Floor Statements

I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the goal to permanently extend the research and development tax credit. Our businesses, large and small, need that certainty. They can't be trying to make budgetary decisions in order to help grow the economy and create jobs on these short-term measures that have been coming through Congress.

What I have an objection to this evening and where the problem lies with this legislation before us today is that none of it is paid for. We have been to this dance before. We know what works and what doesn't work when it comes to the fiscal management of our Nation.

What works is pay-as-you-go budgeting rules. If there is going to be a revenue reduction or a spending increase, you have to find an offset in the budget to pay for it to maintain balance.

We had that system in place during the 1990s, thanks to the budget agreement of 1990 that President George H.W. Bush signed into law and then followed by the budget agreement of 1993, when President Clinton was in office.

Subsequently, with the strength of a vibrant, growing economy in which 24 million private sector jobs were created, along with pay-as- you-go budgeting rules that were in place, President Clinton saw 4 years of budget surpluses at the end of his term, when we were paying down the national debt, rather than adding to it.

Thank God we were at that time because, when September 11 hit--that unexpected disaster against our Nation--we had financial resources with which to respond.

After my Republican colleagues took complete control of the Federal Government during the 2000s, with President Bush's election, they reverted back to bad habits--with two large tax cuts that weren't paid for; with two major wars that weren't paid for; with the passage of a new prescription drug bill, which was the largest expansion of entitlement spending since Medicare was created in '65--and not a nickel of it paid for; the largest increase in discretionary spending since the Great Society--none of it paid for.

When President Obama took office, he inherited a $1.5 trillion budget deficit in his first year. They have not been shy in laying the blame of fiscal mismanagement in the structural annual budget deficits at the current President's doorstep, and yet this is exactly what gets us into this spot.

Now, with regard to the policy behind the permanent extension, you are not going to hear much dispute or much debate about that. This is all about who is going to be fiscally responsible and do the hard work of trying to find offsets in the budget to do it the right way, so we are not leaving a legacy of debt to our children, so we are not continuing to borrow from China.

We can go back over the last 4 years and repeat the same statements that we have heard from my Republican friends about the need for fiscal management and tough decisions in budgeting.

What is perhaps the height of cynicism this evening is that, in a few short weeks after having passed the Republican Ryan budget resolution, they are violating it here tonight. It called for offsets for any permanent extension in the Tax Code, and that is not what we are doing here.

What is really disheartening is there is a plan B. To Chairman Camp's credit, a few weeks ago, he released a comprehensive tax reform draft discussion in order to simplify the Code, to make us more competitive, to broaden the base, and to lower the rates; but he paid for it through some tough decisions with expenditures that don't make sense to help us be competitive in the 21st century.

We can go back to that proposal and look for some of the items that Chairman Camp, himself, was proposing as a

way to pay for this permanent extension tonight. Earlier this year, President Obama, in the budget he submitted, had items of pay-fors within the Tax Code that we can scrub because there is overlap between the two.

Really, what this comes down to is who is serious about doing the tough stuff, which is finding offsets in order to do the good policy that we are missing here this evening. Yes, we should be finding a way to permanently extend the R&D credit. Our businesses, large and small, need that certainty.

My name is on this bill, but it was always under the proviso that we would be fiscally responsible in moving forward and not leave this legacy for future generations. I also think we ought to be doing a permanent 179 expensing for our small businesses and family farmers.

It is another expensive item, but there are areas in the Tax Code we can look to in order to find offsets to pay for it, which I also think is important for the job creation and economic growth we need in this Nation.

We are $17 trillion in debt, and people are wondering who is to blame. You can look this evening at a bill before us today that calls for $156 billion over the next 10 years--not a nickel of it paid for.

We can do better. We have to do better for our children and for future generations. The clock is ticking on all of this. We don't have this luxury of delaying the tough decisions anymore.

There are other avenues that we can take, and I am confident, if we were to sit down and talk to each other, we could find some common ground and bipartisan agreement of what would be acceptable offsets in the Revenue Code in order to do this permanent extension here tonight.

That requires a little more effort, and that requires--God forbid-- having to say no to some constituents and powerful special interest groups in this town from time to time.

The easiest thing in the world is to offer a tax cut without paying for it. Who doesn't want tax relief? That is not difficult, but it is also not the tough budget decisions that they were talking about just a few weeks ago on the floor, when they were passing the Ryan Republican budget resolution.

If you would go back and look at it again, to its credit, it called for offsets for permanent extensions.

So what is true here? Are they truly committed to the fiscal responsibility that is called for in that budget resolution? Or is that all just a numbers game, in order to make the numbers add up?

With the first opportunity they have to violate that resolution, they are going to do so tonight with an unpaid-for permanent extension, and that is just $156 billion in the first 10 years. This will be a gift that keeps on giving, if we don't find offsets in the future.

I would encourage my colleagues to think hard and long about this because this is just the first of six tax extenders that will inevitably be coming up. I hope this isn't the pattern we are going to be seeing with the five additional ones, in that they are going to come forward without any pay-fors and say: let's load up the debt, and let's claim that the economy is going to grow and that everything is going to be fine afterwards.

We know that hasn't worked in the past. It is not going to work tonight. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

We have got time. We can work with the Senate, and we can work with what Chairman Camp was proposing and with what the administration was proposing in its budget. We can find the appropriate offsets and do the responsible thing.

Let's end this legacy of deficit financing, and let's give our children the hope and opportunity that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the chairman of the committee--and I do respect him, and he is a friend of mine--he knows as well as anyone that there is a big difference between permanency in the Tax Code and short-term measures to give us some time in order to find out what the appropriate permanent solution will be.

That is, really, what we ought to be doing right now, is trying to find that permanent solution once and for all, but in a fiscally responsible manner. That is how we should be approaching this.

Again, to the chairman's credit, the discussion draft he just released a few weeks ago calls for offsets to the Revenue Code in order to do comprehensive reform, so he belies his own argument from just a minute ago that tax cuts shouldn't be met with corresponding offsets.

I mean, if that is true, then what have we been doing for the last 3 years in trying to do comprehensive reform while still paying for it, so we are not blowing a hole in future budget deficits?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mike Jawson on his retirement from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Mike has served as Center Director for the USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center in La Crosse, WI for the past nine years. During this time, Mike has repeatedly shown his dedication to his field and his strong leadership capabilities.

Mike's background is indicative of both his strong ties to Wisconsin, and his commitment to his field. Mike earned a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, a Master's degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a Ph.D. from Washington State University. In the past, Mike has worked for the Dept. of Defense as a Chemist, for the USDA-ARS as a Soil Scientist, for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln as an associate professor, for the EPA-Kerr Research Center as Branch Chief, and for the George Washington Carver Center as a National Program Leader and working with the National Climate Change Office.

In 2005, Mike returned to Wisconsin to become Center Director at USGS in La Crosse. In this capacity, Mike managed the multi-disciplinary program of biological research, directing 11 different science teams, each with dynamic personalities and varied skill sets. As a leader of the science component of the Upper Mississippi River Restoration's Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, Mike was able to secure and implement funding for facility improvements and several new restoration projects. Additionally, Mike was able to host the first Center visits of U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tammy Baldwin, and then-Governor Jim Doyle. Mike's accomplishments with the USGS will not soon be forgotten and his hard work and dedication will be missed.

As the Representative of western and central Wisconsin, I care deeply about issues related to the environment, natural resources, and the Mississippi River. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Mike for his passionate work addressing natural resource management and science information needs for the Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi ecosystems.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Black River Falls Masonic Lodge #74. The historic building, located in downtown Black River Falls, WI, was built in 1914 to accommodate the growing membership of Lodge #74.

One of the basic purposes of Freemasonry is to ``make good men better,'' and the men and women of Lodge #74 take this purpose to heart. The Free and Accepted Masons that belong to Lodge #74 strive to live by the three core tenets of Freemasonry: brotherly love, relief and truth, and improve character and moral and spiritual outlook. The Freemasons work tirelessly to promote the principles of personal responsibility and morality, and encourage their colleagues to incorporate Freemasonry's lessons into their everyday lives.

The Freemasons of Wisconsin are active in charity work throughout the state. The Charities of the Grand Lodge include the Wisconsin Masonic Home, Inc., Three Pillars, The Wisconsin Masonic Foundation, and the Medical Fund. These charities serve thousands of individuals each year through programs that support masonic relief, education, community health, safety, and youth engagement. The Black River Falls Masonic Lodge #74 gives back to the local Black River Falls community in a number of ways. For example, the Lodge holds a pancake breakfast every spring on Palm Sunday where all of the proceeds are used for scholarship and local charity efforts.

It is with great pride that I rise today to congratulate the Black River Falls Masonic Lodge #74 on its 100th anniversary and re- dedication. The commitment of its members to bettering themselves and their community is truly deserving of recognition. The Black River Falls community and the state of Wisconsin are fortunate have the Freemasons making a difference in the lives of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Monday, April 28, 2014 and Tuesday April 29, 2014. Severe weather in the Midwest cancelled my flight out of Minneapolis on Monday afternoon, and again delayed me out of Chicago on Tuesday morning. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 4192 (roll No. 178) and in favor of H.R. 4120 (roll No. 179) on Monday, April 28, and against H. Res. 555 (roll No. 180) on Tuesday, April 29.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation before us today not because I believe it is a perfect answer to a problem that needs to be fixed but in order to make sure that the process moves forward. I want to commend my colleagues who have worked tirelessly over the ensuing weeks to try to address the concerns--legitimate concerns, I view--of some of the shortcomings of the legislation before us, Mr. Nunes and my good friend, Mr. Carney from Delaware.

This is, I think, emblematic of how we should be addressing reform within the health care system, having the wisdom as a body to recognize what is working with health care reform and what isn't working and then try to deal with that with fixes and needed adjustments along the way.

This was an unintended consequence affecting expat health insurance plans. In my view, there are competitiveness issues from those insurance plans offering expat coverage compared to what other foreign plans are offering, but also the ability of people to be able to work and live effectively abroad.

Even the administration has admitted in their Statement of Administration Policy that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. They have identified certain shortcomings of this legislation, from consumer protections to issues affecting the Tax Code, but I am sure that as we move forward today, hopefully with bipartisan support, the Senate will have an opportunity to address many of these concerns, and we will have to continue to work with the administration with the legitimate concerns that they continue to raise.

Again, this is, I think, an approach that we should be taking as a nation right now, having the wisdom to understand what is working and also dealing with the unintended consequences of health care reform, which affects one-fifth of the entire U.S. economy. You are not going to change that overnight. If you try, you are going to introduce shocks to the system that aren't going to work for people.

I think this is an honest approach done in a bipartisan fashion with a lot of listening on both sides and a lot of vetting of issues that I think are legitimately being raised right now in order to address one of those small, unintended consequences of the health care reform.

I think, clearly, everyone recognizes more work needs to go into this legislative package in order to allay some of the concerns. The Senate, again, will have an opportunity to address and will continue to engage the administration in order to address some of the concerns that they are raising, as well. But this is a good, I think, first honest approach in order to find that solution so we don't see the detrimental job impact occurring right here in the United

States and that we do allow affordable and quality health care coverage for those workers overseas.

Again, I commend my friends, Mr. Carney and Mr. Nunes, for the outreach and the work that they have put into this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation as it moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Colorado for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity in this session of Congress of getting rid of an onerous policy that has affected the delivery of health care throughout our country since 1997, the so-called sustainable growth rate. That is the reimbursement that our doctors, our physicians receive in Medicare.

We have been working hard at this for a number of years. I commend my good friend and colleague from Texas for the leadership that he has shown on this issue.

The policy behind the SGR repeal that is going to be before this Congress tomorrow has been bipartisan in support. It moves the health care system in the direction where it needs to go, with an emphasis on quality and value, as opposed to the volume of services and moving away from the so-called fee-for-service reimbursement schedule that we have right now.

I believe that if we continue to drive the health care system in that direction, we can get much better quality of care for all Americans, but at a much better price. There are a lot of tools under the Affordable Care Act that are moving us in that direction now to a more integrated, coordinated, patient-centered health care delivery system, but also a reimbursement system that finally is based on the value or the quality of care that is given and no longer the volume of services that are rendered.

In fact, just recently, the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences came out with their analysis of the health care system, and found that we are spending close to $750 billion every year on things that don't work. They don't improve patient care. It is the overutilization that is costing us so much and, most of the time, leading to worse outcomes rather than better outcomes; yet the bill with the SGR before us would correct a lot of this with different payment models, with the emphasis on quality and value, with value incentives built into it.

The problem that we have before us tomorrow is how they are going to pay for it. It is this itch that they have to scratch over and over again called the Affordable Care Act, or so-called ObamaCare. They can't help themselves but to keep going back to that well in order to find offsets and pay-fors for other measures where there is bipartisan support and agreement on.

So we will go through this ruse yet again tomorrow. We will have this debate. The vote will probably be along partisan-lines, knowing that it is not going to advance anywhere in the Senate, nor would the President embrace this type of pay-for eliminating the individual responsibility component of the Affordable Care Act. And then we will be right back to where we are today, and that is having to sit down, talk to one another, find some reasonable offsets in order to finally repeal the

So there are some powerful trends that are leading to a reduction in overall health care spending, things that we should study and explore and try to sustain.

But moving forward with an SGR repeal based on pay-fors that are being offered is just a dead-end road, it is not going to advance, and this is too important of a topic, too serious of an issue throughout our health care system to play these partisan, political games all over again.

So let's scratch this itch once again, and then, next week, let's come back together and see if we can, in a bipartisan fashion, find some commonsense, reasonable offsets that both parties can agree to, that the Senate can work on, that the President will sign, so we can finally get rid of this SGR onus that has been hanging over us.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Monday, February 10, 2014. Winter weather in the Midwest delayed my flight out of Minneapolis. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2431 (rollcall No. 55), in favor of H. Res. 447 (rollcall No. 56), and in favor of the Journal Vote (rollcall No. 57).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this time and for the leadership that he has shown on the nutrition title and for the plight of hunger throughout our country. It is commendable.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a few farm bills in the past. I used to be a member of the Agriculture Committee. I certainly appreciate how very difficult it is to put together a bipartisan farm bill with so many different moving parts.

I have all the respect and admiration for the leadership on the committee,

but I also sense that we have reached a point of fatigue and exhaustion. People just want this farm bill to go away after years of it being worked on, and I appreciate that, too.

But we are only given one opportunity every 5 or, in this case, 7 years to reform farm policy to make it better, to make it better for our family farmers, to make it more responsible for the American taxpayer, to make production agriculture work for all Americans, and I am afraid that this farm bill, yet again, pulls up short.

I would beseech my colleagues to take a little additional time to work on reform measures that do make sense. Rather than looking at another $8.6 billion in cuts to the nutrition title on top of previous cuts that have already been had, let's look at some of these subsidy programs.

I am afraid that the bill before us today maintains huge taxpayer subsidies that go to a few but very large agribusinesses at the expense of our family farmers around the country. It is going to lead to greater consolidation and production agriculture. It is going to continue to drive up land values. It is going to make it harder for new beginning farmers to enter the occupation. It is not responsible to these family farmers, and it is certainly not responsible to the American taxpayer.

We have got historically high commodity target prices in this bill so any slight dip is going to mean huge payments going out in the future. We have got the multiple entity rule now that we worked on in the previous farm bill being rolled back in this one. We have got payment limitation caps now being increased rather than brought down to where the will of this Congress was last year when we had that debate on the floor.

And while it is commendable that we are getting rid of the direct payment program, which was not justifiable, most of that money is being shifted now into the crop insurance program which, what I feel, is overly generous premium subsidy crop insurance subsidies to producers, which has the potential of taking further risk out of production decisions.

But we are also telling private crop insurance companies, We are going to guarantee you a 14 percent profit margin. We are going to pay your entire administrative and operating expenses. And, by the way, you are going to bear very little risk in offering these policies. The American taxpayer will still bear that risk. There is not a business in the world that wouldn't sign up for that offer. So why are we doing that in this farm bill?

Representative Petri and I last year offered a commonsense modicum reform of the crop insurance program, asking these crop insurance companies to put a little more skin in the game. We understand it is a valuable risk management tool that needs to be there for producers, but this goes overboard with it.

Then finally, we have got a domestic cotton program that has gotten us into trouble with Brazil. If the average taxpayer knew that we, for the last 4 years, have funneled out $150 million worth of taxpayer subsidies going to subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers they would be livid. And yet this bill does not fix that cotton problem, and now it is up to Brazil whether they want to level economic sanctions against us.

More work needs to happen, and, unfortunately, this bill pulls up short.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Congressman Maloney's Motion to Instruct Conferees to recede to the Senate on the Dam Safety Provision of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act. Dams are an integral part of our nation's economy and provide water for agricultural and drinking purposes, flood control, navigation, and hydropower. Unfortunately, of the 87,000 dams listed on the 2013 National Inventory of Dams (NID), over 14,000 are deemed ``high hazard.'' This means that failure of these dams would result in the loss of life and serious damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure. In the state of Wisconsin, there are 252 high hazard dams. Furthermore, only 60 percent of the nation's high hazard dams have Emergency Action Plans, and over 20,000 dams nationwide were constructed prior to 1960. Aging dams add not only to construction costs but also increase the risk of failure. In fact, the American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave the nation's dam infrastructure an unacceptable ``D'' grade in their annual report.

Though states are responsible for regulating about 80 percent of the nation's dams, most states are understaffed and underfunded. The Model State Dam Safety Program has determined that 10 state regulators are necessary per 25 dams in order to carry out the regulatory mandates set in most state dam safety laws. However, in 2012, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials reported that due to lack of funding, most states only have 8 dam inspectors; this means that on average, each dam inspector is responsible for overseeing the safety of about 208 existing dams, or more than seven times the amount recommended. Wisconsin's dam safety program has 6.25 employees that oversee an average of 152 state regulated dams, or more than five times the amount recommended by the Model State Dam Safety Program.

For the first time, this Senate provision would provide for public awareness outreach

funding, an essential step to ensure that all citizens understand the need to prepare for, mitigate for, respond to, and recover from dam incidents and failures. Investment in infrastructure is critical to the long-term economic health of our nation, and that is why I support Congressman Maloney's efforts to authorize funding for the Dam Safety Provision of WRRDA.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Monday, October 28, 2013. I had family obligations that kept me in Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2189 (rollcall No. 561) and in favor of H.R. 2011 (rollcall No. 562).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service of Command Sergeant Major William T. Bissonette, whose tenure as Garrison Command Sergeant Major at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, concludes October 10, 2013. CSM Bissonette's official retirement from the U.S. Army Reserves is January 31, 2014.

CSM Bissonette's 32 years of dedicated service in the U.S. Army is noteworthy in every respect. CSM Bissonette assumed his duties at Fort McCoy on June 26, 2009. Immediately prior to this assignment he served as the command sergeant major of the 378th Military Intelligence Battalion (Battlefield Surveillance Brigade).

CSM Bissonette, a native of Massena, N.Y., entered active duty March 16, 1982 and attended one-station unit training at Fort Benning, Ga., where he became an infantry anti-armor specialist. His overseas assignments include the Republic of Korea, the U.S. Territory of Guam and the Republic of Iraq. His stateside assignments include tours at Fort Campbell, Ky.; Fort Rucker, Ala.; Fort Bliss, Texas; the Pentagon; Fort McPherson, Ga.; and Fort Sheridan, Ill.

CSM Bissonette has served in a variety of duty positions to include anti-armor specialist, machine gunner, weapons team leader, drill sergeant, recruiter, training and evaluation noncommissioned officer (NCO), unit training NCO, advanced NCO Course instructor, first sergeant, operations NCO, operations sergeant major, G7 sergeant major.

He has attended various military schools including the Air Assault School, Drill Sergeant School, Recruiting School, Master Fitness Trainer Course, Battle Focused Instructor Trainer Course, Emergency Preparedness Course, Force Integration Course, First Sergeant Course, Sergeants Major Course, Command Sergeants Major Course, and Garrison Command Sergeants Major Course. He holds an associate degree from Central Texas College.

CSM Bissonette has committed his life to serving our country and has received many deserving awards and decorations, including the Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal, Expert Infantry Badge, Air Assault Badge, Joint Staff Identification Badge, Army Staff Identification Badge, Drill Sergeant Identification Badge, Basic Recruiter Badge with two Gold Stars, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, and the Army Superior Unit Award, as well as various campaign and service medals.

It has been an honor for me to serve as U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's Third Congressional District during CSM Bissonette's tenure at Fort McCoy. During his

service at Fort McCoy, CSM Bissonette helped transform this vital national training center into one of the Army's best and most effective of the seven active Army Power Projection Platforms. I know his leadership will be greatly missed at the base and surrounding communities, but I am thankful for his leadership and contributions to ensuring that Fort McCoy remains a shining star in the nation's military training infrastructure.

On behalf of my constituents in Wisconsin and a grateful nation, I would like to thank and commend CSM Bissonette for his years of dedicated service in the U.S. Army and in particular as Garrison Command Sergeant Major at Fort McCoy. My best wishes to him, his wife Katherine and their children Michael and Samantha.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Saturday, September 28, 2013. I was traveling back to DC from family obligations in La Crosse, and my flight was delayed due to fog in Detroit. Had I been present, I would have voted against H. Res. 361 (Roll No. 493).

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Thursday, September 26, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of approving H.R. 3095 (roll No. 486), in favor of approving H.R. 2600 (roll No. 487), in favor of approving the Journal (roll No. 488), in favor of the Grijalva amendment to H.R. 687 (roll 489), and in favor of the Napolitano amendment to H.R. 687 (roll 490).

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to have my votes recorded on the House floor on Wednesday, September 25, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1961 (Roll No. 484) and in favor of H. Res. 354 (Roll No. 485).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the repeal of the medical device tax, but in opposition to this partisan effort to repeal the device tax without fully paying for it.

As lead Democratic sponsor on the Protect Medical Innovation Act that repeals the device tax, I have been, and continue to be, strongly supportive of repealing the medical device tax. There are over 8,000 medical device firms in the United States that employ over 420,000 people, including thousands of high paying manufacturing and research and development jobs in Wisconsin. The medical device industry is one of the most innovative and creative in the U.S. economy today. Their innovation is the key to providing cutting edge, life-saving technology to patients. Some of the greatest cost savings we've seen in the health care system have come through technological breakthroughs in the medical device and biotechnology industries. The device tax will limit the innovation that has extended lives and help cut health care costs due to the squeeze that the tax creates on R&D budgets. Innovative start-up companies that typically lose money in their early years are especially threatened since the tax is based on revenue, regardless of profit. It is important to protect American manufacturing and research jobs in this vital industry by repealing the medical device tax. However, the proper and responsible method of repeal is to fully pay for it without adding to the deficit. What we are doing today is nothing more than political theater.

After years of listening to Republicans berate Democrats for ``out of control government spending'', the House is voting today to repeal the device tax without any measure to pay for it. The President and House Democrats were committed to ensuring that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was fully paid for, and in fact, the ACA reduces the deficit, saving more than $200 billion over 10 years and more than $1 trillion over its first 20 years. I fought against including the medical device tax during debate on the ACA and remain opposed to it now, but I am also committed to fiscal responsibility. I've been consistent in pushing for major legislation to be paid for so that we don't leave our debts to our children and grandchildren. In 2003, I opposed the Republican Part D Prescription Plan because the legislation wasn't paid for. That legislation added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. I'm disappointed that the House Republican majority is again trying to take the easy way out by increasing the deficit.

I reluctantly vote no on this amendment to repeal the device tax because it fails to pay for what is an important policy objective-- repeal of the medical device tax. I will continue working with my Republican colleagues and our friends in the Senate to repeal the device tax but we need to do so in a fiscally responsible way. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to find a bipartisan way to accomplish that objective.