Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the value of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as ObamaCare, I must acknowledge the sad fact that this will be the 37th time in 29 months that the majority has voted to repeal or defund the law, and they know it will not happen. Recent estimates are that each vote to repeal or to defund the Affordable Care Act has cost $1.45 million in taxpayer money. So today's debate will bring the total cost of repeal votes to--wake up there--$53 million and counting.

Now, while the majority wastes our tax dollars, think what we could do with $53 million. The agriculture bill we were all talking about this morning is ready to take $20 billion out of food stamps, feeding poor people, while we waste that kind of money here doing a bill month after month after month that we know is not going anywhere. Yet we don't have any positive agenda to put forward here. For the last 2 or 3 months, all we've done are one-House bills that everybody knows are not going to get passed, and it really is a tragedy because a CBS study says it costs $25 million a week just to run the Congress--and how deplorable that kind of waste is with all the problems we have in the country.

We are told that the freshman Republicans would like, once again, to have an opportunity to vote to kill health care. I wonder if the freshman Republicans, as I know the freshman Democrats do, wouldn't like to vote to repeal the sequester or to maybe do a jobs bill, which we haven't had in 2\1/2\ years. We are not going to do anything about the budget either when we've heard all the time, Why doesn't the Senate do a budget? The Senate has done a budget. The Senate has asked over and over again for the House to appoint conferees so that we can get the budget put together and pass it into law. No action there either. Then, because of the sequester cuts, at least 70,000 children have been denied access to early education, and thousands of cancer patients have been denied their regular cancer treatments.

The majority says it is holding today's vote, as I said, so that the freshmen can repeal the Affordable Care Act. I wish to goodness that they would give them something that would really pass and something good to vote on.

Instead of voting to repeal the sequester, the majority is voting for the 37th time to repeal a law--and this is very important--that has already done so much already. It has given 100 million Americans access to free preventative health care, procedures such as mammograms and colonoscopies. That's 100 million already. They are voting for the 37th time to repeal a law that saves seniors $6.1 billion in prescription drug costs already. They are voting for the 37th time to repeal a law that has provided 3.1 million young adults with health insurance already that they otherwise could not afford.

The Affordable Care Act has been particularly beneficial for America's women. Did you know that prior to the passage of this law in eight States and in the District of Columbia, domestic violence was classified as a preexisting condition and you could be denied insurance? They were denied insurance because they had been abused and because, perhaps, they would be again.

Did you know that thanks to a practice called ``gender rating,'' women were charged as much as 46 percent more in premiums for the same level of insurance as a man? Maybe you didn't know that. But lots of women in the country are getting rebates for that very reason.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, both of these discriminatory practices have been outlawed. In addition, the Affordable Care Act has already returned money to the pockets of millions of women thanks to the rebates required by insurance companies under the health care law.

Finally, the Affordable Care Act outlawed lifetime and yearly limits, insidious insurance practices that capped the amount of health care an insurance company would provide. But because of health care reform, Americans no longer have to worry that they will be denied health care that they need simply because insurance companies refuse to pay for their continued care.

And did you know that 85 percent of your premium dollar will go to health care and not to other things that the insurance company wants to spend it on?

The majority has claimed that the Affordable Care Act is bad for America's small businesses. The truth is that for any small business that has less than 50 employees, it requires them to do nothing different, nothing at all from what they're doing today. But small businesses with less than 25 employees are eligible for a tax credit of 35 percent right now. And on January 1, that tax credit will increase to 50 percent. You will get a tax credit on half of the health insurance you pay when you have under 25 employees.

The majority has also claimed and will continue to claim that the Affordable Care Act was passed in the dark of night through a closed- door process that denied their side of the aisle the opportunity to participate in the legislative process. This charge is categorically untrue. The Affordable Care Act was the product of nearly 100 hearings and 83 hours of committee markups, including both Republicans and Democrats making amendments. The House heard from 181 witnesses, both Democrat and Republican. There were 239 amendments considered in House committees and 121 that were adopted.

And while some on the other side of the aisle charge that the final version of the law was rushed through the House, the final bill was available for 72 hours before any Members were asked to vote on it.

In contrast, the Patients' Rights Repeal Act, which we're doing again today as I said for the 37th time, is being considered after no committee hearings, no committee markups, and under a closed rule. That means there will be no amendments on this bill. Even if one were sympathetic toward the majority's goal, the complete abuse of the legislative process should give every Member of this Chamber pause.

Mr. Speaker, today's vote is just the latest in the majority's all- out effort to undermine the process of implementing the health care law. Their efforts have taken many forms, but central to it all is their refusal to provide the necessary funding to fully implement the law and a gleeful willingness to criticize an implementation process that is underfunded and undermined at every single turn.

Despite their best efforts, I believe that in the years to come, the majority will find that they stood on the wrong side of history, just as they stood on the wrong side of history when Social Security was passed and when Medicare came into being.

Indeed, the opponents of the Affordable Care Act have already had their day in court. Last summer, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, putting to rest any false legal concerns that opponents had.

With the constitutionality of the law no longer in question, one might expect opponents to criticize the law's impact on our Nation's finances. But here again, the facts will stand in the way. Over the last 3 years, U.S. health care spending grew at 3.9 percent. That, Mr. Speaker, is the lowest growth rate in 50 years. And according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act would actually increase our Nation's deficit by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years. Please think of that and understand what they are trying to do away with today--the things that help you.

Mr. Speaker, providing safe, secure, and affordable health care for our citizens has been the goal of both Republican and Democrat lawmakers for generations. As far back as Theodore Roosevelt, we have acknowledged the need to provide our citizens with a health care system that puts their health before industry profits, that has as good outcomes as other parts of the world provide for their citizens. We need to treat health care as a right for all, not a privilege for the lucky few.

Under the leadership of a Democratic Congress, we managed to realize at long last this long-awaited goal by passing the Affordable Care Act through an open, deliberative, and thorough legislative process. And from reducing our Nation's health care spending to expanding health care to millions of Americans who could not afford it, the Affordable Care Act is succeeding.

It is in this light that the majority's 37th vote in 29 months to repeal health care should be judged. And it's hard to judge their politically driven vote as anything other than a disservice to the American people, a waste of taxpayer money and a way to spread misinformation.

I urge my colleagues to reject today's rule and the underlying legislation. And I reaffirm my pride in supporting the law that is already helping to save lives and already providing American people with secure and affordable health care. And after it is fully implemented next year, all Americans will benefit.

I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the previous speaker.

I feel very badly about his constituent whose health care price has gone up, but I want to say that that's because the insurance companies raise those prices. ObamaCare is not yet in effect for small businesses.

I'm sorry, I haven't got the time. It's all allocated. But I will talk to you later about it.

No, it's not. It's the insurance coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

To respond to what we just heard--and none of us are exempt; I don't know what in the world that's all about--I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to vote on what the country really needs right now: a bill to create more American jobs. The SEAM Act would help to not only create more jobs, but more American-made products, by creating tax credits for productive American manufacturers in the energy innovation industry.

I ask the majority to stop these political games--this bill has had no committee action and no discussion; it is simply brought back over and over--and work with us for a change to put some smart policies forward.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if my colleague has any more speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to be very succinct. What you have heard today is probably the same kind of debate that took place in this Chamber on both Social Security and Medicare. Those two programs, Medicare operates with a 2 percent overhead. Most private insurance operates between 20 and 25 percent. It is a bargain, and it has lifted millions of seniors in this country out of poverty.

This bill will provide for us the type of health care that we deserve and that we need based on outcomes and not on a plethora of tests each doctor gives.

I am absolutely astonished on what we have heard today, but there are a couple of things I really want you to remember. One, today we have spent $53 million on this debate on just to repeal this law--$53 million. If you are frugal at all--and I am--believe me, that burns me up. I can think of many, many things we can use that for.

Almost 7 million jobs have been created in health care since this bill passed--7 million. Four million more are to come. The two things that we really want to do is provide good health care and good jobs in this economy.

For heaven's sake, let's not see this bill up again. Take a good, hard look at it. See all the benefits in it for all of your constituents. You don't want to go home and tell the women and tell the seniors and tell the people with preexisting conditions that you don't care about them.

Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate 14 distinguished high schools in Monroe County, New York for being included in Newsweek and The Daily Beast's 2013 list of America's Best High Schools. I am honored to represent this community, which values the enrichment of a quality education and demands the best of its students, and in turn, its future workforce.

America's Best High Schools are schools that have proven to be the most effective in turning out college-ready graduates. An astounding 14 schools from my congressional district were chosen, including: Brighton High School, Brockport High School, Churchville-Chili Central School, East Rochester Jr./Sr. High School, Eastridge High School, Fairport High School, Irondequoit High School, Penfield High School, Pittsford Sutherland High School, Pittsford Mendon High School, Rush-Henrietta Senior High School, School of the Arts, Webster Thomas High School, and Webster Schroeder High School.

These remarkable schools scored at the top of the country in graduation rates, college acceptance rates, and enrollment and success in Advanced Placement (AP) courses, among several other criteria. Rochester's commitment to education is truly remarkable; thanks to the dedication of the many school administrators, teachers, parents, and students who understand that a quality high school education provides a critical foundation for future opportunities and endeavors, both personal and professional.

Please join me in congratulating these 14 outstanding Rochester area high schools and let us strive to provide all children with an education of the caliber offered by these schools.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Texas, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I really begin, I want to make clear that what the President said in his statement of disapproval and veto, that he would not negotiate over this foolish bill, that he was not going to negotiate what to do if we go into default because his intent, as well as the intent of the Democratic Party, is not to default.

It's right honest, but instead of really talking about today lifting the debt limit, we're going to discuss the usual do-nothing legislative agenda: let's fiddle while Rome burns and pass a one-House bill that the Senate will never touch and the President will never see, which is what we do here once, sometimes twice, a week.

But today, I think they've really outdone themselves. Instead of wasting time on a bill that can be characterized as redundant like we do the 35, 36 times that we vote against health care, the majority is now considering legislation that treads into the realm of the precarious.

Regardless of whether the legislation before us is approved by this Chamber, the very fact that the majority is proposing policies to manage the economic default is by itself a threat to our economy. Both the Treasury and outside experts have made clear that picking and choosing which debts we pay is legally questionable and logistically impossible.

The President has, as my colleague said, warned that in the highly unlikely event that this bill reaches his desk, he will unequivocally veto it. But instead of listening to this fact, the majority is moving ahead with a proposal and a debate that puts us on the road to default. They do so even as The Washington Post reports this morning that the economy is improving, revenues are up and spending is down, which undermines the stream of doom that we hear. But today the irresponsible actions of the majority are, once again, needlessly encouraging the economic recovery.

Let me be clear: the legislation does not raise the debt ceiling, which is the only way to take away the threat of default; but, instead, the bill guarantees that when we hit the debt ceiling, our foreign creditors and the Social Security trust fund will be paid in full while the well-being of millions of Americans--vendors and people we owe legitimate debts to--are left to chance.

Under this legislation, the majority is actively putting the interests of China before millions of Americans, including Active military servicemembers, veterans, and even the men and women who clean the floors of the Capitol and fold napkins in the Members' dining room. Every single one of these citizens relies upon their paycheck and upon the United States Government to pay the debts in order to put the food on their tables and to make ends meet.

With today's bill, the majority is proposing that the welfare of these Americans be left to chance while they protect China and foreign bondholders from the threat of default. In addition, the majority is endangering the regular payments owed to infrastructure projects, food safety inspectors, education programs, and public health research. It is a reckless plan that would directly hurt the most vulnerable members of society who already struggle in the sequestration to get by.

Furthermore, the act of choosing whom we will repay when we default on our debt is in and of itself an act that will threaten to throw our economy back into recession. During the recent hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means, the MIT economist Simon Johnson warned that if we default on even a portion of our debt, the unemployment rate would more than double, countless companies would go out of business, and investors would flee the United States.

Meanwhile, The Economist magazine has written:

Failure to raise the debt ceiling would force immediate

spending cuts equal to 6 percent of GDP. Not only would that

threaten to send the economy back into recession; it would

also deprive doctors, pensioners, contractors, and millions

of others the money needed to meet their own obligations and

set off a chain reaction of defaults. Even a few days'

default would roil the global financial system which relies

on Treasuries in countless transactions. The mere possibility

could incite skittish investors to dump their holdings,

driving up interest rates.

Tony Fratto, a former spokesperson for President George W. Bush, said:

Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really

going to be in the position of withholding benefits,

salaries, rent, contractual payments, and so forth in order

to pay off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political

catastrophe.

It should be clear by now that the act of even bringing a bill such as this to the floor for debate can scare investors and endanger our economy. This type of economic brinksmanship is extremely dangerous. The majority's games are compounded by their uninterest in repealing the sequester. As we speak, the sequester is preventing thousands of cancer patients from receiving lifesaving treatment and keeping thousands more children from receiving the education--I think 70,000 is the figure--through the Head Start program. These are some of the devastating cuts that don't go away simply because the majority refuses to take action and repeal the sequester in full.

Tragically, the majority's willingness to endanger our economy is not new. In August of 2011, the majority headed down the road to default for the first time in our history by threatening to default on our debts. Despite the opportunity to reach compromise with the administration, the majority claimed a zero-sum political game that had serious consequences. And because of their actions, August 2011 was the worst month for job creation in 3 years. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 2,000 points, and our Nation's credit rating was downgraded for the very first time. The effects were very real and very dangerous. A responsible legislative body would never head down that road again a second time. But that's exactly what we're doing here today.

For more than 225 years, this Chamber has been dedicated to preserving the order and stability of our government even in the most partisan of times. Despite their differences, generation after generation of legislators has known that when it comes to the integrity of our Nation, we must succeed together or else fall alone.

Dangerously in the last 2 years, the majority has taken step after step to undermine the central pillar of our government, including the proposal that they put forward today. We've frequently done so through a closed legislative process. And while the majority states that today's legislation is moving forward under a structured rule, it is only structured for the Members of the majority.

For the second time this week, the majority is bringing forth a rule that denies consideration of a single Democrat amendment. As a result, we debate a dangerous proposal and one that puts the interests of China before the welfare of the American people and the economic stability of the United States.

Yesterday, the Speaker of the House was asked if the proposal laid before us would indeed pay China before paying U.S. troops. He admitted that it would and said:

Listen, those who have loaned us money, like in any other

proceeding, if you will,

court proceeding, the bondholders usually get paid first. The

same thing here.

That simple statement tells us what we need to know.

I refuse to put China's interests before the interests of the American people, and I refuse to sit silently as the majority moves us one step closer to default.

I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, one of our impressive freshmen, Mr. Huffman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to talk about what it is we're trying to pay for on our side:

Pay and benefits for 1.4 million active duty troops and 780,000 troops in reserves will not be paid while China is paid;

Benefits to 3.4 million disabled veterans;

1.3 million veterans receiving education or home purchasing assistance;

Earned payments to American small businesses;

Payments to 1.1 million doctors and health care practitioners who provide care to seniors with Medicare;

Payments to schools for nutritious lunches served to 32 million children;

Payments to 44,000 National Institutes of Health grantees.

With that, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has any more requests for time?

I thank the gentleman.

Let me introduce the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act.

If Congress doesn't act, next month undergraduate students across the country will see a hike in their student loan interest rates. If my Republican colleagues want to talk about debt priority, this should be a part of the dialogue.

To discuss the proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The fact that this Chamber has dedicated valuable time and resources to the consideration of an unconstitutional bill that will put our Nation on the road to default is regretful. The fact that this legislation puts the economic interests of China before paying our soldiers' salaries and providing benefits to our veterans is a disgrace.

The plan presented by the majority fails to raise the debt ceiling, which is the only way that we can prevent economic default. Instead, it simply wastes another week of valuable time and the $24 million that it costs to run this House of Congress for a week and moves us that much closer to yet another downgrade in our Nation's credit rating, something that had never happened until this majority assumed control of the House. And now it is actually possible the majority would lead us to the second downgrade of the Nation's credit over the course of 2 short years.

On May 19, our Nation will reach its debt ceiling, and emergency measures would be put into place to delay default. We've seen this film before, and we know how the movie ends--a twisted plot with terrible consequences that come by refusing to pay our bills. I urge my colleagues not to walk down that road again.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues most enthusiastically to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I would like to see this bill withdrawn.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing the reprehensible Mother's Day gift-- more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 60th anniversary of James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick's discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA. Their discovery launched a field of inquiry that explained how DNA encoded biological information and how that information is duplicated and inherited. This field of study has led to untold scientific advances in the past 60 years.

I also rise today to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the completion of the Human Genome Project. This month, ten years ago, an international consortium of scientists led by the National Human Genome Research Institute and the Department of Energy announced the successful sequencing of an entire human genome, the genetic blueprint that makes each of who we are.

The past ten years have seen a revolution in biomedical research, sparked by the completion of the Human Genome Project. With the availability of a compendium of all our genes, scientists have been able to link diseases to the genes that cause them, learn about how those diseases progress, develop therapies to stop them, and ultimately improve

the health and welfare of the American people. We now sit at the cusp of a new era in medicine, genomic medicine, where we can use a person's genetics to target therapies for their specific illness. Genomic medicine will allow us to give the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. These advances in healthcare would not have been possible without the Human Genome Project.

Although genetic information can be enormously valuable to patients and their doctors, it also has the potential to be abused. In 1995, knowing that these scientific advances were coming and that people would have fears about how their personal information might be used, I introduced the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). GINA protects people from losing their health insurance or their job based simply upon their genetic makeup. More importantly, it alleviates people's fear of participating in research studies that benefit all of us through the advancement of medicine, because they know the results cannot be used to discriminate against them. Although it took us 14 years to get GINA passed into law, every step of the battle was worthwhile, as evidenced by the tremendous progress medicine has made since the completion of the Human Genome Project.

Not only did the Human Genome Project give us insights into human health, it also fueled two decades of remarkable economic growth. The past decade has seen great advancements in the technology necessary to decipher a genome. Sequencing the first human genome cost over $1 billion dollars and took 6-8 years to complete. Today, it costs less than $5,000 and can be done in 2-3 days. These advances have been made possible because federal investment in research has been translated into commercial technology by U.S. entrepreneurs and companies. According to a recent study, each dollar of federal money that was invested in the Human Genome Project resulted in $141 of economic activity, resulting in more than $796 billion dollars of economic impact and the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs over the last two decades. These figures underscore the essential nature of federal research and development in driving U.S. innovation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in taking this opportunity to designate April 25th as ``DNA Day'', when we honor the 10th anniversary of the completion of the Human Genome Project, the 60th anniversary of Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA, and all of the remarkable advancements our scientific community has made to the health of our nation's people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today, as I have ever since we started this term in January, to talk about the lack of work that this House of Representatives has produced and how absolutely devastating it is to the public and how angry they are that week after week we do absolutely nothing here of any importance.

One-House bills--this week, I think, is a prime example of that. We came in, went into the Rules Committee, put a

rule that we knew would not go to the Senate, and we knew the President would veto it. But we spent time on it until suddenly some groups got very angry about it and said, Well, you'd better not vote for that. It was pulled off the floor yesterday after we'd done the rule. And everybody who voted for the rule is already on record that they wanted that bill to pass. I think that's important. If they were trying to escape making some conservative groups mad, they've done that already.

But Frank Pallone, Representative Pallone from New Jersey, who was managing that bill for the Democrats, got no notice at all that the bill was not going to be taken up, and was standing here almost open- mouthed when he found out he had nothing to do.

Now this bill we have here today could have been done on suspension without any question. There's nothing here--helium. This whole thing is filled with hot air.

And the sequestration--I've said and said as recently as yesterday that Congressman Van Hollen has come to the Rules Committee three times, and four times he has tried to get a bill on the floor which would take away sequestration and would provide all of the money by other means, sensitive ways to cut, that sequestration is going to take. But no, he didn't have a chance to do it.

So now we're going to worry about airplanes, which is important because I live in a district that does not necessarily have the best flight schedules, but I'm also concerned about the cancer patients in this country who are not getting their shots because of sequestration. I'm worried about the at least 70,000 young kids who have been cut out of Head Start because of sequestration.

The answer for us here is to make Van Hollen in order for tomorrow and take away sequestration and follow his bill, and we'll get the same amount of money.

Sequestration was an awful thing. The whole idea of it made absolutely no sense. And it was so stupid that I think that most Members in this House really thought they'd never see it; that nobody in here would be dumb enough to do that. Mr. McGovern and I were smart enough to vote against it, weren't we, Jim? So if you voted for it, it's your bill. But let me tell you, we need to get rid of sequestration. We have a chance to do that tomorrow. Obviously for the optics of the thing, we have to stay here and do something because we haven't done anything this whole week. If we're going to do something, make it meaningful. Let's take away sequestration. Let's get people back to work. The people who are on unemployment who are barely making it, poor souls, because they can't find a job because the economy is so bad, are having that cut as well.

We have done enormous harm with this folly, and we have an opportunity to heal it. Let Van Hollen's bill come to the floor tomorrow. In a bipartisan way, let's discuss that with our leadership and your leadership, bring that out here, and bring this thing to a close.

What we're suffering now and what people are seeing now with flight delays is only a small piece of it. Every day it's going to get worse. And we will rue the day we had all of these opportunities with Mr. Van Hollen to get rid of it, and certainly we will rue the day if we don't make it in order for tomorrow when we're apparently trying to make work.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We begin this week the way we've begun every week since January: spinning our wheels.

As we speak, sequestration is hitting communities across our country. Flight delays have started, Head Start programs are turning away children, and unemployment benefits are being curtailed. Despite the calls from me and all my Democratic colleagues to stop the sequestration, the majority refuses to act. In fact, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Representative Van Hollen, has come four times to the Rules Committee with an amendment that would repeal sequestration, but the majority has rejected it every single time.

The majority has also left the job of passing a budget unfinished. With budgets passed by both the Senate and the House, it is now time to finish the job, and for the majority that constantly calls for regular order and concerns itself with no Senate budget, they now refuse to appoint the conferees. And they must, if we're going to get the budget.

Instead of taking meaningful action on these two important issues, the majority is proposing a bill that is nothing more than a political gimmick. As everyone knows, there's no chance that the Senate will consider this bill. Even if it did, the President's senior advisers have stated that they will recommend the President veto the bill.

In the short history of the 113th Congress, I have been repeatedly dismayed that the leadership of this Chamber has refused to bring forth meaningful legislation that has any chance of becoming law; and today is a telling example of the majority's failure to lead.

In news reports earlier this morning, we were told that today's bill, dubbed by reporters as ``CantorCare,'' may even be pulled before it gets a vote. One Member of the majority was purported to say that today's bill does nothing but shift money from a program he doesn't support to another program he doesn't support. And, indeed, given the fact that not a single Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act, it seems incongruous to me that they are now here today with great bleeding-heart concerns about the people with previous conditions that keep them from being insured.

So given the multiple reports of dissent within the majority, I have to ask, If no one supports this bill, then what are we doing this afternoon except, as I pointed out earlier, what we do every week? Even if we continue to move forward on the bill, it is already clear the legislation is solely designed for political gain. For while the majority claims that they want to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, their intent is clear: they want to repeal the law.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee where she was criticized by GOP Senators for using her legal authority to fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. As Secretary Sebelius replied in her testimony, Congress' failure to pass a budget has forced her to take the independent action, which she's allowed to do, in order to fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It's as simple as that. In the face of an unproductive Congress, Secretary Sebelius has done everything she can to provide the lifesaving health care to the American people.

While reporting on Secretary Sebelius' testimony, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein explained the majority's approach towards the Affordable Health Care Act. In part, Mr. Klein wrote:

``Insofar as the Republican Party has a strategy on ObamaCare, it goes like this: The law needs to be implemented. The GOP can try and keep the implementation from being done effectively, in part, by refusing to authorize the needed funds,'' as they did in this case. I think it was $1.5 billion.

``Then they can capitalize on the problems they create to weaken the law, or at least weaken Democrats up for reelection in 2014. In other words, step one: create problems for ObamaCare. Step two: blame ObamaCare care for the problems. Step three: political profit.''

The legislation before us is little more than a continuation of these games.

If the majority were making a serious attempt to expand health care coverage, they wouldn't be funding their proposal with money from a different program in the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the majority wouldn't be removing $4 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. This is a fund that is already helping States research ways to reduce instances of cancer, obesity, and heart disease.

Preventive health measures are vital to reducing the cost of health care in the United States because we know it is always cheaper to prevent disease than to treat it. In an age where more than 33 percent of our population is overweight or obese, when heart disease is the number one cause of death and the number of diabetes cases continue to grow, including children, gutting our Nation's only Federal preventive health program is not a responsible budget decision; it is simply an underhanded attack to dismantle the Affordable Care Act one program at a time.

Finally, the majority's newfound concern for people who are uninsured because of preexisting conditions might be more believable if they had allowed one of the numerous commonsense amendments presented to the Rules Committee to come to the floor. Among the amendments were responsible proposals to cover Americans with preexisting conditions by ending tax breaks for Big Oil, ending subsidies for owners of corporate jets, increasing taxes on cigarettes--a preventive health measure in its own right. Proposals like these would expand health care to those who need it while protecting the preventive health measures included in the Affordable Care Act. It is truly unfortunate that, in yet another restrictive process executed by the majority, these amendments were denied a vote on the House floor.

The majority and the press have made it clear that today's bill is not a serious effort, but a political gimmick that has no chance of becoming law. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we will be doing, as I said, a previous question amendment to this rule to hold a vote on the Put America Back to Work Act, and I would like to yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as it takes me to read this message. It needs to be answered, and I want everybody in America to listen up. You've been told it's a job-killing bill and that it has caused all this grief. Let me say:

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the United

States has added more than 6 million private sector jobs. The

health care industry alone, which many opponents of the law

predicted would face job-killing new regulation, has added

more than 750,000 jobs.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more requests for time? I have none, and I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, at the end of my remarks I will insert in the Record the Democratic amendments that were disallowed last night from the Rules Committee.

In closing, Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot today, but I think probably one of the most important things for America to know--because you hear constantly how many jobs this bill is going to be killing--is the fact that we have produced 6 million new jobs, 750,000 in health care alone.

So the most important thing we can do for Americans with preexisting conditions, which is the subject today, and for every American seeking quality and affordable health care is to support the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, the proposal put forward by the majority today is an attempt to dismantle a crucial part of that important law.

Summary of Democratic Amendments Not Made In Order by the Rules

Committee for H.R. 1549--Helping Sick Americans Now Act

(Summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)

Listed in Alphabetical Order--Prepared April 24, 2013

Amendment #4

Sponsor: Capps (CA)

Description: Removes the public health and prevention trust

fund as a pay-for and instead pays for the bill by ending the

section 199 domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas

production.

Amendment #5

Sponsor: Green, Gene (TX)

Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program

that the underlying bill does, but is paid for by requiring a

minimum term and a remainder interest greater than zero for

new Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs)

Amendment #10

Sponsor: Horsford, Steven (NV)

Description: Requires the HHS Secretary to transfer all of

the monies in the Fund for the next four fiscal years to the

PCIP program except those monies from the fund that are used

for reducing health disparities among minority populations.

Amendment #1

Sponsor: Pallone (NJ)

Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program

that the underlying bill does, but is paid for through a 4

cent per pack increase in the tax on cigarettes.

Amendment #2

Sponsor: Pallone (NJ)

Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program

that the underlying bill does, but is paid for by continuing

the solvency of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund by

increasing the per-barrel amount that oil companies are

required to pay into the fund by four cents.

Amendment #3

Sponsor: Schakowsky (IL)

Description: Extends funding for reopening enrollment under

the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program (PCIP)

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.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed honor and privilege to recognize and commemorate the 65th anniversary of the State of Israel's independence. Sixty-five years ago, America became the first nation to recognize Israel, an event that symbolizes the closeness of the relationship between our two countries and our two peoples.

Since its founding in 1948, the Jewish state has faced many challenges, and America has been proud to be at Israel's side to meet these challenges. Our nation's ongoing commitment to Israel is unparalleled and I have been proud to spend my career in Congress working to promote the many economic, political, and cultural and security ties that bind our nations together.

On this day, Israel has much to celebrate and be proud of. Their nation and people have been leaders in the development of groundbreaking and transformative technology affecting millions of people around the globe.

Israelis have led the world in scientific research and advancements in medicine and have produced ten Nobel laureates in their short history. They have also built a world-class economy based in large part on their remarkable ability to educate their citizens and encourage freethinking and an entrepreneurial spirit

While the Middle East continues to face challenges, our nation is comforted that Israel stands as a stable model for democracy in the region. The United States also stands ready and willing to help our strongest ally continue to meet the many challenges it faces in the region while working to promote peace and freedom in Israel and the Middle East. I look forward to the day when Israel and her neighbors can enjoy a prosperous and secure peace and will continue to do all that I can to make that a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing all Israelis a happy independence day and affirming America's resolute commitment to the future success and stability of the State of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday we received the news that the economy had only added 88,000 jobs in the month of March. The percentage of unemployed Americans dropped, but that is almost entirely because thousands of workers have given up looking for jobs at all.

This slowdown is a warning to Congress, but we won't take it, I feel sure, since we've pretty much ignored it. Unless this majority reverses the spending cuts contained in the sequester, the health of our economy is only getting worse.

Months ago, economists were warning that the sequester will stall out our economy and lead to job loss, and as we can see by the March data, their predictions are beginning to come true.

With economic warning bells beginning to toll, one would expect Congress to make job creation our number one priority. But one would certainly be wrong because we haven't done that at all. Unfortunately, such expectations don't even come close.

Instead of working on legislation to grow our economy and to create some good-paying jobs, we are wasting valuable session time discussing yet another bill that went nowhere in the last Congress, and I predict will go nowhere in this one as well. But we seem to have the time to waste.

The majority has decided that erasing environmental regulations for hydropower companies is a better use of time than putting Americans back to work and to help families pay their bills.

Furthermore, the bill before us today is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. Despite the rhetoric of the majority, small conduit hydropower projects are rarely delayed because of environmental regulations. In fact, from 2006 to 2010, 13 exemptions were completed in less than a year, and in 2011 there were nine exemptions that were granted in an average of 40 days.

In addition, changes within the last year have made the process even easier for hydropower developers. Under the new regulations by the Bureau of Reclamation, all a developer has to do to avoid a full environmental assessment is to get a simple, 1\1/2\ page form filled out with 15 boxes to check ``yes'' or ``no.'' That is certainly not a burdensome regulation. All they have to do is check the box ``yes'' or ``no,'' indicate the project is not in an especially sensitive area.

Most small conduit hydropower projects will easily pass this test because the reclamation sites are already developed. But despite what you may hear, there is little evidence that there is even a problem with hydropower regulation that needs to be solved.

Contained within today's legislation is a proposal to clarify the lines of authority between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a worthwhile effort that would receive bipartisan support, and we made that very clear. Standing alone, though, this proposal could pass on suspension within a matter of minutes. That would, of course, leave us with nothing to do here today, so here we are.

During the debate in the Natural Resources Committee, the majority was given the opportunity to agree to the noncontroversial and bipartisan parts of the legislation and drop their partisan attacks on environmental safeguards.

Unfortunately, the majority has once again rejected this chance for productive compromise and chosen the partisan path. And as a result, we are here spending time debating another partisan bill that will not pass the Senate and turning our back on the pressing economic needs of this country.

I've said many times on the floor during rules debates that CBS News had estimated it costs $24 million a week to run the Congress of the United States. And it has been embarrassing that we do so little work. But for millions of Americans, the luxury of the time that we take here is something they cannot afford.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation so we can get back to the task of growing our economy, repealing the sequester, and creating American jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time until my colleague is ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, so I am prepared to close if my colleague is.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, today's bill does nothing to address the pressing economic issues facing every American household and fails to stop the sequestration cuts that are threatening our economy as a whole. It's rather ambiguous. On one hand it gives; on the other hand it takes back away, but we'll get into that in the general debate.

Instead, today's legislation unnecessarily attacks environmental protections while doing nothing to create new jobs. Today's legislation includes a blanket waiver for all small conduit hydropower projects that generate less than 5 megawatts of power. The requirement is arbitrary and would fail to protect the environment. Environmental danger is not determined by the megawatts produced but whether the hydropower project is located where it is likely to do damage. A 1- megawatt project in the wrong location would be more harmful to the environment than a 6-megawatt project in the right location.

Perhaps most importantly, consideration of this legislation is taking up time that we could otherwise be using to repeal the sequester and create jobs. As I have mentioned repeatedly on the House floor, my colleague and ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, has appeared at the Rules Committee repeatedly offering legislation to repeal the sequester and reduce our deficit in a responsible way. The Rules Committee on at least three times has never even allowed it to come to the floor. Despite voting on hydropower legislation twice in the last 13 months, the majority has rejected Mr. Van Hollen, who, as I said, is the ranking member on the Budget Committee, and his bill would save and create thousands of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426 from Representative Tim Bishop of New York to roll back tax giveaways to big oil companies. The bill is known as the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous matter immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can get back to trying to grow our economy and create American jobs,

and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health, MARCH, for Military Women Act, legislation that will help our servicewomen gain the same access to reproductive health services as all other American women. It is deeply unfair that women who put their lives on the line for this country are denied the rights of the Constitution that they honorably defend.

Recent changes in policy have brought the treatment of military women more in line with the rest of women in America by allowing insurance coverage of abortion in the case of rape or incest. However, servicewomen are still not permitted to pay privately--using their own personal funds--for an abortion under any other circumstances. This policy is discriminatory, denying women in the military a Constitutionally protected right. Furthermore, it endangers the health of our servicewomen, who depend on their base hospitals for medical care, especially in countries where local facilities are inadequate or unavailable. More than 200,000 women (active service members, spouses, and dependents of military personnel) live on military bases overseas and rely on military hospitals for their health care.

Prohibiting access to abortions on military bases means that servicewomen may be forced to rely on unsafe local facilities. Failing that, a servicewoman would need to request permission from her supervisor to leave her combat mission and return to the United States. This impairs the readiness of our forces who are quite literally on the front lines, and it should not be allowed to continue. Our servicewomen deserve the right to determine their own destiny, without risking their health unnecessarily.

I want to be clear that if this bill became law, no taxpayer dollars would be spent for abortion care at overseas military facilities, and the military's current ``conscience clauses'' would remain intact so that no doctor would be forced to provide abortion care against their will. Passage of this bill would simply mean that our military women have the same rights as all other American women when it comes to reproductive health services. It is an issue of equality and fairness.

Our servicewomen deserve to be treated as full equals, and to have the same access to safe reproductive health care as any other American woman. I urge my colleagues to stand with me and support the MARCH for Military Women Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Lead Hazard Title X Amendments Act.

Although the prevalence of lead poisoning in children has dropped dramatically since the 1970s, the number of children suffering from lead poisoning remains unacceptably high. Over half a million children under the age of 6 in the Unites States, disproportionately from African-American or low-income communities, are suffering from elevated blood lead levels. There is no safe level of lead exposure for children, yet an estimated 37.1 million homes still have lead-based paint somewhere in the building.

Lead poisoning, which can occur at very low levels of exposure, causes brain damage in infants and toddlers, resulting in poor educational outcomes and widening the achievement gap. Lead poisoning robs children of IQ points, causes cognitive and behavioral issues, and a results in a lifetime of adverse health effects. Each year, lead poisoning costs the United States more than $50 billion in lost productivity. Educating children suffering from lead poisoning costs public school system special education programs an extra $38,000 per child every three years. When it costs less than that to eliminate lead from a home, it hardly makes sense that we permit any of our nation's children to be the victims of lead poisoning.

The bill I am introducing today, the Lead Hazard Title X Amendments Act, modernizes the Department for Housing and Urban Development's Lead Hazard Control Program. By making much needed updates to the program, we can better protect our children and allow for more efficient lead eradication from homes.

This Act will allow families living in all housing, including efficiency apartments, to be eligible for Lead Hazard Control grants. It will broaden the categories of eligible grant recipients, it will allow non-profit agencies and tribal governments to apply for lead abatement funds, and it will simplify the grant application process by allowing Lead Hazard Control grantees to use eligibility information from other government programs to qualify for funds. Finally, this Act will enable grantees already receiving Lead Hazard Control funding to easily and efficiently tap other resources for additional Healthy Housing repairs, including addressing asthma, carbon monoxide, and other safety concerns.

We cannot afford for any of our children not to reach their full potential. I urge my colleagues to stand with me to protect all our nation's children from lead poisoning.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Through numerous budget resolutions and campaign pledges and appearances on Sunday talk shows, the majority has made clear that their vision for America is a vision that says the Nation can no longer care for our seniors, that we must halt vital scientific research and that we should let our bridges and schools crumble because we can't afford to invest in the future.

In short, I believe that it is an extreme and cynical version for America and one that I strongly reject.

For more than a decade, the needs of our country were neglected while the majority led two unfunded wars and gave unaffordable tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, and we now have the cost for the last war in Iraq of $3 trillion borrowed. In all the discussions on the deficit and what bad shape we are in, nobody ever talks about that war and how that has kept us from rebuilding the infrastructure in the United States that cries out for it.

These two decisions unraveled the balanced budget achieved by President Clinton and exploded our Nation's debt. Now after a decade of reckless financial management, the majority is proposing another budget that is as unserious as it is extreme.

Take, for example, the field of scientific research. More than 50 percent of our economic growth since World War II can be attributed to the development and adoption of new technologies, yet the budget proposes drastic cuts to research at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, among others.

As any scientist will tell you--and I am one--you cannot turn research on and off like a faucet. Across the Federal Government, researchers are on the brink of discoveries that could cure diseases or open entire new fields of commerce. But under the majority's budget, that valuable research will be ended and these important discoveries will probably not be made in the United States.

The majority wants to impose such cuts on top of cuts contained in the sequester, even though the effects of the sequester are just beginning to be felt. For example, in the coming weeks, airport control towers will begin to close, affecting flight schedules and stranding travelers. Many of these towers are located in the rural parts of our country where there are no other alternatives for long-distance travel.

In addition, border patrol agents will be furloughed, which not only affects security but the success of our economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, more than $1.3 billion a day in trade crosses the U.S.-Canada border. This trade is dependent upon the effective operation of our border security agents. The effects of the sequester are already impacting trade by causing backups at the border and leaving goods and supplies stranded en route to their destination.

Furthermore, it is often forgotten that 5 years after I-35 collapsed above the Mississippi River, we have still failed to repair our crumbling infrastructure.

Earlier today, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a 2013 report card for America's infrastructure. They found that one in eight bridges in my home State of New York is structurally deficient and one in nine

bridges across the United States is the same. A very prominent engineer stated just this past week that there are bridges in major cities in areas of the United States which he would not cross for fear of falling into the water. At the same time, more and more engineers and transportation experts are warning that our bridges will soon be too unsafe to cross unless we act.

These bridges aren't alone. Everything from schools to airports to train stations and highways are literally crumbling before our eyes.

Water systems in many of the major cities in parts of the United States are almost a century old and almost unusable.

Think, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, think of the jobs that would be created, as badly as we need them to put people back to work, if we could not decide to starve again our country's needs and instead start to rebuild the needs and put people back to work.

I think it's inexcusable that instead of responding to the crisis that we have, the majority spent the last 2 years lurching from crisis to crisis and repeatedly introducing legislation such as today's budget legislation that guts investment in the Nation's infrastructure instead of putting us back to work rebuilding the country.

A telling illustration of the failed approach is that they have included the repeal of the Affordable Care Act as the central tenet of their budget proposal. During the 112th Congress, the majority held more than 30 votes in the last 2 years just to repeal the Affordable Care Act, eating up valuable time and costing taxpayers millions of dollars in the process. Despite this expensive folly, the majority wants to do it again. In order to balance the budget, the majority believes we should repeal the lifesaving law and once again legalize health insurance discrimination based upon preexisting conditions, force young adults off their parents' health insurance and open the doughnut hole for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. Speaker, before we were able to pass the health care bill, eight States and the District of Columbia in the United States considered domestic violence to be a preexisting condition and insurance companies were not required to cover victims. Are we going to go back to that if this repeal is achieved?

The majority also wants to cut financial assistance to students in need. The budget cuts Pell Grant assistance by $83 billion over the next 10 years and allows the interest rates on need-based student loans to double. In a time when we are falling so far behind all other industrial countries in the number of persons who go to college, the United States that used to be first now is about 12th.

By all objective measures, drastic and extreme cuts such as these can be seen as unnecessary cruelty not needed to balance the budget. Indeed, just this past weekend both Speaker Boehner and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on Sunday television shows that this Nation does not face a debt crisis. When asked about it yesterday, Chairman Ryan indicated that, yes, he had said that.

So despite saying that to everybody, scaring America half to death, keeping businesses from being able to plan the future, they continue to promote a dystopian vision of the future in order to convince Americans that we have to adopt their extreme policies today. It is under this guise that the majority proposes their most extreme transformation of America's social safety net in today's budget.

Once again this year, the majority proposes to end Medicare as we know it and turn the promise of guaranteed health care into a voucher program. Unlike Medicare, the majority voucher program would not guarantee seniors access to the health care they need. I think we thoroughly discussed that last year when it failed and certainly during the last election when it failed. This would drive senior citizens into the market with a defined income that they could use to buy their own insurance if they were physically or mentally able to do so.

This is the same failed proposal, and it has been opposed by Americans, as I said, at the ballot box. But we continue today to defy the wishes of the American people with a quest to end Medicare as we know it, and it should be a telling reminder of where priorities lie.

These extreme cuts stand in sharp contrast to the tax reform contained within their budget. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in order to enact the majority's tax reform and to not increase the deficit, middle class families would have to pay $3,000 more a year and the wealthiest Americans receive a $245,000 tax break.

Once again, the majority has shown they would rather take away vital programs from our Nation's most vulnerable than raise a single dollar in taxes on America's wealthiest citizens.

Mr. Speaker, such a budget is neither original nor serious, nor is it acceptable to the American people. We've been down this road before, and it is discouraging and dangerous that the majority insists that we go down it yet once again. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the majority's budget proposal and today's rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee on the budget, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman another minute.

I'm pleased to yield another minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May I inquire from my colleague if he has further requests.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, my Democrat colleagues and I have spoken at length today about the dangerous shortcomings of the budget proposal of Mr. Ryan. Fortunately, Representative Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, has an alternative proposal that significantly reduces the Nation's deficit while creating jobs and protecting programs like Medicaid and Medicare. And unlike the majority's proposal, Mr. Van Hollen's budget repeals the sequester, which is estimated to cost the Nation 750,000 jobs this year.

Mr. Van Hollen has repeatedly tried to avert the sequester. He has come to the Rules Committee numerous times with proposals to replace the sequester with responsible budget cuts and has been repeatedly denied the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the House floor.

By voting for Mr. Van Hollen's budget, every Member of this Chamber can vote to do away with the sequester. On behalf of the thousands of Americans who are facing pay cuts, furloughs, and job losses, I urge my colleagues to repeal the sequester today and vote to balance the budget in a responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, while the majority would like you to believe that a looming debt crisis is imminent, it is simply not true. Even this last weekend, both Speaker Boehner and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on television there is no immediate budget crisis facing our Nation. Please think of that, my colleagues, as you vote.

In acknowledging this reality, it is important to realize that it is possible to make investments in our economy today, create jobs, repeal the sequester, and still reduce our deficit in a responsible and balanced way.

In closing, I urge my colleagues not to be scared by the rhetoric that sometimes we hear. Instead, I urge my colleagues to support one of the multiple

budget proposals that reduce our deficit responsibly while creating jobs today and protecting the important programs like Medicaid and Medicare for generations to come.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.