Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, we must acknowledge that passing a continuing resolution will do nothing to create jobs. We are stuck with an unemployment rate of 9 percent and have left the long-term unemployed who have exhausted their unemployment benefits out in the cold. Representative Lee's amendment makes it clear that some of us have not forgotten about these individuals and their families. The amendment will ensure that these hardworking Americans will have access to unemployment benefits during this historic economic recession. It's not only the right thing to do, but it will also help our economy. Economists estimate that the U.S. economy grows by over $1.60 for every $1 the government spends on unemployment compensation because unemployed persons usually spend all of their benefits quickly. This $1.60 is in stark contrast to the 20 cents in economic activity generated by some of the tax cuts we passed last month. Put simply, unemployment compensation is one of the most efficient and effective ways to stimulate the economy. But extending benefits is only one part of a comprehensive approach that is needed to get the long-term unemployed back to work. Many of the Americans who have lost their jobs have lost jobs that are not coming back, jobs that have been shipped overseas or jobs that now require new skills. So while unemployment compensation is the temporary solution, we need to simultaneously be providing job training programs and educational training to help American workers develop the new in-demand skills. Unfortunately, this resolution actually cuts job training programs. We face very difficult choices when it comes to the Federal budget, and there's no easy solution to solve our budget problems. When I first came to Congress in 1993, we considered a budget that put an end to fiscal recklessness. We passed a budget that, by the end of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, would not only have eliminated the deficit but had a projected surplus large enough to have paid off the entire national debt held by the public 2 years ago. That means we would have owed no money to Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia. That budget also led to record job growth, but it required tough choices; and in fact, dozens of Members who voted for that budget lost their seats in the next election. In contrast, under the Bush administration, we passed popular but huge tax cuts without paying for them, a prescription drug benefit without paying for it, a $700 billion bailout without paying for it, and cut taxes in the middle of two wars, all of which put us in the economic ditch. Now, in order to get the present deficits under control, we are going to have to make some tough choices. Unfortunately, at the end of last year, we made a move in the wrong direction when Congress passed a huge tax cut bill, at a total 2-year cost of $800 billion, without paying for it. To put that number in perspective, $800 billion exceeds the general fund budget of all 50 States. That's right. Add it up. If you add up all the general fund budgets of the 50 States, it comes up to a total of $650 billion, less than the cost of the $800 billion tax cut bill. Before that bill was passed, many of us asked how we're going to pay for it, but nobody wanted to answer it. Everybody who supported the bill focused solely on the nice tax cuts. But now we're going to debate a long list of spending cuts in the proposed resolution to show how we're paying for it. The safety net is attacked: low-income energy assistance; Women, Infants and Children's nutrition; the health centers; housing; and investments in our future, like the National Science Foundation, NASA, Pell Grants, job training, clean water, high- speed rail. These are the things that we're cutting to pay for some of last year's tax cut bill. Now the American people are seeing how we're going to pay for it. Last year we passed the tax cuts that gave great benefits to multimillionaires, and now we're paying for it by inflicting pain on vulnerable portions of our population. We can do better, and that's why we need to fight against these draconian cuts and programs that are so important to so many people and, instead, provide assistance where it helps not only individuals but helps the economy, as the Lee amendment does. The American people deserve better than this resolution. We should support the Lee amendment but oppose the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do just that. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the CR's proposal before us proposes to cut $190 million from juvenile justice programs. That cut is shortsighted and misguided. Cutting effective crime prevention programs is penny wise and pound foolish because we have reams of research and demonstration programs to show that evidence-based crime prevention programs save a lot of money in avoided law enforcement, victim, incarceration, and other expenditures and actually save more than the programs cost. The current Justice Department is making excellent progress in assuring that crime prevention programs and funding are only used for those programs that have proven their effectiveness through vigorous evaluation and study and programs that have shown their effectiveness. I can see that cutting unproven programs as a result of earmarks that haven't gone through that vigorous demonstration would be appropriate, but the programs in the Justice Department should not be cut. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of organizations that have written in opposition of the cuts in the juvenile justice programs. They include the National Disability Rights Network, the Campaign for Youth Justice, the Children's Law Center, the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, The Afterschool Alliance, the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth, and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice. Mr. Chairman, last month we passed a tax bill that increased the deficit by $400 billion a year for 2 years. Now, we obviously need to cut the budget to pay for those tax cuts, but cutting funding for juvenile justice programs that are proven to save more money than they cost is not the right thing to do. We need to defeat this bill and come back with a bill that fully funds the juvenile justice programs so that we can save money and reduce crime.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering the amendment and the gentleman from California for his remarks. Legal Services Corporation programs are forced to already reject over half the cases that come before them. This cut found in the CR only makes matters worse by requiring the firing of hundreds of Legal Services Corporation attorneys. Mr. Chairman, our justice system promises fairness to all litigants; but when people are unable to afford a lawyer, they are vulnerable to being ripped off in consumer transactions, vulnerable to unnecessary evictions, or unable to afford a divorce or resolve child custody disputes. Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that justice is more than just an idea. One Supreme Court Justice suggested that the kind of justice one gets should not depend on the amount of money they have. Two months ago, we passed a tax cut that gave significant tax relief to multimillionaires. It would be tragic if Legal Services Corporation funding for legal aid lawyers was cut to help pay for those tax cuts to multimillionaires. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation needs to be fully funded. We should defeat this CR and come up with a continuing resolution that fully funds the Legal Services Corporation. Again, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and if we're going to be able to address the important matters that our assistant leader has suggested, it's going to depend on our ability to get the budget under control. When we talk about the budget, we need to put the budget in perspective. I was first elected in 1992, and in 1993 we considered a budget that put an end to fiscal recklessness. We passed a budget that, by the end of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, had not only eliminated the deficit, but had created enough surplus to have paid off the entire national debt held by the public by 2 years ago. That would mean that we'd owe no money to Japan, no money to China, no money to Saudi Arabia. That budget also created a record number of jobs and record economic activity, as noted by the record increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. So we had a good budget. We had fiscal responsibility, but unfortunately, in 2001, that came to an end when we reverted to fiscal irresponsibility. Under the Bush administration, we passed two tax cuts without paying for them, a prescriptive drug benefit without paying for it, fought two wars in the middle of cutting taxes, and a $700 billion bailout, all of which put us in the economic ditch. Now, in order to get these large deficits we now have under control, we're going to have to make some tough choices. Unfortunately, last year we started off in the wrong direction. We considered a huge tax cut bill last year that went in the wrong direction at a total cost, 2- year cost, of $800 billion. And to put that in perspective, $800 billion is more than we spent on the TARP program, about the same as the stimulus, about the same as what the health care bill spends in 10 years, that tax cut bill spent in two. In case people don't really appreciate how big a bill that was, we checked with the National Conference of State Legislatures and ascertained that the total general fund budget, add them up, for 50 states, general fund budget of 50 states was $650 billion. We, in one vote, cut taxes by $800 billion. And before that bill was passed, we asked, well, how are you going to pay for it? One of the ways is that we jeopardize Social Security in the bill, cutting the payroll tax, so money coming into Social Security will have to be subsidized by the general fund. That puts the Social Security program in competition with everything else in the budget. And so we put Social Security in jeopardy. And we also had tax cuts for dead multimillionaires. I say dead multimillionaires because everybody expected us to have an exemption of $3.5 million, $7 million per couple, where you pay no taxes and begin paying taxes after that. Well, we increased that exemption, the amount you can get without paying any estate tax, to $5 million, and reduced the rate. That additional assistance to dead multimillionaires cost $24 billion. Again, how are we going to pay for it? You can look at the continuing resolution in next year's budget, a budget that the Republicans have already attacked for not cutting enough, and look what it does to the safety net: LIHEAP, the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, for those that can't pay their energy bills and risk freezing to death, we cut that by one-half billion dollars to help fund the multimillionaire tax cut; Women Infants and Children, the WIC program, so that babies can be born healthy and start off on the right track, we cut that program; Job training and employment services, for those who have lost their jobs and may never return, trying to get a job that will be there, we cut that program; Community health centers, public housing, at a time of record foreclosures, we're cutting those programs to partially fund that tax cut. Opportunities: Head Start, we only address the needs in Head Start for half the eligible children. We are going to cut Head Start to deprive millions of children of that important opportunity of starting off on the right track. We have found that Head Start will increase graduation rates, reduce delinquency, reduce the need for welfare, save more money than it costs. We're cutting that program; TRIO and GEAR UP, programs that encourage young people to go to college, we're cutting those programs; Assistance to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-serving institutions by significant amounts. Those deal with a lot of first-generation children; Funds for improvement of postsecondary education, cut. Our investments in America's future: NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Advanced Research Project, all cut. These are investments in our future; The National Infrastructure Innovation Fund, and rescinding billions in high-speed rail. Other countries are investing in high-speed rail. We're cutting high-speed rail. Now, we should be more responsible when it comes to balancing the budget, and we can do it. But you can't do it by beginning the discussion with an $800 billion tax cut without telling people how you are going to pay for it. Cutting critical safety net programs, initiatives to give opportunities for our youth, and initiatives that will invest in our future, these are the things that are being cut to fund that tax cut bill from last year. We cannot disassociate ourselves from the connection of cuts that we are making today from the tax cut bills that we passed before. People are saying, well, we can't afford it. Well, we could have afforded it had we not passed that tax cut. We need to rescind what we did last year so we do not have to make these draconian cuts this year. We should have been honest with the people last year. I don't think the people want cuts in Social Security, the safety net, and investments in our future. We can do better, and that's why we are going to be fighting against these draconian cuts that are so important to so many people and make sure that we go off and continue on the right track, as we did in 1993, where we can pass a responsible budget, address the needs of the people, create jobs, economic activity, and we were on course to paying off the national debt.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, which would extend for 1 year sweeping governmental intrusions into our lives and privacy that were authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2004 Intelligence Act. Without meaningful oversight and committee deliberations demonstrating that these extraordinary powers are needed, we should not extend these provisions for one full year, or for any period of time for that matter, and I therefore oppose the bill. I am opposed because I simply do not accept the argument that, in order to be safe, we necessarily have to sacrifice our rights and freedoms. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, who stated during the formation of our Nation: ``They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' One of the provisions in the bill reauthorizes section 215 of the Patriot Act, which gives the government power to secretly invade our private records, such as books we read at the library, by merely alleging that they are relevant to a terrorism investigation but without having to show that the seized material is in connection with any specific suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. There is no requirement to show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of being related to a specific act of terrorism, and therefore, there is no meaningful standard to judge whether or not the material is, in fact, necessary. Another provision of H.R. 514 is section 206 of the Patriot Act which is referred to as the ``roving John Doe wiretap provision.'' It gives the government the power to wiretap a phone conversation without having to show which phone will be tapped or even who will be using it, and without requiring a court order for a specific roving tap. The third provision is Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, referred to as the lone wolf provision. It gives the government the power to spy on individuals in the United States who are not U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, even though they are not agents of a foreign government or any terrorist organization. Unfortunately, this means that if those targeted had any interaction with an American citizen, then that American citizen is spied upon as well. We have already allowed spying on such noncitizens outside of the United States or even in the United States where there is probable cause, only that they are agents of a foreign government or members of a terrorist organization, but this is an extension of that power that can envelop anybody simply as a result of the occasion of interacting with a targeted person, even while in the United States. The three provisions give the government power to invade our privacy even when there is no probable cause, nor even reasonable suspicion or credible evidence of any wrongdoing, and without allowing the kind of detached oversight such as a court warrant, which is generally called upon when such power over individuals is extended. And it is important to note that in cases of emergencies, warrants can be obtained after the fact. Law enforcement officials can perform wiretaps and searches in emergency situations and then get a warrant. So, Mr. Speaker, absent oversight protections, even when after the fact warrants are available, all three of these provisions should be allowed to expire unless we demonstrate in oversight hearings and committee deliberations that these powers are necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling national security interest. These freedoms and protections that these provisions take away are the very core of our values and liberties. So these protections should not be legislated away without committee deliberations guaranteeing rigorous oversight to protect against abuse.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, last year we passed a 2-year $850 billion tax cut bill with the benefits skewed toward millionaires; $24 billion of that was a bonus reduction in taxes on estates of multimillionaires over and above the generous reduction that most had expected. When the bill passed, many of us asked how we were going to pay for it. Well, now we know. This week, the Republican majority released a list of spending cuts, and look how we are going to pay for it: cuts in heating assistance for low income families, job training programs, National Institute for Health, NASA research, community health centers, and women, infant and children's nutrition programs. Madam Speaker, the worst part is that the savings from the 70 programs slated to be cut only total $23 billion, less than the cost of the bonus estate tax changes for dead multimillionaires, a long way from the $100 billion demanded by the tea party, nowhere close to paying the $850 billion tax cut bill, and it doesn't fix the long-term structural imbalance in the Federal budget. Madam Speaker, that's not right.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Absent these oversight protections, even after the fact in the case of emergencies, all three provisions should be allowed to expire, unless we demonstrate in hearings and oversight hearings that these powers are necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling national security interest. The freedoms and protections these provisions take away are the very core of our values and liberties, so these protections should not be legislated away without rigorous oversight to protect against abuse.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, which would extend for 1 year sweeping governmental intrusions into our lives and privacy that were authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2004 Intelligence Act. Without meaningful oversight demonstrating that these extraordinary powers are needed, we should not extend these provisions for one full year, or for any period of time, for that matter; and I therefore oppose the bill. I am opposed because I simply do not accept the argument that in order to be safe, we necessarily have to sacrifice our rights and freedoms. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, who stated during the formation of our Nation that ``they who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' One of the provisions in the bill reauthorizes section 215 of the Patriot Act that gives the government power to secretly invade our private records, such as books we read at the library, by merely alleging that they are relevant to a terrorism investigation, but without having to show that the seized material is in connection with any specific suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. There is no requirement to show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of being related to a specific act of terrorism, and therefore there is no meaningful standard to judge whether or not the material is in fact necessary. Another provision of H.R. 514 is section 206 of the Patriot Act, which is referred to as the ``roving John Doe wiretap provision.'' It gives the government the power to wiretap a phone conversation without having to show which phone will be used or even who will be using it and without requiring a court order for the specific roving tap. The third provision is section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, referred to as the ``lone wolf'' provision. It gives the government the power to spy on individuals in the United States who are not U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens even though they are not agents of a foreign government or any terrorist organization. Unfortunately, this means that if those targeted have any interaction with an American citizen, then that U.S. citizen is spied upon as well. We already allow spying on such non-citizens outside of the United States or even in the United States where there is probable cause that they are agents of a foreign government or members of a terrorist organization, but this is an extension of that power which could envelop anybody simply as a result of the occasion of interacting with a targeted person even while we are in the United States. The three provisions give the government power to invade our privacy even when there is no probable cause nor even reasonable suspicion or credible evidence of any wrongdoing and without allowing the kind of detached oversight such as a court warrant which is generally called upon when such power over individuals is extended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we focus attention on the substance of the debate on health care. Some think that just calling repealing health care reform ObamaCare or calling it a job killer when it will actually create jobs, or even calling it a government takeover when it doesn't even include a public option constitutes the discussion. But we need to talk about what is actually in the bill and what is actually going to be repealed, because we need to talk about what's going to happen to those under 26 that are now able to stay on their parents' policies. Repeal will kick them off of those policies. We need to talk about what's going to happen to those with preexisting conditions. We need to talk about what is happening to those who can now get checkups, annual checkups and preventive care with no copays and deductibles. We need to talk about the fact that we are digging senior citizens out of the doughnut hole and that repeal will keep them in the doughnut hole. Insurance reform: No rescissions, no cutting off insurance in the middle of a treatment. We need to talk about what we are doing as to unreasonable increases. That's what you're going to be repealing if you repeal health care reform. Affordability: All Americans under health care reform in 2014 will be able to afford health care. We will be giving tax credits to businesses to encourage them to provide health care. This bill will create jobs. You will be destroying jobs. And you say nothing about the deficits. The CBO has already calculated that you will significantly increase the deficit if this bill passes. Mr. Speaker, health care reform is a matter of life and death. If Republicans want to repeal health care, they ought to be clear and tell the public what will actually happen to young adults, those with preexisting conditions, seniors, what is going to happen to the doughnut hole or insurance abuses or the future of the affordability of health care. We should not just be resorting to labels and slogans. We have to be clear as to what we are doing to the public.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, those who want to repeal health care reform should be clear and candid about what they are doing. You just can't expect the people to understand the effect of repeal just because you put a label on it like ``ObamaCare'' or misrepresent job- creating legislation as a ``job killer'' or misrepresent legislation that doesn't even have a public option in it as a ``government takeover.'' Health care reform will close the doughnut hole. It allows young adults to stay on their parents' policies. It means that those with preexisting conditions can get insurance. It provides tax credits to small businesses to help them cover their employees. It creates community health centers and additional health professionals. It prohibits insurance company abuses, like cutting off coverage in the middle of illnesses or unreasonable increases in rates. It means that, in 2014, all Americans will have the security of knowing that they can have health care insurance. You just don't call or put a label on it or recite a poll-tested slogan. Tell the public what will happen to the doughnut hole, to young adults, to those with preexisting conditions, to small businesses. Tell the public what is going to happen if we repeal health care reform.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. ``To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.''

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Thank you, and I appreciate your hard work. Thank you for organizing this Special Order so we can discuss the problems with repealing health care. You have gone all through the need for health care during your life and how the bill provides assistance for those with preexisting conditions. It limits insurance company abuses, like what's called a ``recision,'' when you have paid your premiums all these years and then finally get sick, and they want to cancel your policy right when you need it. There are lifetime and annual limits on benefits where they pay a certain amount, and once they get to that, you can be in the middle of a treatment, and they're not going to pay another dime for the rest of your life or at least for the rest of that year. There are many people with chronic diseases who hit up upon these limits very frequently. You have talked about young people on their parents' policies, who are working, who finally get jobs. They don't cover benefits. Up to 26 years old, they can stay on their parents' policies. We have talked about prevention, the importance of prevention. A lot of people, because of copayments and deductibles, can't afford their annual checkups. This bill provides for annual checkups without copayments and deductibles. For those senior citizens in the doughnut hole, where they get no benefits, adding insult to injury, they have to continue paying their premiums, and get no benefit. We have assistance for them. It is outrageous that they would elect to try to repeal this. No hearings. No nothing. Just put a label on it and call it ``ObamaCare'' and then expect people to go along with the repeal. You just can't label things and expect people, by virtue of the label, to take action. They call it ``government-run health care.'' No. Government-run health care was the single-payer plan. That was defeated. The option of a public option would have been nice. People talk about choice. Well, in the plan that's on the books today, they have the choice of all the plans of anybody who wants to sell insurance in their States. They have a choice of all of them. It would be nice to have an additional choice--a choice of a public option where you have the choice of a policy that is not run by a for-profit corporation with a financial interest in denying you coverage or canceling your policy. It would be nice to have that option. You don't have to pick it, but it's just nice to have that option. One of the things that we want to make sure is that we have as many options as possible, including a public option if we can ever get there; but when we talk about repeal and replace, there is no replace tomorrow in the rule that they are suggesting. They just want it repealed. We want to know what they're going to replace it with and what they're going to leave out. Are they going to leave out the part where people with preexisting conditions can get covered? Are they going to say, ``No, you can't get covered''? Does the insurance company get to decide who has the privilege? Are health insurance companies going to tell young people under 26 to get off their parents' policies? Are they going to tell those in the doughnut hole to get back in the doughnut hole where they belong? Are they going to talk about those who can't afford prevention to get prevention? Are they going to tell those who are going to run out of coverage because of the limits, ``No, that's enough. You've had enough, and you can't get any more coverage''? What are they going to tell all of these people? We need to make sure that we keep this policy, all of these provisions, intact. I have no idea what they want to replace it with, but I think, if they went step by step and if the people looked at the provisions of the bill, they would elect to keep everything that's in the bill today. Now, there are some things that people don't like. When you have a good plan, you have to pay for it. Unfortunately, they're not paying for it. We were fiscally responsible. When we passed it, we were under PAYGO. They've repealed a lot of that so that they can go trillions of dollars in the ditch without paying for it. We paid for it. In fact, the CBO originally said that the first 10 years of the program would reduce the deficit by $140 billion. Now the estimate is $200-some billion in the next 10 years. So it is fiscally responsible. There are things we can do better together than everybody out for their own. We need to oppose the repeal of this health care to make sure that people have the protections and the Patients' Bill of Rights that they have under this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. You said that people were scared about what might happen. They also said things about small business, this would bankrupt small businesses. First, small businesses are exempt from the requirements under the bill, so it can't possibly hurt them. But those small businesses that want to provide health care for their employees are given tax credits to help them do so. So it can't possibly be hurting small business. But for the senior citizens, they have all of the benefits that you have listed on the chart that will be lost if this bill is repealed.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Thank you very much. And I appreciate your hard work and leadership on this. You've talked about the problems in health care with government. It's just not a government problem. If you ask any human resources executive about the major problems they have and benefits package, it's the ability to afford health care. Health care costs are going out of control. If you have an employee with a preexisting condition and he's in the group, then they do the actuarial study, you start getting bills that you can't pay. You ask any human resources what's happened to their insurance costs over the years. It's just going through the sky. And if you look at the employee portion of health care, it goes from zero participation to a little bit more copays, more deductibles, more cost for the family, on and on and on. Everyone has a great deal of insecurity about their ability to do health care. And then you look at the idea, what happens if you lose a job? If you have a preexisting condition, you will not be able to get health care until this bill passed. With all this insecurity, your ability to get health care, your ability to be able to afford it in the future, all of these problems, all of these problems in the future, what is the response from the other side about what to do about that kind of insecurity? They say, well, just be strong and go without insurance like me. Well, that is not a particularly attractive solution for those that don't have an alternative, don't have a spouse where you can just jump, you know, you can say I'm not going to take government policy, I'm going to use my spouse's policy; we have an alternative. Or if they're so wealthy, they don't need the insurance. Most Americans aren't in that situation. They need health insurance. And this is what is provided. You have access to it, and it is affordable. Everyone in America will be able to afford health insurance in 2014 because those that can't afford it will have subsidies to make sure that they can. So everybody will be able to get it. If you make less than $88,000, you can get health care for less than 10 percent of your salary. That is not the case now. If you are in the $20,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year bracket, if you can get insurance, it's going to be a lot more than that. So with this bill people have the security of health insurance that they don't have now. And the bizarre suggestion, just go without insurance, is not particularly nice when you have children that may have a little ear infection. Rather than have them lose their hearing, you can deal with it when it is a little infection, these problems don't grow out of control. We need that security. This bill provides it. And in terms of seniors, seniors are particularly helped under this legislation. Those that can't afford the copays and deductibles can get their annual checkups without any copays and deductibles. We are helping fill in the doughnut hole. It will take a little time, but eventually there will be no doughnut hole where they fall in and have to pay all of the drug costs. We provide more community health centers so they will have better access. We are training more doctors and nurses so they will have more professionals. You have a chart that extends Medicare. Medicare is extended. We know that Medicare will go broke if we don't do anything. It extends the solvency of Medicare. It lowers prescription drug costs. All of these things that seniors have a particular interest in, all of that will be lost if this bill is repealed.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, deficit reduction requires tough choices, and PAYGO helps us make those tough choices because, if you increase spending, you have to pay for it--either raise the money or cut spending somewhere else. If you cut taxes, you have to raise somebody else's taxes or cut some programs. You have to pay for it. In 1993, under PAYGO and a tough Democratic budget, we eliminated the deficit and were on our way to paying off the national debt. We created millions of jobs. Unfortunately, 50 Democrats lost their seats in a budget that the Democrats voted for but that not a single Republican voted for. These are tough choices. Unfortunately, this package fails to make those tough choices because it exempts trillions of dollars from PAYGO. Mr. Speaker, you are simply not having a serious discussion about deficit reduction when the discussion begins with massive tax cuts which will add trillions of dollars to the national debt without beginning to pay for them at all. We need to get serious about deficit reduction, and this package does not do it.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the young lady who has worked hard on this legislation, along with many others, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2925) to establish a grant program to benefit victims of sex trafficking, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has been working hard on this bill and has been a leader in making sure this bill continues and has been very instrumental in making sure it saw the floor today.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield an additional minute.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.