rules committee, who i had the privilege of serving under. for allowing me this time. i'm here today to speak against the rule and against the republican budget. you know, last year was a good year for c.e.o.'s in america's biggest companies. the average c.e.o. got a 12% raise and made about $10 million. and now the republicans want to give that same c.e.o. a 30% tax cut. that's right. while the average american family is struggling with gas prices that went up 93 cents in the last year, while working americans tried to figure out how to afford health care or how to spend -- send their children to college, the republicans have been busy trying to figure out how to cut taxes for c.e.o.'s by

1/3. of course you can't cut taxes that's dramatically for the richest americans without cutting spending somewhere else. someone has to pay for the tax cuts. and in the republican budget the people who pay the price are seniors and the middle class. under their budget seniors will pay when medicare as we know it is ended and replaced with a voucher system that will be a windfall for insurance companies but will double health care costs for seniors. and the middle class will pay when deductions for home mortgage or health insurance are repealed to pay for those c.e.o. tax cuts. madam speaker, republicans simply have the wrong priorities, putting the burden of the budget on seniors and the middle class while giving big tax breaks to the wealthy and handing out handouts to insurance companyless. i don't share those values. this is -- companies. i don't share those values. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: we reserve our time, madam chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of the committee on rules, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the ryan budget before the house today. i'm pleased that the rules committee has made the submitted substitute budget in order so we can have a full debate on our nation's priorities over the next several years and in my view the ryan budget represents exactly the wrong priorities. it would eliminate, eliminate medicare as we know it, forcing seniors to pay thousands of dollars more every year for their health care. it would bring back the doughnut hole, allowing insurance companies to once again discriminate baited on pre-existing conditions and kick young people off their parents' insurance plans. it would slash needed investments in education, infrastructure, medical research, environmental protection and hunger programs. and it would still result in

deficits as far as the eye can see. and at the same time the ryan budget would give a massive tax cut to the wealthiest americans. the top rate under the ryan budget would be the lowest since 1931 which is appropriate, madam speaker, because this is a budget that only herbert hoover could love. apparently the republican leadership of this house would like to reverse the last 80 years of social progress in this country. in short, i believe this budget would represent the largest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthy in american history. now, some call this approach trickledown economics on steroids. but it's worse than trickledown, madam speaker, it's gusher-up. over the last several years working families have been struggling, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay their mortgages, to pay their utility bills and their health care bills. struggling to put food on the table and put their kids through college. to them the republicans would say, tough luck. at the same time the very wealthiest americans and

corporations have enjoyed record profits and to them the republicans would say, you need more help. as president obama said so eloquently yesterday, that's not the america that i grew up in. that's not the america i want for my children and for my grandchildren. we can and we must do better. the democratic alternative offered by mr. van hollen is a sensible, practical and most importantly fair way to address our long-term fiscal challenges while at the same time investing in our future. i urge my colleagues to support that alternative and to reject the ryan budget. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, a member of the budget committee, and my new york colleague, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: thank you and i thank my colleague for yielding. thank you, madam speaker. the last week i have twice offered an amendment to protect health care for seniors, veterans and active duty

military and military families. and to my greast great disappointment the republican majority has twice blocked this effort, first in committee where they voted on a partyline vote to end medicare and yesterday when the republican leadership refused to allow this amendment to be heard, debated and voted on. i've twice a sked my republican colleagues to honor the constitution. they must allow the elected representatives of the american people to have an honest up or down vote on whether or not we support privatizing medicare, a trend that could easily lead to similar privatized plans for the coverage provided to our troops and veterans. if they believe seniors will receive quality care at a more affordable price to the taxpayer, what's to stop them from going after tricare and the v.a.? my amendment will protect health care provided to seniors and the disabled from being privatized or being subject to arbitrary spending caps. it would extend the same protection to health coverage for active duty military and their families as well as veterans.

this amendment would protect medicare, tricare and v.a. health care from being eliminated and replaced with voucher or premium support programs. the road to ruin budget ends medicare. this is a program that 46 million seniors and disabled individuals rely on for their health care. rather than guarantee benefit, seniors and the disabled will be left with a voucher or so-called premium support that by design cannot and will not keep up with rising health care costs. the private market views seniors as a risky and expensive investment, so, too, the disabled, so, too, military service members and veterans who have unique health needs earned through their sacrifice in service to america. the question before us today is not whether to reduce the deficit but how. we have balanced the budget before without ending medicare, we can do it again without the painful consequences that the republican plan would initiate when our seniors would pay 68 cents of every $1 of insurance required as opposed to congress paying 28 cents on every $1.

46 million people rely on medicare today. even more will depend upon it in the future. those many million deserve a vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. -- the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. dold: i thank my colleague for yielding and, madam speaker, i think it's time that we roll up our sleeves and get to work. i'm delighted that we're having this debate. we hear a lot about job creators and business owners. well, i am a small business owner and i know what this crutch -- this crushing federal debt does to small businesses all across our nation and to job creators as well. it reduces certainty and stability, it scares away private sector investment that leads to growth for our economy and it crushes the hopes of job creation. small businesses need to be able to forecast what their expenses will be in the long-term. small businesses are reluctant to take risks when they don't

know what their costs will be in the future. and if you listen to what the president said from his speech just yesterday, he made it clear that his vision of the future includes taking money out of the pockets of small businesses and job creators by increasing taxes on these very small businesses. this is the president's plan for addressing the deficit. increasing taxes on small businesses will have a devastating affect on job creation in this country. 2/3 of all net new jobs in our nation are created by small bills. and 75% of those small businesses file their returns as an independent return on their individual tax forms. rather than introduce the spector of uncertainty and increase taxes on our business community, we must instead make the choice to be relentless in our effort to support small businesses and actually encourage economic growth. last week paul ryan, the chairman of the house budget committee, put forward a budget that cuts $6.2 trillion over the decade.

preventing the president's proposed tax increases from going into effect and puts the nation on a fiscally sustainable path to give job creators and entrepreneurs all across the country the confidence to grow their business, to invest and to create jobs. federal deficits, madam speaker, have ballooned over the last three years and this budget blueprint for fiscal year 2012 starts to repair the damage. and takes the serious steps to put ourselves on a path to paying off that debt and reducing our deficits. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, controls the time. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, madam speaker. we need to work together to change america, to stop borrowing so much money and jeopardizing the future of our country. we agree on that.

but it's important that we understand that it's not the way to do that to end medicare. and here's what ending medicare means to the seniors and disabled people of this country. today if a person on medicare has a medical problem, they choose their doctor. the doctor and the patient decide what should happen nens next and med care -- what should happen next and medicare pays the lion share of the bill. this is a system that works for america's seniors and works for america's disabled. how do the republicans want to change medicare? and end medicare? this is what they want to do. you won't choose your doctor, the insurance company will. if your doctor decides that a certain test or procedure or surgery's necessary, he or she will have to ask the insurance companies permission to get that test done.

and the bill won't be paid by medicare, the bill will be paid by the insurance company when they feel like it, if they feel like it, to the amount that it should. the congressional budget office has looked at this issue at the request of chairman ryan. and concluded that by the end of the implementation of this plan, seniors will pay an extra $6,000 a year out of pocket for health care expenses. $6,000 a year, $500 a month, $125 a week beyond what they're paying right now for health care. we will stand for medicare, we will not stand for this budget, we will defeat it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i

yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: this republican budget does offer a path to prosperity. unfortunately it's china's prosperity. for america they offer a fast-tracked mediocrity, a dissent into economic insecurity. it's the wrong path to global competitiveness. it's not that the level of our debt or the size of our tax rates is unimportant, it's that when you have such a narrow focus that you talk about little else you forget america's other competitive strengths. our work force, the need to invest, to ensure the strongest and best educated work force anywhere in the world. our infrastructure that allows american businesses to prosper across our croix -- as i cross our country and it's also about preserving a broad middle class so that more americans share in the bounty of this country instead of going to some third

world extreme where all the wealth is concentrated to those at the top of the ladder. today we have to choose. instead of eliminating $4 billion from early education and student financial assistance so that students can achieve all of their god-given potential, why not ask general electric to at least pay the level of taxes that the mail clerks that work for it pay? get $4 billion there. instead of eliminating $3 billion for our crumbling roads and brudges, why not ask those giant corporations that currently get a $3 billion annual deduction when they borrow money to build a factory overseas without recognizing any of the income from that factory to begin to pay their fair share? and instead of accepting this republican nonsense that we have to have more tax breaks for the very wealthy in our country, why not use the same money to ensure a little dignity for our seniors

in nursing homes across the country. we need to stop exporting jobs and manufacturing and exporting our tax revenues overseas and begin developing a more competitive work force right here in america. do you have another 10 seconds? ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman 10 seconds. mr. doggett: i will yield my time but i will never yield to those republicans who don't demand any sacrifice from wall street and all those big bonus recipients and demand the rest of us to pay for balancing their budget. oppose this republican budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one min. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lankford: i sit and listen to the conversation and debate and it's as if we are reading two entirely different documents. i feel like republicans are being portrayed they are going to have a horn grow out of their heads an immediately rush into homes and jerk out the poor and

those in social security and the needy. if you read through the document, we are dealing with two central issues. the first of those issues is, $14 trillion in debt. we can ignore that fact, or we can begin to take on and make serious decisions and have serious adult conversations. $14 trillion in debt. the second issue that we take on is this one simple principle. do we have a spending problem or tax problem in america? in other words, do we need to tax a lot more or do we need to spend less? i think if you look at the rate of how we have been spending in america versus how we are taxing in america, would you say we have a spending issue. in our current time there are statements being made about republicans want to protect the corporations, republicans want to give these benefits to the wealthy. here's what we want to do with the tax rate. leave it where it is now. that's not a 30% cut. where it is right now, that's the rate we need to keep. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to

yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my good friend from new york. madam speaker, i rise on behalf of the seniors in my community. before we enacted medicare in 1965, almost half of all seniors in our country had no health insurance coverage. that's why the creation of medicare was so important. and now every one of america's seniors has access to quality health care coverage. but today their care is at risk and under assault. the america we enjoy as the result of the lifetimes of hard work by our seniors and as they enter their well deserved retirements, there are those who would callously rip away the commitment this nation made to them. the republican budget for fiscal year 2012 is a path to the past. and will return us to the dark days when seniors agonized over access to health care. the republican budget ends the guaranteed coverage of medicare

and replaces it with a grossly inadequate voucher system. subjecting seniors once get -- subjucating seniors once again to finding health care costs by themselves. the nonpartisan quo congressional budget office said seen quors would pay three times more for coverage under the republican plan. the republican budget opens, reopens the doughnut hole in medicare part d, forcing seniors once again to pay thousands of dollars of out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drug and medication. i was proud to fix that inequity and eliminate the doughnut hole last year, but the path to the past brings it back, roaring back, costing seniors thousands more. this republican budget isn't just a cost shifting trick to transfer financial burden on to seniors. though it is that. the republicans would also repeal the important reforms prohibiting insurance -- insurers from denying coverage

for pre-existing conditions. that puts every single senior with pre-existing conditions at risk, even those who can afford the increased costs of privatized care they would find themselves in with the republican plan. the path to the past needs to be rejected, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to one of our new members, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you. i thank the gentlelady from new york. i rise in opposition to this rule and against this budget. this republican budget no longer honors our commitment to our seniors and doesn't reduce our deficit. the nonpartisan congressional budget office c.b.o. said the republican plan will -- congressional budget office said the republican plan will add ith 8 trillion over the next decade because the proposed cuts in spending are outpaced by gine ganttic tax cuts for the richest americans.

you also can't say you care about seniors and then fight to enact policies that hurt seniors. under their plan they'll slash support for seniors in nursing homes while giving away tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas. what else, america's seniors will literally be paying more for their health care and getting less in order to finance additional tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. also reflected in the republican budget. a budget is more than just about dollars and cents. it's a statement of our values and our priorities as a nation. this republican budget does not reflect the values of our great nation. my friends on the other side of the aisle would rather cut benefits to seniors than cut subsidies to big oil companies and big orpgses that ship our jobs overseas. -- organizations that ship our jobs overseas. these are the choices made in this budget. it ends medicare as we know it. it slashes funding for nursing homes. it preserves tax cuts for the richest americans and makes them even more generous.

and it increases our debt. we have a responsibility to honor our commitment to our seniors. and i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if we can't protect our greatest generation and keep our promise to them, what is next? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. woodall: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from the rules committee for yielding. we've got a good freshman class up there in the rules committee and what we have been able to do under the leadership of chairman dreier is bring open processes to the floor. can you imagine? can you imagine we got a multitude of budgets down here on the floor. if you want to look at the congressional black caucus budget, you can vote for that. if you want to vote for the republican study committee budget, can you vote for that. if you want to vote for mr. van hollen's budget, can you vote for that today. you have your choices today about what your priorities are and about what your vision for

america's future is. and when we have that conversation, we have had it in the budget committee, i'm proud to be able to serve on the rules committee and budget committee, we have had that on the budget committee an honest back and forth. so it pains me to come to the floor today and hear what can only be described as nonsense. nonsense. have you heard anybody on the house floor today say that the republican budget would change things for seniors? have you heard that today? i believe you have because i have heard it over and over again. the truth of the matter is the republican budget changes nothing. nothing for seniors. it says, you don't have to be a senior. if you are age 55 or older, we change nothing in medicare for you. nothing. and yet my colleagues on the left are scaring today's seniors, scaring the folks who have the fewest number of choices in our society, scaring them into believing that folks are coming for them. not true. our colleagues on the left would say $6,000 is what we are going to charge additional seniors.

two things, number one again we are not doing anything for seniors. you have to be 55 or younger, my age, to even begin to have a program changed. more importantly, that $6,000 figure comes from a c.b.o. report looking at things 12 years down the road. which is two years after the medicare program has gone bankrupt entirely. hear that. hear that misinformation. $6,000 per beneficiary, a number that comes from a report looking at the program two years after our trustees tell us it's going to go bankrupt entirely. folks, this is about choices. this is about your vision for america. you have to put forward your plan. i applaud mr. van hollen for putting the plan forward. he could have said, no, i don't have any idea. that's what the white house has chosen to do. mr. van hollen did better. the congressional black caucus did better. the republican study committee did better. look at these budgets. look at this open process. make the choice for you about what you believe a better america would look like. and i will tell you, "wall street journal" talked about the path to prosperity, called it the most serious attempt at

reforming government in a generation. it absolutely is. i applaud chairman ryan for getting that done. i thank my friend from south carolina for the time. i appreciate the rules committee giving us this open process we have today. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased, madam speaker, to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. my gosh, must have been a tall fellow here. i thank my colleague from new york for allowing me to speak. the gentleman before me is correct, we have lots of options today. that's great. we have the republican budget, we have a democratic budget, we have a black caucus budget, we have a progressive caucus budget, we have lots of options. i'm going to talk about the republican budget. the budget proposal we are debating today is reckless and misguided. it slashes taxes for the wealthy and pays for them by gutting medicare.

let me explain that. it cuts over $30 billion in the first 10 years and by forcing seniors into private health insurance plans after 2022. they are right. if you are 54 years old now, and you have high blood pressure, and you have high diabetic or prediabetic, you won't get medicare, you'll get a voucher. insurance companies don't want to cover those who are diabetic or prediabetic or have high blood pressure. it gradually excludes seniors and eventually raising the age to 67 for medicare. c.b.o. says in 2022 the republicans will more than double the cost paid by medicare enrollees. we are throwing seniors out of medicare and into uncertainty in the private insurance market while providing tax breaks to the wealthy. it doesn't make sense. i also represent the port of houston, the 10th busiest port in the world. the port's facing dredging crisis. ensuring dredging means jobs. but the republican budget

contains deep cuts in programs like the army corps of engineers dredging cannot be funded privately. it has to come from the corps and the federal government. hundreds of thousands of jobs in our port of houston but also across the country under this plan will be put at risk. there's one high point in the budget and i commend chairman ryan for including language to put nasa on track with the authorization bill congress passed last year. providing immediate transition for our next generation to human space flight once the shuttle missions are concluded. despite that, i'm unable to support the plan that allows massive cuts for the wealthiest continues and pays for them by ending medicare while negligenting our ports. madam speaker, i ask to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: do you have any speakers left? ms. slaughter: i have one more speaker. mr. scott: reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from

massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady. republicans say their budget is a path to prosperity. but it's really a path to more prosperity for the already prosperous. the republican budget picks high rolling oil executives over low-income families. it favors c.e.o.'s over senior citizens. it helps the wealthy over the working class. how do republicans pay for this gigantic goody bag for the rich? well, they eviscerate medicare, turning it into an underfunded voucher program. medicare becomes medi care-less. end the help seniors -- medicare-less. end the help for seniors.

g.o.p. stands for grand mass out of prescriptions. this budgets is the same tired tune republicans have been trotting out for decades. it's play it again, uncle sam. in the 1980's ronald reagan tried to slash the social safety net programs. in 2005 president bush tried to privatize social security. and today the same republicans are trying to shred the social safety net they have opposed since it was created. it's not just deja vu all over again. it's deja vu-doo economics all over again. vote down this misguided budget so we can protect medicare, medicaid, and social security now and into the future. do not let medicare become medicare-less. we don't want these people who always oppose medicare, always oppose social security, oppose

medicaid as we put it on the books to now come back and say, we are very courageous. we want to end those programs as we know it, but by the way where their courage has to be shown they show none. they will not tax the rich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: they only want to harm the poor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, may i inquire of my colleague if he has any more speakers? i am prepared to close. mr. scott: we do not. ms. slaughter: all right. madam speaker, the republicans have shown in their budget proposal that they are intent on using the deficit as a pretense to end medicare. democrats proposed an amendment in the budget committee to protect medicare, tricare for the military, and v.a. health care from privatization or arbitrary spending caps. the republicans all voted against it. democrats tried again in the rules committee last night but

the rule does not allow the amendment to be brought to the house floor. madam speaker, as we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order mr. tonko's amendment to protect medicare, tricare, and veterans' health care from privatization or spending caps. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i urge my colleagues to vote no, defeat the previous question so we can put every house member, know where they stand on health care and do they want to end medicare or not. i urge a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. finally, the democrats, they do get it. what they get is that they do not find a way to scare our seniors, they have no chance.

when you cover the expenses of running this government, when you think about the fact that what the democrats have proposed, what president obama proposed in his original budget was an increase of $8.7 trillion of new spending, $47 trillion of new spending in the next 10 years, the democrats have finally found a way to cover their tracks and it is on the backs of our senior citizens. there is no doubt that the 2012 budget plan that we have proposed simply has no impact, not only on our senior citizens receiving benefits today but those over the age of 55. not only are they willing to scare our seniors based on nothing, they want to go to two years after medicare is bankrupt and start having a conversation about with numbers when medicare would not exist under their

plan. what we do to under our plan is a simple thing. we simply strengthen and preserve social security and medicare for the next generation. we understand that it is time to roll up our sleeves and get serious -- sleeves and get serious about preserving the american dream for the next generation. our budget does that by cutting $6.2 trillion out of the deficit in the next 10 years. by creating more than a million jobs in the next 12 months. but we go further. we simply say that you do not create more disincentives or higher taxes in order to recruit -- to improve our economy. let us do exactly what the previous generation, the greatest generation, has done for us, pass on to us the american dream in its entirety.

we have a responsibility to the next generation to take the tough road today, to make the american dream stronger tomorrow . 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 on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, on that i ask the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on ordering the previous

question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 223 if ordered and approval of the journal if