Sean Duffy

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, this town, this Congress, spends a lot of money to alleviate the pain of poverty, of homelessness, and hunger, but a majority of that money is focused on urban centers. I don't take issue with that. There is a lot of poverty in the urban parts of our country. But so often, the rural parts of America are forgotten. I have to tell you, coming from rural America, the pain of poverty is just as great, and it affects our communities in rural America just like in urban America. Oftentimes, it can be a lot more complicated, poverty in rural America. The face of poverty is different in rural America. Instead of having families living on the street, oftentimes we see neighbors, two, three families move into a single-room apartment so they can give their kids shelter. Last year I hosted a homelessness and hunger summit where I brought in people who provide food and shelter for folks in rural Wisconsin. We had a conversation about what we can do better out of Washington to help them address the pain of this poverty in our community. In regard to the homeless shelters, their main point was that they need flexibility so that they can address the risks of homelessness in our community. In 2009, a program was included in the HEARTH Act called the Rural Housing Stability Assistance program. This program allows rural communities to serve individuals that don't necessarily meet HUD's definition of homelessness but are, in fact, without a stable home of their own. My amendment is very simple and doesn't cost a lot of money. It would allow $10 million to be made available for the Rural Housing Stability Assistance program. Now, take a look at how much money we spend on homelessness--$2.1 billion. My amendment asks for $10 million to be used for the Rural Housing Stability Assistance program. Let's not forget rural America.

Mr. DUFFY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, with that, I think this is important. I appreciate the chairman's support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I think most Americans are aware that the President has recently stated that he intends to transfer the core functions of the Internet to an international or foreign body. What my amendment does today will prohibit the President from using any of these funds to relinquish control of those core functions to the Internet. I think this is an incredibly important amendment because America and our zest for freedom of speech has made sure that the Internet is an open forum for dialogue, an open forum for ideas. By relinquishing these rights or core functions to a foreign body, I don't think we will retain the current system of the Internet and the current rights of freedom of speech that the Internet currently enjoys. If you look at stakeholders, you have a say in how the Internet is run. I think when we use the term ``stakeholders,'' what we are really referring to are foreign governments and corporations. I think we have to ask the question: Do we think that China, that Russia, that Iran, who have a say in the core functions of the Internet, have the same concern for the freedom of speech that we Americans do? I think it is important that this institution use its control of the purse strings to limit the President's authority to transfer those core functions to this foreign body. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the United States Bronze Star with ``V'' Device to Specialist Four Ronald N. Sandquist for heroic achievement while serving as a Specialist Four E4 in Company E of the 2nd Battalion in the 1st Infantry or the 196th Brigade. Specialist Four Sandquist distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action while serving as an ammunition bearer in the mortar platoon of E company which was reinforcing the Kham Duc Special Forces Camp on 12 May 1968. During the battle of Kham Duc an integral ammunition bunker caught ablaze, following this attack Special Sandquist repeatedly risked his life in order to evacuate wounded members of his squad to a safer position. If this alone were not heroic enough, he repeatedly returned to the burning bunker to carry badly needed ammunition to a safer position. As stated by Specialist Sandquist's commanding officer, John K. Sammet, ``Specialist Sandquist, with complete disregard for his own personal safety, exposed himself to intense hostile fire to carry ammunition from the ammunition pit to the gun placement and prepare the charges for fire.'' Specialist Four Sandquist's devotion to duty, personal bravery, and valorous conduct are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the American Division, and the U.S. Army. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a very grateful nation, please join me in recognizing and thanking Specialist Four Ronald N. Sandquist for his acts of valor.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Taylor County Deputy Sheriff Chad R. Kowalczyk for his bravery, selflessness, and quick thinking in the line of duty while responding to a call on September 8, 2013. Deputy Kowalczyk responded to a report of a violation of a court ordered injunction. Upon arriving to the scene, the suspect fired on deputy Kowalczyk. When the suspect began firing shots at deputy Kowalczyk, he retreated to a position of cover and attempted to warn the responding officers of the situation. Unable to make radio contact, deputy Kowalczyk decided to leave his position of cover to get to his squad car, knowingly putting his life in jeopardy. When deputy Kowalczyk broke cover, he was struck by a round in his left abdomen. Deputy Kowalczyk made it to his vehicle and radioed the other officers alerting them of the situation. When they arrived at the scene, they found deputy Kowalczyk taking up a tactical position, despite his serious injuries. Mr. Speaker, deputy Kowalczyk may not agree with me, but he is a hero. His quick thinking and selflessness protected his fellow officers and the community. Please join me in thanking Deputy Kowalczyk once again for his bravery, selflessness, and quick thinking in the line of duty.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 9, 2014, I was at home in Wisconsin taking care of my amazing wife and our new baby daughter. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following ways: (1) H.R. 1726--To award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 65th Infantry Regiment, known as the Borinqueneers--``yea.'' (2) H.R. 2203--To provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Jack Nicklaus, in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence, good sportsmanship, and philanthropy--``yea.'' (3) H.R. 2939--A bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Shimon Peres--``yea.'' (4) H.R. 3658--Monuments Men Recognition Act of 2013--``yea.'' (5) H.R. 1209--To award a Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II members of the ``Doolittle Tokyo Raiders'', for outstanding heroism, valor, skill, and service to the United States in conducting the bombings of Tokyo--``yea.'' (6) S. 309--A bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II members of the Civil Air Patrol--``yea.'' (7) H.R. 685--American Fighter Aces Congressional Gold Medal Act-- ``yea.'' (8) H.R. 4628--To amend title 23, the United States Code, with respect to United States Route 78 in Mississippi, and for other purposes--``yea.''

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, on Tuesday, my amazing wife Rachel gave birth to our seventh child, a fifth daughter to add to our brood. And whether it is our seventh or seventeenth baby, the first few days always feel the same. The curiosity of who this little girl will become is just as high with her as it was when our oldest was born. We wonder, will she have an affinity for math or be drawn to the classics? Will she excel in music or languages? Will she have an interest in history or world affairs? With all of our children, we know only time can answer these questions, but her schooling will certainly play a part. It is a sentiment shared by millions of parents. That is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 10, the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act. I am a proud co-sponsor of this legislation, and am happy to see it on the floor, especially today. My congressional district has the 25th highest number of charter schools in the country. All parents want choices and opportunities for our children and charter schools provide those options. Schools no longer have to be dictated by where families buy their house, and a zip code should no longer dictate the quality of education our children receive. These things should be chosen based on the education parents want their children to receive. Demand for charter schools has never been higher. Currently, over 1 million student names are on waiting lists for a public charter school. From New York City to rural Wisconsin, these schools play an integral role in educating our children. As our new baby girl grows up, we will value the choices she is given because of the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act. I'm thankful for the committee's work on this important bill.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 9, 2014, I was at home in Wisconsin taking care of my amazing wife and our new baby daughter. Had I been present. I would have voted in the following ways: H.R. 4438-- American Research and Competitiveness Act ``yea,'' Castor Amendment ``nay,'' Jackson Lee Amendment ``nay,'' Wilson (FL) Amendment ``yea,'' Langevin Amendment ``yea,'' Bonamici Amendment ``yea,'' H.R. 10-- Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools ``yea.''

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 8, 2014, I was at home in Wisconsin taking care of my amazing wife and our new baby daughter. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following ways: 1. H. Res. 567--Providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi--``yea.'' 2. H.R. 2548--The Electrify Africa Act of 2014--``yea.''

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 567 and urge the House to approve the measure as soon as possible. On September 11, 2012, a group of terrorists ruthlessly attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and two private security contractors and former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. The terrorists who perpetrated the attack have still not been brought to justice and the State Department officials, whose failure of leadership contributed to grossly inadequate security In Benghazi, have not been held accountable. Despite numerous House oversight hearings on this issue, it is clear that there are too many questions that remain unanswered. Additionally, the Administration's unwillingness to present full and accurate information to these Congressional committees show officials are more interested in maintaining their public image than providing real answers. That is why I am proud the House of Representatives is considering H. Res. 567 that establishes a Select Committee on the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi. In fact, I was a proud cosponsor of a similar measure. I also want to thank you Mr. Speaker for appointing Rep. Trey Gowdy to head the Select Committee. A former federal prosecutor who never lost a case, I know my friend and colleague from South Carolina Rep. Gowdy will help these grieving American families finally get the answers they deserve. I am hopeful that this Select Committee will finish the much needed work of holding the Administration accountable for its failures surrounding this attack, deliver justice to those terrorists who murdered these four Americans, and bring peace to the families of the victims. I urge Members to support this resolution.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 7, 2014, I was at home in Wisconsin taking care of my amazing wife and our new baby daughter. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following ways: H. Res. 574-- A Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives find Lois G. Lerner, Former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ``yea;'' H.R. 863--To establish the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Women's History Museum of 2013, as amended ``yea;'' H. Con. Res. 83--Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha ``yea;'' H. Res. 565--Calling on Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting of conservative non-profit groups by the Internal Revenue Service ``yea.''

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, I was at home in Wisconsin taking care of my wife and our new baby daughter. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following ways: 1) H.R. 3584--The Capital Access for Small Community Financial Institutions Act of 2013--Yea 2) H.R. 2672--CFPB Rural Designation Petition and Correction--Yea 3) H.R. 4386--Money Remittance Improvement Act of 2013--Yea 4) H.R. 3329--To enhance the ability of community financial institutions to foster economic growth and serve their communities, boost small businesses, increase individual savings, and for other purposes--Yea 5) H.R. 3468--The Credit Union Share Fund Insurance Parity Act--Yea 6) H.R. 2919--The Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act--Yea 7) H.R. 4292--The Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act--Yea

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in favor of H.R. 4386, the Money Remittance Improvement Act. I want to thank my colleague Rep. Ellison for his hard work and leadership on this important issue. Madam Speaker, I proudly come from a family of 13--10 brothers and sisters--and my wife Rachel comes from a family of six. Both of our families are spread across the United States and at times are spread across the world. It has always been a comfort to know that we can rely on each other in good and hard financial times, and that's a value Rachel and I hope to pass on to our six--soon to be seven--children. Sadly, duplicative requirements under current law for money service businesses make it difficult to wire money outside the United States to certain countries. Congress enacted laws to restrict money being sent internationally for illegal or fraudulent activity, but they never required the Federal government to coordinate many of those protections with State financial regulators. In fact, current law actually restricts these parties from sharing much of that information. Not only does this create inefficiencies, but it creates confusion as well. And this confusion often prevents the hardworking Hmong in my district from sending money to their loved ones, cutting off financial support. That is why they are supporting H.R. 4386, and I submit their letter of support. Madam Speaker, by requiring the Federal government to better communicate with State financial regulators of Wisconsin and the United States, as H.R. 4386 does, families spread across the world will enjoy the same peace of mind that Rachel and I do. This is a common sense piece of legislation that will not only protect everyone from unscrupulous financial activity but also improve the lives of all hardworking families throughout the world. I urge all Members to support H.R. 4386. Wausau Area Hmong Mutual Association, Wausau, Wisconsin, May 6, 2014. Hon. Rep. Sean Duffy, 7th Congressional District of Wisconsin, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Duffy: Thank you for your hard work and for being a cosponsor of the proposed legislation ``The Money Remittances Improvement Act of 2013, H.R. 1694/S. 1840.'' This proposed bill is what many Hmong families in Central Wisconsin need to help their families and relatives in Laos. As you are aware, Central Wisconsin is home to nearly 7,000 Hmong American residents, making the area the second largest Hmong community in the state. Wisconsin has the third largest Hmong population in the nation following California and Minnesota. Most Hmong American families in the U.S. still have close family members or relatives whom they left behind in Laos. These Hmong families are living in very poor conditions with no support from their government and are dependent on their families in the U.S. for financial assistance. Each year, hundreds of Hmong individuals and families in Central Wisconsin would send monies to help their poor relatives in Laos. The Money Remittances Improvement Act, no doubt, would make it easier for Hmong Americans to send financial support to help their poverty stricken family members and relatives. We support The Money Remittances Improvement Act and urge the House of Representatives to pass this bill as soon as possible. We thank you for your diligent work on behalf of the citizens of Central and Northern Wisconsin. Sincerely, Peter Yang, Executive Director, Wausau Area Hmong Mutual Association, Inc.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, first, I want to commend the work of both Mr. Cole and Ms. Wasserman Schultz in producing a spending bill that doesn't actually increase spending. It doesn't actually reduce it, but it actually maintains it; and for this institution, I think that is a positive, and I commend you both for doing that. I think it is important, when we talk a lot about our debt at $17 trillion--we have deficits at $1.5 trillion today, down to a little over $600 billion, I think it is important that this institution lead by example and look to places that we can cut, places that we can be more efficient, when we look at spending on operations here in the House. When we do that, I think it is important to look at duplicative programs, programs that accomplish the same mission through multiple agencies. I would submit to this Chamber that one of those is the Open World Leadership Center. This program--its purpose is to engage emerging leaders from post-Soviet countries by exposing them to American cultural institutions. I would argue it has outlived its usefulness. Listen, it is great that we should engage others from around the world. We should engage their leaders. I think that can help bridge the gap. The problem with this program is that, since 2000, it has cost the American taxpayer $150 million; but not only that, we have nearly 90 programs that try to accomplish this very same mission, just to name a few in the State Department: the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and USAID, all with this same mission. So I think this is a space where we can eliminate this program. The mission can still be accomplished with other agencies, and we can move over $3 million to deficit reduction. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chairman, with all due respect, to those who may disagree with this amendment--I am seeing some bipartisan agreement; I know I have some bipartisan disagreement with this amendment--but to my colleagues, there are 90 programs that are aimed at accomplishing the very same mission. When do we come forward and say: Listen, let's cut this back; let's cut it back a little bit? The bridge isn't cut off, but we have other programs that are doing the same thing. Listen, we want to talk about what is going on in Ukraine and want to talk about what is going on in Russia. This program didn't exist in the 1980s. Ronald Reagan didn't have this program to tear down the Soviet Union. He did it with strong leadership. So to come to this institution and say: Listen, the $3.4 million in this program is going to stop the aggression of Putin, no. Strong leadership will, though. This is about when do we come together as an institution and find programs that are duplicative, programs that we can look and say: This can be scaled back and we can look to one of the other 89 programs to accomplish this same mission. There is a constituency around every dollar. That is why it is so hard in this town to scale back because everyone will come forward and go: But no, no, no; this dollar is so important. And people come from our communities and go: No, don't cut back. We are $1.7 trillion in debt. This is unsustainable. So let's come together and find this program that we can cut and look to the other 89 that can accomplish the same mission, which I think is a noble mission. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Polk County Deputy Sheriff Michael Severson for his bravery, for his selflessness, and for his sacrifice in the line of duty on April 19, 1991. On that day, Deputy Severson was shot in the spine and suffered paralysis from the neck down. Also from that incident, his partner, Deputy Allen Albee, lost his life. He was a husband and a father of two. In the 23 years since that incident, Deputy Severson's life would change as a result of his injuries, but he would never give up on life. Deputy Severson traveled and shared his story with others. He provided inspiration and hope for those struggling to adjust to the challenging life of paralysis. Then, sadly, on Monday, April 14, Deputy Severson succumbed to his wounds, and he passed away in his hometown of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, for the past 23 years, Deputy Severson persevered. For his bravery, for his selflessness, and for his sacrifice in the line of duty, he is one of our heroes. Today, Mr. Speaker, I would ask all of you to join me in offering our gratitude for his service. On behalf of this entire body, we thank him, and we extend our condolences to his family.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a fascinating debate that is taking place today, laying out truly the two versions and visions for America. My friends on the other side of the aisle have no interest in putting America on a pathway to sustainability. They advocate for $2 trillion of more taxes, but more taxes and more spending in their proposal never leads us to a balanced budget. They lead us to a debt crisis. It is one thing to come into this House, into this Chamber, and tell the American people, ``I want to raise taxes; and with those tax increases which are going to kill jobs, at one point I will balance the budget.'' But they don't even do that. They tax and they spend, and spend and they tax, and they never balance. Mr. Chairman, I know this is Mr. Ryan's last budget that he has introduced. I have somewhat of a disagreement on this, and there is some good news and bad news in what the Democrats propose. The good news is that they actually pay for all of their spending. The bad news is the money they pay it with is still in the pockets of our hardworking middle class families. It is going to be an attack on middle class families if we are going to pay for an irresponsible budget and an irresponsible spending path. And in the end, they will have a lower standard of living. I think that is unacceptable. I think we should reject this budget and actually be responsible to the American people, sustainable for the American people, and truly get the job done for the next generation.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I sit and listen to this debate today, there is no doubt the Democrats' position is let's just keep the status quo, don't change anything, let's continue on with our $17 trillion debt, let's continue to borrow and spend and spend and borrow and never change course. We know that is their position by way of the amendments they offered in the Budget Committee and by the conversation you hear on the floor today. Mr. Chairman, we also know that, by way of the Senate budget, when they put one out, because it never balances, and we know that because of the President's budget that he puts out, because it never balances. It passes off this massive liability to the next generation, and their policies have a real impact on the country as a whole. We talk about seniors. The Medicare trust fund is going broke in 12 years--it is going bankrupt--and my friends across the aisle, Mr. Chairman, don't want to change it. They want to leave our seniors today and our future seniors in jeopardy with a trust fund that is going broke. It is hard to lead. It is hard to put ideas on the table and say: listen, my friends, let's come together, let's be responsible, let's make it sustainable, let's fix it--when the response is: don't do a darned thing, continue on the course to a bankrupted trust fund. That doesn't serve our seniors well. That doesn't serve our next generation of seniors well. Speaking of Medicare, there is only one party in this town that took over $700 billion out of Medicare and used it for ObamaCare--they raided it--and that is the Democrat Party, Mr. Chairman. That is unacceptable, and to come to the floor today and tell us and the American people that they are here to protect it just isn't true. We are on the course to a fiscal calamity, and if that happens, who are the people who are hurt the most among us? The people who are hurt the worst are the poorest, the ones who are most in need of government assistance. We should look to our churches and to our communities for that help, but there is a role for government. If you have a debt crisis, if you have a fiscal crisis, and if you have people who have a hard time heating their homes or putting food on their tables or who have kids who want to go to college or if you want to build roads and bridges, there is not money there for those projects. If you want to be able to invest in your future, you have to make sure you have a budget that is sustainable. When you pay $230 billion in interest alone today, when the Fed is printing money to buy down that interest rate and when the President says, in 10 years, interest on the debt is going to be $880 billion--you can build a lot of roads, bridges, feed a lot of people, and send a lot of kids to school for almost $1 trillion a year. Let's fix this problem. Let's work together. Let's balance our budget. It starts right here in the House with the Budget Committee.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, the House has put out a responsible budget under the Budget Committee that balances in 10 years. But this is an opportunity for us to actually see the vision, the ideas of the Democratic Party. If they were in control, what would they give us to try to bring America to a more sustainable path? What they give us, Mr. Chairman, is $6.6 trillion in new taxes. If I had $1 for every time I hear, ``If we just had a balanced approach and we could raise taxes on a millionaires and billionaires,'' if I had $1 for each one of those comments, I think we would balance the budget. If that were the case, raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires, you would think that they would come up with a budget that actually balances. The bottom line, my friends across the aisle, even raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires, their budget never balances. In their ideal budget, the Medicare trust fund still goes bankrupt in 12 years. If you are going to raise taxes, let's fix the problems. This is rife with huge issues. Listen, I think the real secret here that my friends on the other side of the aisle are not telling the American people is that they do have a way to pay for this, and the way to pay for it is not through millionaires and billionaires. They are going to pay it by taxing hardworking middle class families, raising their taxes in a way to pay for greater government spending. It is a budget that actually looks to government programs, government giveaways, instead of looking to the private sector to actually grow our economy. Listen, I think you couldn't have a better example of two different views about what direction you take the country: one of big government and big taxes on millionaires and billionaires and middle class Americans, or a responsible budget that reforms the way we spend, makes government responsible, and actually keeps our promises to the American people.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, if it is Thursday, it is throw-back Thursday. I want to take a look back to April 15, 2011, the House Republicans passed a budget that balanced. March 29, 2012, House Republicans led the charge to pass a budget that balanced. March 21, 2013, we passed a budget that balances in 10 years. Just last night, we passed a budget that is again going to balance in 10 years. The bottom line is that we can't do it by ourselves. If you look to the President who introduces budgets that never, ever, ever balance, and you look to the Democrats in the Senate who don't even introduce budgets, we can't get this job done. We have Americans who are young that want opportunity, that want jobs and don't want to pay higher taxes. If we don't balance our budgets, they are the ones who are going to pay. But it is the poorest among us who look to government for a little bit of help. If we have a debt crisis, we won't be there to help them. Let's work together. Let's balance our budget. Let's be sustainable in government spending.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss the issue of Medicare and Medicare reimbursement payments to doctors who provide health care for our seniors. Currently, the reimbursement formula for our doctors who provide these services is one that has become so low that many doctors in America aren't providing services and care to our seniors. It brings me to a bill that is coming up tomorrow in the House. It is the doc fix. It is a fix to the SGR. What that means is, there is on the horizon a 24 percent cut coming to Medicare reimbursements for our doctors who provide care for our seniors. If that cut goes into effect, it is going to have a devastating impact on the care that our seniors can receive. So tomorrow we are going to have a fix on the floor that takes away the threat of the 24 percent cut, and we pay for it. What we do is we bring certainty to the doctors who provide this care for our seniors and stability to the payment system. Now, this isn't the first time this issue has been brought up. This has been an ongoing problem, and so today, on throwback Thursday, we are going to take a trip down memory lane. Four years ago, during the ObamaCare debate, House Republicans brought up this very issue and said: Listen, let's not hold our seniors hostage. Let's actually come forward together and have a doc fix that is paid for to make sure our seniors don't get cut in regard to reimbursements. My colleagues across the aisle said ``no'' to this fix that was paid for, and in the end we have had to have short-term fixes that I think threaten the care for our seniors. I hope all my colleagues tomorrow will stand with us to have a long- term fix to this program, to make sure our seniors aren't held vulnerable to potential inaction by Congress. I also want to talk about what happened in regard to our seniors in the ObamaCare debate. Instead of fixing payment in Medicare to our doctors for our seniors, instead of shoring up a plan that helps our seniors, instead of doing that, what my friends across the aisle did in ObamaCare is they looked for a pay-for, and they saw a pot of money in Medicare, and they took almost a trillion dollars out of Medicare to use for ObamaCare. News flash: the CBO, and the President, everybody acknowledges that Medicare is on a pathway to going broke. Twelve years from now it runs out of money. So instead of shoring up the fund, making sure that we meet the promise to our seniors, my friends across the aisle took almost a trillion dollars out of it, making it more vulnerable. Then, a program that works well, especially for my seniors back in Wisconsin, Medicare Advantage--taking money out of Medicare Advantage, a program that actually works, giving some choice and control to our seniors. I think our seniors deserve better than this. The war on the seniors should stop, and is going to stop hopefully tomorrow with a bipartisan effort that does what we should have done in the ObamaCare debate but fixes payments to doctors so they can continue to provide lifesaving health care to our seniors. Let's stand together as a House. Let's stand with our seniors. Let's get this done tomorrow.