tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN May 8, 2012 6:00am-7:00am EDT
gateway to oklahoma. i am married to an oklahomain. a balanced approach. we are in a spending-driven crisis. the red line it shows you cbo's projection of four spending is growing in this country. the green line shows you revenues. by the time i 32 children are my age, instead of taking 20 cents out of every dollar made in america to run the federal government, we will be taking 40 cents of every dollar made in america to pay for this government at that time. by the time might, hopefully, grandkids are my age, we will be taking 80 cents out of every dollar made in america to pay for this federal government at that time.
it is a spending-driven debt crisis that is coming. if you try with balance or whatever euphemism you want to use to chase that hire read spending one with revenues, you will just shut the economy down that much faster. spending is the problem. having been here a little while, i have learned that if you keep raising taxes, you just wanted spending the money. the president's tax increases don't even pay for 1/5 of his proposed debt is spending. i rest my case. >> we need a balanced budget which moves us in the awkward spot -- the opposite direction. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to close. >> beginning with the charge, everybody knows the primary driver behind bett is the aging baby boomers and rising health-
care costs. we have very different approaches to dealing with that. you, mr. chairman, have presented a chart showing the approach you take your budget and there is the approach the president has put forward and both achieve the same trajectory and i do it in a different way. the democratic plan does not transfer the cost and the risks onto seniors. let's talk about a balanced approach. we support a range of cuts. the one thing this congress has already done through the budget control act is enacted $1 trillion in cuts -- 100% cut. we did that last august in order to meet the spending levels. we're going to have to achieve greater efficiency. that is why the appropriators are working hard to do exactly that. there was a violation of the agreement in terms of the exact level which will, at a different point in time, but the reality is that we have all agreed on 100% spending cuts.
we're asking our republican colleagues -- where is the balance in that tax this amendment says we need to take a balanced approach like the bipartisan commission. if you just want to look at the breakdown in terms of the ratio of cuts to revenue, let's go for it. we can agree right now. let's lay out that half forward, ok? we have not heard from many of our republican colleagues that they are willing to put one penny into revenue. let's get some facts on the table -- the last time we had a balanced budget was at the end of the clinton administration. that was when we saw massive expansion of the economy, 20 million jobs created, and in 1993, the president increase the top marginal tax rate to 39% and it did not slow down the economy and things kept moving and we had a balanced budget. what happened?
2001, george bush, we now have back-to-back tax cuts, we were told that according to this trickle down economics theory that you provide tax breaks that disproportionate of the folks at the top, those benefits will trickle down and left up the middle class. eight years later, net loss in private-sector jobs. we have been there, we have done that, it is not an experiment anymore. it was reality. there's the old saying -- fully once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. here we are saying we don't want to take a balanced approach on the last time we had one was the last time that we actually balance their budgets. so, we think it is important to share in the responsibility of reducing the deficit. we heard in the republican debates the simple question -- would you accept $1 in revenue to $10 in cuts?
not a single one would take up that proposal, not one. we hear a lot about tax reform on republican side. we hear a lot about closing tax loopholes but what we don't hear about is doing with every bi- partisan commission has recommended -- using some of the proceeds from tax reform to reduce the deficit because if you don't use some of the revenue to reduce the deficit, you wax every other part of the budget which is what the republican budget does. you end the medicare guarantee, you whack $800 billion out of medicaid and you do the things to do today with cuts to the food and nutrition programs and you shortchange our future, the investments and education, science and research and infrastructure. that is why every credible bipartisan group has said you need a balanced approach. that is what we are proposing. we want to enter into a discussion with our college. let's do what the american people expect us to do and make our decisions and make the tough
compromises. we have laid out proposals. we made it $1 trillion in cuts but we are waiting to hear about one penny, just one penny for deficit-reduction from closing the tax loophole. a lot of these provisions of the tax code reward companies that ship jobs overseas. let's end them right now. oil and gas companies have told us that they don't made those subsidies for the purpose of having incentives to drill. let's take that now toward deficit-reduction. again, everyone can talk about how we have not laid out every dollar here but we have been on record supporting cuts. we have not heard one republican here to talk about one penny from the revenue side by closing tax loopholes. we look forward to that day when we can get a balanced approach, thank you mr. chairman. >> i have been asked to include two letters into the record.
sequester paid for with reductions in the oil fees. is recognized for five minutes. >> president obama son of the budget control act which was not ideal but it shared the burden of production. defense spending took its share of cuts. unfortunately, the version we marked up to that changes the rules of sequestration. it chooses panettiere hardware over america's seniors. the pentagon tribes over poverty programs. the choice was wrong. what i am doing here with this amendment will protect access to vital health care services for seniors and people with disabilities. it will insure that physicians, nurses, home health care aides,
hospitals, clinics, and many other health-care professionals will be able to continue to provide critical services to these vulnerable populations. to pay for preventing the sequester cuts to medicare for just one year, my amendment close as wasteful tax breaks for oil and gas companies. i have been here all day with all of you and i thought i would share something i found out. we first passed oil and gas subsidies in 1916. my 104-year-old grandmother was a young girl at that time and it was the right thing to do. it was a very risky venture and we want to grow our on energy and we need to figure out ways to transport it and how to refinance. it was the right thing to do but in doing my research i found out that the reagan administration in the 1980's tried to pursue what was believed to be a more
neutral and last extortionary energy tax policy. the administration opposes using tax laws to promote oil and gas development, renewable energy forces or can -- unconventional ignoble views. they believe that high oil prices would be enough to spur the economic levels of investment. it went on to say in this report that congress took out a number of the tax -- allowed a number of the tax breaks to expire. with that spirit in mind, i think we can look at what we have done with oil and gas revenues. just today, it came out that exxonmobil topped the fortune
500 list. the five biggest oil companies, record profits, were more than $1 trillion over the past decade. the exxon profits were up for 35% which is good. in 2011 from 2010, totaling 35%. $41.5 billion. chevron and, "phillips were number 3 and 4. they have had a good year. at the same time these oil companies are raking in record profits, home care health organizations are on a financial break because the medicare low reimbursement rate we know medicare does not pay the cost of the service that is provided. home health care aides are nervous because the cut from the sequestered may push their organizations off a financial clout. they will find themselves out of work for it when the states are out of work, they are not providing care to seniors to
stay healthy and in their homes and active. ultimately, these health care organizations can no longer hire or pay personnel to provide quality health care to to the cuts that are going to take place today here. many seniors will be transferred to nursing homes in more costly settings and that will cost taxpayers more money. when the choice for me is keeping unnecessary tax credit for oil companies at the top portion five of the company's or insuring our seniors have access to the care they need, i know my choice will be. it will be for helping seniors stay in their home and helping them stay healthy. this amendment is about choices. it is about the choice we will make today. are we going to work to protect seniors to provide access for services or are we going to protect petroleum profits? i would ask people to seriously consider this amendment in
preventing unnecessary cuts to our senior health care which will lead to fewer services being provided because providers will be crowded out. they will not be able to afford it. with that, i would like to yield five minutes to mr. ryan of ohio. >> i know we have many members want to speak on this so i will not take the entire five minutes but it is important as we talk about medicare to recognize that it is not a real simple solution to say we will make all these cuts in medicare without recognizing the complexities of the health-care system. seeing how these cuts would play out and it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. the simple solution of just making cuts will fix the entire medicare program -- i think that sounds too good to be true and it is because the issue we have with medicare is very complex and part of it has to do with a lot of people in old rust belt states like ohio and
pennsylvania and michigan and other states where you have people lose their job and health insurance when they are 55 or 60 years old and don't have any health insurance or cannot afford it, they end up waiting until they get into the medicare system and then the cost of medicare system a lot more money than they would have if we had accessible and affordable health care to those people who may of lost their jobs or are underemployed or work and don't have health insurance. those costs are borne into the medicare system. the medicare system needs to bear the brunt of those costs. what we tried to do and affordable care act to say those people should have access to affordable health care even if we have to help them with it because then we but will be able to get to problems they have sooner so they don't get as expensive and to the medicare program. that is just one way of doing it and making sure they get access
to preventative care. pounds it is more complicated entice more activity on our part to try to do that but if not, it will cost the medicare program a lot more money. the idea that has been presented here in congress for us to give these folks a voucher -- i know the chairman says it is premier support -- it is not premium support like our premium support we get as members of congress which is 75% of the cost of health care that we have every year whether it goes up or down. it is still 75%. the medicare reform that is being proposed on the other side is a percentage, it does not go up or down with health-care costs. over time, as we continue to seek high health-care costs, that premiums support becomes worth less and less. we will send our seniors to swim with sharks in the insurance market with a voucher that will be worth less and less.
the issue of medicaid can up earlier. one of the things is whether there are doctors who want to take medicare patients. one reason is they don't get paid very much and we try to fix that in the affordable care act and i am sure with all the savings or proposing on the medicaid side, 1/3 cups, i am sure that money will not go to increase fees for doctors. if it does, that would be terrific. we have more and more people who will need access to health care, we're cutting graduate medical education. that will not harvard, that will hurt youngstown, ohio because of bad debt burden. this meat-axe approach sounds good and is a concise message but i don't think it reflects the complexities of the problem we're trying to deal with. i hope this amendment is one way
of us going about it, to say let's as those folks doing really well, making profits, we have oil barrels of on the chart there, they are doing well. we need to ask them to help was a little bit here, to help soften the blow to some of these cuts so we don't have to make the dramatic cuts that otherwise will be made. i don't think that is too much to ask and when you look at the polling, the american people say yes, it may be needs to be $1 revenue to $5 in cuts. when you have a presidential candidate leading the party say there is not even one in 10, that is unreasonable. that is an unreasonable position to have when we have such complicated problems. i appreciate what the gentle lady has done with this amendment and i supported and ask others especially those on the other side of the aisle to open up their minds and give this some consideration. i yield back. >> i yield four minutes to the congresswoman from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz. >> thank you.
a want to thank you for this important amendment and for giving this committee a choice. we're talking about choices. the republicans have chosen -- could have chosen to protect medicare from sequester in the reconciliation instructions and they chose not to. instead, the republicans chose an even more destructive path. i will start with the budget choice -- when you made the choice to end medicare guarantees by turning medicare into a voucher program and shifting currents and increasing costs to our seniors. we have had that debate. even tonight, not only as the republican budget ends medicare as we know for future seniors but they decided in the reconciliation language to cut medicare providers now, risking access to doctors and hospitals and nursing homes for our
current seniors. as a result of the republican legislation to replace sequester, medicare providers will experience billions of dollars in across-the-board cut. this republican action will read -- result in $6 billion in cuts in medicare in 2013 alone. well singers are protected from direct cuts to benefits under this action, the impact of cuts to medicare providers is a clear threat to beneficiaries' access to care. i have heard that said the republicans at budget hearings and of course on the floor as well. this is a chance to be concerned about those cuts to providers because that is what we're talking about tonight. it means cuts to hospitals who already are experiencing a narrow margins when they are providing care under medicare or medicaid. the medicare sequestered they have chosen, the public has chosen this to keep in place.
according to the american hospital association, 61% of hospitals already lose money on medicare. republicans and democrats have talked about our concern. we should be part -- supported our providers in their efforts to reduce health-care costs the right way, to better coordinated care and increase efficiency and value in medicare. was not antered incentive to sound fiscal policy. we have a choice today. we can protect medicare from arbitrary cuts or providing big breaks for big oil. we should work together to reduce for costs in medicare
that provide help the outcomes. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, reject the across-the-board cuts to medicare providers, and work together to make sure that seniors have access to medicare today and into the future and i yield back them up thank you and the yield to mr. van hollen as much time as he wishes to consent. >> thank you for offering this important amendment. at the beginning of the hearing, we said we thought there was a medium -- a meeting of the mines on the question about whether a sequester across the board approached was wise or made sense. we thought there was an agreement that that kind meat- axe approach was not the way to go, that we should look for specific policies that would replace the sequester. the republican reconciliation bill has policies that we strongly disagree with and we have debated those.
we believe we should replace the entire sequester with a doubt -- balanced approach. it turns out that the republican bill and this accompanying provision bill to modify the sequester leaves in place the meat-axe across the board approach when it comes to medicare. a 2% cut to providers whether they are providing care efficiently or not. it is a blind, across-the-board cuts. . we believe instead of doing that, once again, we should ask the oil and gas companies whose chairmen have testified under oath that they don't need these big subsidies in order to encourage them to produce more, that we should instead cut those. it is a little puzzling that we
would have a sequester provision that would eliminate the sequestered on defense cuts and other things but we would for some reason want to leave the across-the-board cuts and medicare in place. we have had a lot of testimony in this committee from various experts and i thought there was general consensus that just cutting providers who are already stretched doesn't make sense. yet that is exactly what the republican bill would do. amendment iss designed to avoid. i thank you for the time and i yield back them earlie. >> minnesota ranks number 1 in quality, out comes, and number 1 in providing the best value for your dollar.
the report was just released a couple of weeks ago. rochester and a couple of other cities and minnesota were also in the top 10. you hear the term geographic disparity. medicare and medicaid reimbursements are intertwined. mr. ryan and i come from states were doctors and nurses and hospitals -- they are not paid for the value of what they do. my state gets reimbursed at a lower quality for providing much better outcomes to seniors. across-the-board cuts to providers -- you want to talk about fairness and out comes out looking at what is going on this country? -- that is not right, it is not fair.
$62.4 million go to minnesota hospitals. they are already reimbursed at the lowest with the best outcomes. we could lose their health care providers. when a doctor or nurse graduate from college, their student loan debt is the same whether they are providing health care in texas or new york for minnesota or wisconsin. they have choices they could make on where they reimbursements go to. principal healthcare attendance -- many of them get paid poorly. these of the cuts i am trying to say that we don't need to do today. this is a choice we don't have to make. we can do so much better. with that, i will yield back and stay for the closing them up who
seeks time in opposition? mr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would begin my comments by saying i am somewhat confused by my friends on the other side who had multiple opportunities during the sustainable growth rate discussions we had over the previous four years when they let it lapse repeatedly and injected all sorts of incredible uncertainty into the lives of those providing care for patients. i am somewhat confused and may be amused by the new-found concern they demonstrate. i am more confused by this report that i have here from the white house. just talking about the woeful situation just described by our friends and the other side
regarding medicare beneficiaries of the president himself, the white house, says a fact sheet regarding the sequestered that "it protect social security and medicare beneficiaries." in another spot it says the same thing. i'm somewhat confused by the hyperbole and discussion on the other side but be that as it may, let me talk local about the issue of health care. it is important. as a physician i talk a lot about health care per i have talked to a lot of folks that deal with health care, those providing the care and patience, young and old. what i hear everywhere i go is that the status quo is absolutely unacceptable. the status quo in health care is absolutely unacceptable. we talked about that before this committee. if you are a new medicare patients and your physician does
not see medicare patients or is not seeing any new medicare patients -- if you're in and -- almost any community across the country, if you have to find a doctor taking medicare patients, it is virtually impossible to do so. if you are medicare or medicaid , it is even more difficult. the status quo is absolutely unacceptable. i will tell you that i have talked to more than a few individuals and the nursing home community and long-term care community, medical suppliers, who will testify if asked that the reason they are having difficulties making ends meet, a bigger reason in addition to the
reimbursement, is all the roles and burdens of regulations coming out of this administration stifling their ability to do their job. not to the benefit of an equality of any senior out there but just because this administration and their friends who were in charge for the previous four years believe washington knows best about how to make these rules. it is befuddling to them because they have been working for decades and decades caring for patients out there. we all these numbers -- we all know these numbers well for the medicare program becomes bankrupt in 2024. there are real challenges we have, no doubt about it. how will we address this? that leaves me to a couple of different ways to handle this. you can fix prices and that has
been done by both republicans and democrats alike. is probably not a wise idea. you can move in the direction of the president's bill. it has been cited by a number of my colleagues and friends on the other side. the wave that it saves money, the way that it handles medicare is to remove $500 billion from the medicare program, significantly reducing medicare advantage patient. s. the $500 billion, the largest portion of that, is found by empower the independent payment advisory board, a group of 15 individuals appointed by the president. curiously, when i talked to my friends in the health-care arena, these 15 members, you
cannot have a majority who have cared for patients. you can't have a majority of individuals and know what it means to take care of a patient on this board by law that our friends adopted. you also cannot have actively practicing physicians on this board. it befuddles us as to how you can figure out what they should be doing if they were truly concerned about the quality of health care for seniors. there on the charge is to save money. -- their only charges to save money, to be the final arbiter of how you get the $500 billion out of the medicare program. i will yield for a question when i'm finished. what are they going to do? i don't call it a rationing and board. that is in a different kind of power that they have heard that have power to ration care but they have the power to deny
payment for services. when i mention that to bridge back on, they chuckle because they no denying payment for services means those services will not be provided. the independent payment advisory board are not physicians are actively practicing physicians and not a majority of whom have ever care for patients are charged with pulling $500 billion out of the program. payment for care for seniors. the law that was supposed to address these wonderful things did not do a thing to address a compensation for physician services that supposedly is the highlight of this amendment. how welcome is saw this challenge? there are wonderful way to do it in a positive way we call patient-centered health care. this is that patients and
families and doctors and making decisions and not washington so we can save and improve medicare. that is our take home the message that you can do this without denying payment for services and you can do it without limiting the choices and options available to seniors. we have described this twice in our budget. we can do a couple of things that have been distorted by our friends on the other side. current seniors should see no change whatsoever in the medicare program. we can do that right now. if we might wait much longer, will not be able to do that. current seniors will be significantly affected if we don't address these challenges we have now. second, we preserve the medicare guarantee. we believe that the promise, the agreement, the pact that has
been made by the federal government and seniors in this country is sacrosanct and we preserve the medicare guarantee. we preserve the option of the medicare program as a choice. that is incredibly important because our friends on the other side oftentimes have distorted our proposal but one of the things they did over last year following the first budget we passed through this committee last year was to significantly inject fear in seniors minds as to what would be available. we preserved the option for medicare for seniors. finally, those in and near retirement will see no significant changes whatsoever. we save and improve and strengthen medicare. let me mention about the
sustainable growth rate because it is incredibly important i hear about from my colleagues all the time. the cliff we are approaching at the end of this year, january 1, is upwards of 30%. i'm hopeful we can continue this work and some of the comments we have heard in this discussion so far will lead into a more positive and fruitful discussion as we move forward to the end of this year to truly self the sustainable growth rate dilemma and challenge. we cannot continue to have a physician's out there who are working as hard as they can to care for patients across this country with the uncertainty of not knowing exactly what will happen from the sustainable growth rates than plan.
the status quo does not work, it is clear the president's bill does not work, it does not work for patients or doctors or employers or states and it does not work from the federal government from a financial standpoint so we look forward to working with anyone who truly is interested in solving this remarkable dilemma. i am happy to yield as much time as he desires to the chairman. >> thank you. where you were -- where were you when we voted to cut $500 billion out of the program? i hear this rhetoric about how devastating these cuts will be and hospitals will be hit the hardest come a meat-axe, yet these the same people who voted to cut $500 billion from providers. medicare is growing at six by 7% this year.
this reduces that by 2%. according to the white house, when they sign the budget control act into law, this is doable. it holds patients harmless according to the white house. defense gets cut by 10% and on discretionary gets cut by 8% which is flat-funded. where flat funding discretionary defense and nondefense and cutting them 10% and 8%, that is what this is dealing with.
have a better way of getting to parity. this should work for providing for patients and providers. we disagree on that but i would say that i think the criticism about this particular provision doesn't match with the votes people have taken around here recently. to hear the talk about disparities -- in wisconsin and minnesota, we are in the same boat and we have had these debates for years about how our area is getting shortchanged or another is getting short change.
it is amazing to me and i don't mean this as a criticism of the gentle lady from minnesota, is the system. we sit in these committees talking about how we will micromanage the formula that doctors in our communities will get for taking medicare. it just isn't working. why not have a system -- instead of having the money come to the government, running counter these complicated formulas that we sit here in congress and a cycle works -- why don't we run the money through the individual into a marketplace where we have more for the poor, more for the sec, more for the middle income, less for the wealthy and let the providers compete among each other for the senior citizen business based on quality, they somehow come, based on price so that those of us who represent providers who are really good who are very
efficient, they can succeed based upon their own marriage. i thi that is just -- there m ownerit -- a m their ownerit. - their own merit. this is one of the most complicated sectors in our economy, a 16% of our common, and it is not working. some areas we overpay in some areas we underpay. medicare takes all claims, pays it, and anecdotally here and there, they follow up to see a fraud was involved. they call pa ity and chase. it doesn't work. the whole system is crashing. i believe there is room for a bipartisan consensus on how to fix this program. it will not be this year, i understand that, but think about what the values and the resources that work. the part d benefit worked
pretty well. some people have complaints about it but it worked pretty well. it is a high satisfaction rate, extremely low for a great and we subsidize -- external f -- extreme low fraud rate. that system works comes in below estimates. it is a patient and-centered approach. the senior citizen, she has the power, not the company, not the provider, not the formula, not the bureaucrats not the politicians sitting around in committee of fighting for an arbitrary formula change -- she has the power. that's where it ought to be. that is a system we have already proven court. -- proven works. i understand the amendment.
it would have been nice to hear a few years ago when they cut many multiples of this amount from the providers. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from georgia. >> i am pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas. >> we have heard a lot of rhetoric today about and about setting things are not fair. what is not fair is the 47 million people on food stamps because of the obama economy. one out of every six americans is unemployed or underemployed or have given up looking for work because of the obama economy. we talk about these choices for the other side continues to bring this as a choice between oil or seniors or this group for that group. these are false choices. the choice we need to be talked about is a choice where everybody wins, where everybody gets -- is better off. we need to quit talking about a choice between paychecks and food stamps. we need to talk about paychecks
for everybody wins. when i took my first economics class, two of the first things i learned was that if you want less of something, attacks it. if you want higher gasoline prices, let's tax the oil companies. that hits the middle class the hardest, it hits seniors on fixed incomes and it's the poor the hardest. if you really care about those groups, you'll quit talking about this guise that you can raise taxes on oil companies. the second thing -- and we can bring up the last chart -- can we bring that up again? the one with the spending-driven debt crisis. the other thing i learned was that the laws of economics are
like the laws of gravity. the more you violate them, the harder impact at the end. this chart talks about the difference between spending and revenues. you can see that is what will cause our problem. it is not taxes, is that big red wedge that occurs because the federal government cannot live within its means. not only to the problems in the way medicare is managed or the way medicaid is managed, you have problems with itgsa managing its business. we need to get back to thinking about ways we can grow the economy and therefore produce more federal revenue because more people are working. we have fewer people need more benefits because fewer people are working. let's talk about a more broader more quickly growing economy. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments and i appreciate the comments of the folks on the other side. i hope they are sincere in their desire to move forward as all
these challenges. we will have more than a few opportunities before the end of the year to do so. i yield back. >> the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes to close them ue. there is a lot of talk about oil. >> the decision was made to use the numbers that are lower than the senate in the house. the house committee is struggling with that. a decision was made to protect the defense contractors. i made a choice and i hope my colleagues will support me to put seniors the head of oil profits. this was not my idea. president bush in 2005 said we don't need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore.
chairman ryan at rutgers said as part of an overall corporate tax reform, tax loopholes and deductions for corporations should be scaled back. that includes oil companies. speaker boehner said they should be paying their fair share. leading conservative organizations said the same thing. we might not want to want to be dealing with the issue of what we do about oil subsidies, but please, don't -- if you are not on to offer that up or agree on that even though this is something the minute you said you would look at, tell me what else. an across-the-board cuts to providers is really not the right way to go. it will impact seniors, it will
impact people in nursing homes. to the product -- to the point of mr. price, we have been working on this. fiscal disparities, you might not have liked it or voted for it but it is something i've fought tooth and nail would many of my colleagues to get quality and value put forward at a pimmit level. we worked that as part of the reform. the $500 billion that you keep referring to, you use it in your own budget to balance it. fall off the turnip truck. let's be real about what we are doing. by not letting this amendment passed, it will be an across- the-board cuts to providers and that means patients will be
affected. our constituents will be affected and some of us, it will not even be the margin as to whether a doctor takes another medicare patient, it will be the margin whether the doctor stays in our state to provide the service. i am not exaggerating. some of our doctors are in that much of a margin. they are number 1 in quality, number one in outcomes, number one in benefit for the best tax dollars. i would ask people to strongly consider making the choice today to put seniors over oil profits, thank you, mr. chairman. >> the question is on agreeing to be amendment. the no's have it. >> mr. garrett, o, mr. simpson,
no's are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. a recognize the gentleman from new jersey for a motion. >> i move that the bill should pass them up all those in favor? the ayes ghave it. it rollcall vote is requested. >> mr. d, jarratt mr. simpson, mr. campbell, mr. kelberg, mr. aitken, c mr.ole, dr. price, mcc mr.lintock, mr.chaffetz, mr. sttuzman, mr. lankford, miss
are 13. >> the motion is agreed to. a quorum is president. ms. schwartz says best for a letter from the bill to be included in the record. i would now recognize the gentleman from new jersey. >> i move that the committee go to conference and the senate. >> without objection, the motion is agreed to. the statute make necessary changes to language. >> i s for the requisite number of days for opposing views. >> this concludes today as markup.
spending sequester that would take place early next year. the bill is expected on the house floor on thursday. senate majority leader harry reid has said they will not bring up the budget resolution to the senate floor. >> this week, live from london, the ceremony and pageantry of the state opening of parliament. until recently the official opening of parliament was held toward the end of the year with changes to their election rolls, it has now been moved to the spring and wednesday, quinn elizabeth will formally outlined the government's priorities for the upcoming year. live coverage starts at 5:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> here is what we are covering this morning starting at 10:00 eastern -- the house will start
its day with mourning our speeches and at noon, they will begin working on spending for the commerce and justice department and science agencies. that is live here on c-span. on c-span 2, the senate will continue to debate on student loan interest rates. several vote is scheduled for men and on c-span 3, a house financial services subcommittee will hear on changes to the federal reserve system. congressman ron paul is the chairman. presidential primary voters go to the polls today in indiana, north carolina, and west virginia. north carolina will also vote on a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. in 45 minutes, we'll talk with the national gay and lesbian task force. there'll be a discussion on the role of federal lobbying after that. that.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on