David Thomas: “I want all Members to understand the significance of this vote on the motion to recommit. Although it may not seem…”

“I want all Members to understand the significance of this vote on the motion to recommit. Although it may not seem important, the motion to recommit of the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) is not forthwith. If the motion were forthwith, the legislation the gentleman described would be substituted for the bipartisan plan, and it would come back in front of the House to be voted upon. The motion the gentleman offered on the motion to recommit was to report promptly. That means, in reality, that any prescription drug benefit for seniors this year is gone. I would sober everyone up by saying that if they vote for this motion to recommit, they will have denied the seniors the opportunity that all of us want to provide them with. The reason there is no point of order against this motion, although over the 10-year period it spends $295 billion, is because, as the gentleman from California said, there is a trigger. One really ought to examine the trigger that is in this legislation. First of all, it says that there has to be a law that says we are going to retire the entire Federal debt by 2012. We are for that, but this bill adds $300 billion to the job of doing that. Secondly, it says that there has to be legislation that has been passed guaranteeing the solvency of Social Security for 75 years.”