Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 250, 251 and 252.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Numbers 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268 and 269. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Numbers 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 268 and 269. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote numbers 259, 260, 266 and 267.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292 and 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 270, 273, 275, 276, 278, 279, 282, 284, 285, 287, 289, 290, and 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 271, 272, 274, 277, 280, 281, 283, 286, 288, 291, and 292.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 294, 295 and 296. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 294, 295 and 296.

personal explanation

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which will assist victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault in the military. There are countless current and former members of the military who have bravely reported sexual harassment or assault, only to be retaliated against. My amendment would educate these service members about the resources available to them to help them get justice.

These brave men and women, who serve our nation with honor and distinction, should not have to live in fear of reprisal for doing what is right. My amendment will ensure that they are informed of the resources available, and the processes in place, to protect them from any retaliatory personnel actions after reporting sexual harassment or abuse.

The Board of Correction for Military Records (BCMR) is the vehicle by which a current or

former member of the Armed Forces who feels that they have suffered an injustice as a result of error or injustice in military records may apply for a correction of those military records.

My amendment will educate current and former military members about the opportunity to apply for relief from the BCMR if they have been previously punished for reporting cases of sexual assault.

Applying for relief to the BCMR could help a service member such as a current Marine who is facing an unwarranted Field Fight Performance Board following her filing of a sexual harassment complaint.

It could help an Army soldier who was denied promotion, removed from her assignment, and referred for a mental evaluation after reporting a sexual assault, and who received a series of negative evaluation reports after filing a sexual harassment complaint and initiating a Congressional inquiry into her situation.

It could help a sailor who is facing involuntary administrative separation from the Navy--which would deny her future medical benefits--because she has been diagnosed with an ``adjustment disorder'' after seeking mental health treatment in the aftermath of a sexual assault.

We have made excellent progress recently in dealing with this blemish of sexual assault on the proud and honorable tradition of our armed forces. I am pleased that new protections for victims are in place as a result of last year's NDAA, and that the Department of Defense is moving forward with advanced investigative techniques that will improve prosecution of sexual assault cases.

But I am also very concerned about the issue of sexual harassment, which is so often the precursor to sexual assault. This educational campaign is simply a first step in addressing the issue of sexual harassment, and sending a message that this behavior--and certainly retaliating against victims who report it--is absolutely unacceptable in our military.

Much is asked of the men and women who dedicate themselves to the protection of our freedoms. We must continue to ensure that we earn that trust and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, and 223. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 202, 205 and 214. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, and 223.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 196, 197, and 198. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 196, 197 and 198.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote numbers 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, and 243. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye'' on rollcall vote numbers 224, 225, 227, 237, 238, 239, and 240. I would have voted ``No'' on rollcall vote numbers 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 241, 242 and 243.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, and 249. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 246 and 248. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 244, 245, 247 and 249.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 193, 194, and 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 193 and 194. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 195.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 179, 180, and 181. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 179 and 181: I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 180.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, and 192. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, and 191. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 182, 183, and 192.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 152, 153, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 169, 171, 175, 176. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 154, 155, 156, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 172, 173, 177.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 178. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 178.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee did fine. It was open, and it allowed all the budgets, as he said, to be brought to the floor. It's what we have to work with that is concerning to me because the budget's a reflection of our values and, through that prism, the Ryan budget that we're considering today is morally bankrupt.

The budget that the majority proposes today puts corporations and the wealthiest Americans above the needs of working and middle class families. It increases military spending while slashing the safety net for the middle class and protects tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas.

In short, this extreme, partisan proposal takes a hatchet to the notion of shared responsibility and places the financial burdens of a generation upon the shoulders of seniors, the poor, and the middle class.

Under this budget, the millionaires will receive multiple tax cuts totaling at least $300,000, and not a single corporate tax loophole will be closed.

Under this budget, we would see the end of Medicare as we know it. In its place, seniors would be offered the option of a fixed price voucher with which they may go into the market to find their own insurance, with no guarantee that the voucher you receive will come even close to covering the cost of the health care.

Meanwhile, the landmark Affordable Care Act, which is the first law to start addressing the soaring cost of health care, would be repealed. Repeal of the law would mean that children under 26 could no longer be insured by their parents, and millions of Americans suffering from chronic diseases could once again be denied care.

I don't think many Americans--certainly, I didn't know it-- understand--I learned this during the Clinton health care debate--that most policies have a yearly and a lifetime limit. As a matter of fact, at that time, when we were debating the Clinton health care plan, that limit was about $1 million, which means that an emergency like head trauma from a car accident, a bike accident, or just a workplace error on a construction site, could lead you to reaching your limit, and you would no longer be eligible for health insurance.

Let me say that in another way. Once you reach that limit with your preexisting condition, you would be uninsurable in the United States for the rest of your life. The health care bill that everybody's talking about now does away with that, both yearly limits and lifetime limits.

Right now, most individuals still face this danger, but thanks to the Affordable Care Act, lifetime and yearly limits will be phased out in 2014. That's a very important part of this bill.

People who want to repeal health care have said absolutely nothing about what they expect to replace it with. We would assume that people with preexisting conditions could no longer get coverage.

Under the Republican budget, those protections would be taken away, and the vulnerable Americans would be left to figure out how to survive on their own.

We talk about the mandate to buy insurance. Right now, under the present law, we are all paying for people who are uninsured. Those people who choose not to buy insurance, who have to go to the hospital for emergencies, or any other reason, are paid for, they are treated, by the law, but we pay the cost. It is estimated in some areas that we spend $1,000 a year more, those of us who are insured, simply to cover the uninsured.

Now, you can continue doing that and paying everybody else's health care costs, or we can keep this health care bill which is so important to us.

The Republican budget not only takes from the poor and gives to the rich, it even fails to fulfill the promise of a balanced budget.

Just this morning, Politico published an article entitled, ``Ryan plan puts GOP in long-term budget bind.'' In the article, the author writes:

It is a bold, even bellicose election-year challenge. But

the strict revenue limits could postpone for a generation the

conserve promise of a balanced budget.

Even the majority themselves admit this plan will add $3.11 trillion to our deficit between 2013 and 2022.

Under the majority's plan, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that all government spending, except for Social Security and paying down the debt, will have to be cut by one-third in order to balance the budget by 2040.

This draconian approach means that seniors and the poor will receive worse health care, our children will continue to learn in crumbling schools, and we will all travel, as usual, on a failing transportation network with bridges that are substandard and roads that are cracking, that is inefficient and totally out of date.

This vision does not reflect the ideals of a better America nor the hopes for a brighter future. It is neither a reflection of the values that I hold dear nor the values of the people that whom I represent.

I join many of my colleagues in supporting the Democrat alternative being offered by Mr. Van Hollen. The Democrat alternative budget supports the creation of jobs in the high-tech and construction fields. It invests in our future by prioritizing education, as we must, also prioritizing health and the economy, and reduces the deficit through responsible spending cuts, with revenue raised by having everyone pay their fair share and by closing corporate tax loopholes.

The Democrat alternative is a thoughtful, balanced approach, one that does not place the entire burden of sacrifice on the backs of seniors, the poor, and the middle class.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the misguided and dangerous proposal before us and, instead, consider one of the numerous alternatives that protect the middle class while reducing our deficit in a responsible way.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[From POLITICO.com, Mar. 27, 2012]

Ryan Plan Puts GOP in Long-Term Bind

(By David Rogers)

Call it the 19 percent solution.

As House debate begins Wednesday, that's the bottom line of

the new Republican budget blueprint, which breaks with the

August debt accords and substitutes a vision of capping

revenue at 19 percent of gross domestic product and scaling

back government to fit into that suit.

It's a bold, even bellicose election-year challenge. But

the strict revenue limits could postpone for a generation the

conservative promise of a balanced budget. At the same time,

deep cuts to health care and education most likely will make

it harder for GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney to appeal to

independents and women voters in the presidential campaign.

Indeed, it's a tight box that Republicans have put

themselves in and one that literally requires a

transformation of government to escape.

Just an upward adjustment of revenue to 20.25 percent of

GDP would bring Washington into balance by 2023 under the

same House plan. But the party's anti-tax stance precludes

that, and it is not until 17 years later that an extended

forecast by the Congressional Budget Office shows a modest

surplus in 2040.

By that date, all government spending--except Social

Security and payments on the debt--would have had to have

been cut by more than a third to reach this goal. Even in the

wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget tilts

heavily toward defense spending at the expense of domestic

appropriations.

In a show of unity, Romney endorsed the House plan last

week, but his campaign ducked questions from POLITICO this

week. If elected president, he would face almost immediate

pressure to cut nondefense appropriations by 20 percent in

his first budget, rolling back spending to a level that

predates George W. Bush's administration.

``It's not the budget I would have written,'' Rep. Mike

Simpson told POLITICO. And the Idaho Republican--and former

speaker of his state Legislature--represents an increasingly

restless element in the party going forward.

It was Simpson's vote that allowed Budget Committee

Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to get the resolution out of his

committee last week--and Simpson will stand again with the

leadership on the floor. But there's no hiding the fact that

he and many Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee

are furious with the course taken in

this budget and more willing to lend support to those who

feel revenue must also be part of the equation.

``This is going to be the most partisan debate of the year

and it will set up the election for the year,'' Simpson said.

``But I don't think it's the balanced plan to get us out of

the hole we are in. Ultimately, the only thing that is going

to solve this problem is not a Republican plan, not a

Democratic plan, but a bipartisan plan that has buy-in from

both sides. That's when we stop going out and shooting one

another.''

An early test in this week's floor debate could be the fate

of a new entry sponsored by Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and

Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), also a member of the

Appropriations panel.

Their proposal would present an updated version of the 2010

presidential debt commission's recommendations, a combination

of entitlement savings and $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10

years. And having shied away in the past, Cooper told

POLITICO that he was now encouraged enough by the reception

to proceed--the first real time the ideas have been put to a

floor vote.

``My view is this is where they are going to wind up at the

end of the year anyway, so we might as well start talking

about it,'' LaTourette said. ``Anybody who thinks you are not

going to have to have a pot of revenue and pot of cuts is

thinking funny.''

Matched against this fragile center will be more

traditional warring alternatives on the right and left.

The Republican Study Committee Tuesday announced its menu

of still deeper appropriations cuts and Medicaid savings--all

in the hopes of reaching balance in five years. At the same

time, the Congressional Black Caucus weighed in with a

deficit-reduction package that also exceeds Ryan's plan but

is heavily dependent on what appears to be $3.9 trillion in

additional revenue--including a novel financial speculation

tax--not in the White House's own budget.

Republicans hope to embarrass President Barack Obama by

having one of their own call up the White House's February

budget submission--for certain defeat. And the House Rules

Committee late Tuesday made in order such a proposal to be

offered by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), who already is

backing both Ryan and the more severe RSC alternative.

Democrats will have their own alternative claiming greater

war savings than Obama's--it would end all overseas

contingency operations funding after 2014, for example. But

the 10-year deficits are still almost double those in the

Ryan plan, and Republicans jumped on the fact that the

resolution cancels the $1.2 trillion sequester mechanism

under the Budget Control Act--without spelling out a clear

substitute.

By contrast, the Ryan resolution would also tamper with the

first round of automatic cuts due in January but seeks to

offset most of these reductions, about half of which would

come from defense appropriations.

Six House committees would be ordered to come up with

prescribed savings by the end of next month for floor action

in May. Armed Services is exempted, frustrating the design of

the Budget Control Act, and there is the risk of splitting

even traditionally bipartisan panels, like the House

Agriculture Committee.

Ryan's budget demands savings of more than $8 billion in

2013 from Agriculture--an effort to target food stamps. And

the challenge for Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) is to

navigate these waters without jeopardizing the partnership he

wants with the minority in writing a farm bill later this

year.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts the rule, it will bring up H.R. 4271, a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA.

This is a vital law that I coauthored with Pat Schroeder in 1994 and of which I have been an original cosponsor each time it has been reauthorized. Since VAWA's enactment in 1994, the cases of domestic violence have fallen, and over 1 million women have used the justice system to obtain protective orders against their batterers.

To discuss this proposal, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Let me take about 30 seconds just to say that I appreciate what my colleague from Georgia is saying. However, we are not giving a choice whether we are going to do the budget or violence against women, but we're going to have an attempt to do both on the rule.

What we can do in the vote for the budget--when we vote for the rule, we would like to have the previous question be defeated so that we can add VAWA to it. That's all we are trying to do here today.

The bill is about to expire. It would be a dreadful thing to think that women and children and the other spouse would be growing up with violence because we have failed to provide the resources to stop that, after it has been so successful since 1994.

Now I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I was expecting one additional speaker, but I believe she is not here. So I am prepared to close.

Let me say, Mr. Woodall is a generous and kind man, and I know he understands what we are talking about here today.

My speaker is here, so let me yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, Ms. DeLauro has just reminded me that when we began the debate on health care, that eight States in the United States and the District of Columbia considered violence against women to be a preexisting condition, and a woman who had been beaten to a pulp could not be insured because she would be apt to have that happen to her again. And we changed that in that bill.

I think all of us, too, are familiar with the phrase ``rule of thumb,'' but I'm not sure a lot of us understand what it means. The rule of thumb was the size of a man's thumb and the stick with which he could legally beat his wife. So every time you use that, I want you to remember what that means.

Since VAWA's enactment, we've all seen that domestic violence has fallen over half. Policemen have been trained and the courts have been trained to understand it better.

There was a time in the United States when it was simply considered a private manner and police would not always take away the offending partner, leaving a person again to be beaten one more time.

I don't think anybody in the House of Representatives wants this to expire. I'm sure they don't. Everybody has mothers, sisters, daughters, and nieces that they want to protect.

This is such a simple thing. It doesn't hurt the budget at all. We have tried our best to get this bill brought up in the House; and we're terrified, frankly, those of us who have spent a good bit of our time in Congress trying to deal with this act, that it will expire. As I've pointed out many times, I've been at this since 1994.

It's such a serious thing, that shelters for battered women are never revealed as to their location because of fear that the offending spouse will find them and make them come home or other things.

This past 5 or 6 years, we've seen a number of spouses being killed; and we always look at what goes on in those houses, and nobody ever realized before what was happening there. More women obviously need to know that there is someplace that they can go and someplace that they can get help.

Let me give you a figure because we're pretty much concerned here about the deficit, the budget, and costs.

In studies recently released, they have shown that just a 2-minute screening of domestic violence victims in a yearly checkup can save nearly $6 billion in chronic health care costs every year. The screenings are provided for in the Violence Against Women Act, which trains health care professionals to recognize and address the signs of domestic violence, because obviously most women who are trying to cover it up simply attempt to live with it and are not going to bring it up themselves.

Approximately 2 million women are physically or sexually assaulted or stalked by an intimate partner every single year; one out of every six women has experienced an attempted or completed rape at some point in her lifetime; one in four women in the U.S. will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. This is terrible.

The Congress has a responsibility to ensure that rape prevention programs are fully funded, that law enforcement has the resources, that battered women's shelters are open, and that victim advocates have the training to stop the violence against women.

With all this authorization expiring before this year's end, we're in danger of letting these responsibilities go unfulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the previous question for all of those women who live in fear and for all those children who witness that violence. Violence against women changes people's lives forever, mentally and physically. They will never, ever be the same. For heaven's sake, let's reauthorize this bill. It does so much for them.

I urge everyone in the House to please vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we continue to provide support to the millions of women who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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