[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 108 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5171-H5182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2560, CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE ACT OF
2011
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 355 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 355
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
2560) to cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the purpose of debate only, I would like to yield the customary
30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 355 provides a closed rule
for consideration of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.
The rule provides for 4 hours of general debate on the underlying bill
and grants the minority party a motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, we are at a seminal moment in our Nation's history. When
I turn on the television, when I read the newspapers, I get a lot of
advice. Folks say act: act to raise the debt ceiling, act to cut
spending, act to balance the budget.
Mr. Speaker, today we are here to do all of those things--cut, cap,
balance, and with it increase the debt ceiling in order to allow this
country to continue its good line of credit.
But, Mr. Speaker, that line of credit is not something we can take
for granted. Too often, I hear folks come to the floor and say, Just
raise the debt ceiling. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we've had that vote.
We brought a clean debt limit vote to the floor. I would say for the
sake of all the young people we're blessed to have here in the gallery
with us today, Mr. Speaker, we voted ``no.'' We defeated that clean
debt ceiling to say, no, we cannot simply extend America's line of
credit. We must take action to bend that curve of debt. Now that was
this House acting, Mr. Speaker.
Last week, America's credit rating agencies joined in that debate. I
read to you from Moody's last week:
``While the debt ceiling has been raised numerous times in the past
and the issue has sometimes been contentious, bond interest and
principal payments have always been paid on time. If the debt limit is
raised again and default is avoided, a AAA rating would likely be
confirmed.''
That's what we hear all too often, Mr. Speaker. What we don't hear is
this second sentence:
``However, the outlook assigned at that time would very likely be
changed to negative unless a substantial and credible agreement is
achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To
retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit
trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratio of
the Federal Government debt to GDP.''
Mr. Speaker, that may be a lot of bond analyst speak, but what that
means in simple terms is, if we do nothing as a Nation, our credit
rating will be downgraded, and if we simply raise the debt limit and do
nothing to get a handle on our debt, our credit rating will also be
downgraded. That's Moody's, Mr. Speaker.
S&P writes the same thing last week:
``We view an inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium-
term fiscal consolidation policy as inconsistent with a AAA solvent
rating, given the expected government debt trajectory noted above.''
Mr. Speaker, that's what we're talking about today. Just cutting
doesn't get it done. We've got some debt limit issues that we've got to
deal with. Just capping doesn't get it done. We've still got some debt
limit issues that we've got to deal with. Just balancing doesn't get it
done. We've still got debt limit issues that we have to deal with. But,
Mr. Speaker, just raising the debt limit doesn't get it done either.
It requires cutting, it requires capping, it requires balancing, and
it requires raising the debt limit.
We have brought that resolution to the floor today. Mr. Speaker,
while so many other folks in this town are content to talk, to
pontificate, to share their wisdom with absolutely any television
camera who will listen, this House moves forward legislation that
describes line by line by line, in painful detail, what we will do to
restore America's fiscal house.
[[Page H5172]]
I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I'm proud to be a
member of the Rules Committee that has reported this rule to the floor
today. I rise in strong support of this rule, Mr. Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Georgia, my friend, Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed
rule and in even stronger opposition to the underlying bill. This is a
closed rule.
My friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) was on the floor last week
telling us how excited he was as we debated a modified open rule for a
flood insurance bill. My friend talked about how proud he was of the
open process that allowed Members to offer germane amendments to the
bill. But here we are today considering legislation that would
fundamentally transform the United States economy, gut many of the
programs like Social Security and Medicare that millions of Americans
rely upon, and make radical changes to the Constitution, and the
Republican majority of the Rules Committee has brought it to the floor
under a closed rule. No hearings. No witnesses. No markups. No nothing.
{time} 1250
This bill was cobbled together last Friday night and rushed to the
floor just a few days later. I wonder if my friend from Georgia is just
as excited about this process, because I'm sure not.
Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered my friends on the other
side of the aisle the opportunity to put their votes where their
rhetoric is and support an open rule. They chose to vote ``no.'' Every
single Republican member on the Rules Committee voted ``no.''
As for the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, I can't quite figure
out if this is a meaningless exercise in political theater or an actual
expression of Republican values. Frankly, I can't figure out which is
worse. If it's theater, it would get lousy reviews. Both the White
House and the Senate have made it very clear that they have no interest
in supporting this bill. It's not going anywhere. Maybe it's just a
rotten piece of red meat that the leadership is throwing to their
right-wing base in anticipation of an actual agreement to raise the
debt ceiling and cut the deficit. If so, it's a complete waste of this
body's time. But if the Republican leadership means what they say, that
they would like this bill to become the law of the land, it's a
frightening prospect.
This legislation would result in staggering cuts to programs like
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, medical research, and
infrastructure, all while protecting tax cuts for the very wealthiest
Americans and corporations. The bill would require us to cut Federal
spending as a percentage of GDP to a level not seen since 1965.
And we had a very interesting discussion in the Rules Committee last
night about the significance of that date. One of my Republican
colleagues noted that 1965 was a time when we enacted some of our ``so-
called anti-poverty programs.'' And she's exactly right, Mr. Speaker.
Apparently, the Republican leadership would like to take America back
to a time before Medicare, before Medicaid, before food stamps and
school lunches, before Meals on Wheels and Head Start and Pell Grants.
If that's their vision for America, Mr. Speaker, they should have the
guts to stand on the floor and say so. But it's not my vision. It's not
the vision of the people I represent in Massachusetts. It's not the
vision of the American people who believe that in the richest society
in the history of the world we have an obligation to make sure that the
most vulnerable among us don't fall through the cracks.
At the same time, this bill would go out of its way to enshrine in
the Constitution of the United States to protect tax cuts and loopholes
for the richest 1 percent of Americans. Under this bill, Congress would
need a mere majority to slash Medicare, but would need a supermajority
to close a loophole that gives preferential treatment to owners of
corporate jets. Talk about picking winners and losers, Mr. Speaker.
In the ongoing budget negotiations, the Republican leadership of this
House have said that they will absolutely not consider raising any
revenue to address the deficit and the debt, but listen to this:
According to news reports, they're willing to force seniors receiving
Medicare home health care to fork over new copays. So if an elderly
woman in Worcester with diabetes has to pay more for a visiting nurse,
the Republicans say so be it. But heaven forbid that oil companies
making billions and billions of dollars in profits have to pay their
fair share. Maybe they'll call those new copays ``user fees'' so that
Grover Norquist and the Club for Growth will give them a pass. But tell
the woman in Worcester who will be forced to go into a nursing home
that her taxes didn't go up.
Mr. Speaker, this is an awful, awful bill brought to the floor under
an awful, awful process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to reject this cynical effort and get back to work and
meaningfully address the budget issues facing this Nation. Time is
running out. We need to get to work to seriously resolve this crisis.
Reject this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm confused about whether time is running
out or about whether we're moving too quickly here today, but to
clarify that, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from the
Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
Mr. NUGENT. I thank my fellow Rules Committee member, the gentleman
from Georgia.
I rise in support of both the rule, H. Res. 355, and the underlying
legislation, H.R. 2560.
Mr. Speaker, there's no way to get around it: Washington has a
spending addiction. The unchecked, out-of-control spending has gone on
for decades. Regardless of what party controlled the White House or
Congress, Washington spent, spent, and spent some more. And although
throughout his campaign President Obama promised a ``net spending
cut,'' that hasn't happened. In fact, he's kept on spending and adding
trillions of dollars to our debt, and that's why we're in the situation
we are today, debating raising our debt ceiling once again.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to raise the debt ceiling. Instead, I want
our Nation to get real with the spending and make some changes. H.R.
2560 isn't the easy choice, but it's the right choice, and that's why
I'm cosponsor of this critical piece of legislation.
H.R. 2560 raises the debt ceiling, something I'm willing to say most
of my Republican colleagues and I decidedly do not want to do. In
return, though, H.R. 2560 implements spending cuts for this year and
caps for the next 10 years.
But we all know statutory budget cuts from past Congresses don't mean
an awful lot, which is why H.R. 2560 also calls for Congress to pass
and send to the States a balanced budget amendment. Such an amendment
would really hold Washington's feet to the fire. It would mean the U.S.
Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from spending more than
it collects.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. NUGENT. Now that, Mr. Speaker, is a balanced budget amendment to
the United States Constitution. That's real action. It's the real
change and accountability in government that America needs and
deserves. Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced budget amendment.
The President has yet to send to this body anything in writing. All
we've received is a speech and rhetoric. We need to move this country
forward. We need a balanced budget amendment. We need to pass H.R.
2560.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill
before us.
Mr. Speaker, I support a balanced budget amendment, but what the
majority has brought before the House is
[[Page H5173]]
not even close to a balanced budget amendment. This is a political
exercise designed to soothe the feelings of the most radical
conservative elements in the House and debase our Constitution and our
democracy in the process.
Cut, cap, and balance is simply an attempt to slash, burn, and deny
responsibility for the deficit and debt limit crisis and distort the
nature of our democratic Republic, reducing the ability of Congress to
represent the will of the voters of this country and rendering
elections and the public will meaningless.
If we're going to enact a balanced budget amendment, it should be
pragmatic. It should be modeled after the type of approach that most
States have. States have to balance their budget. Families have to
balance their budget. Why shouldn't the United States Congress? Like
many people on my side of the aisle, I could support language that
would require and enshrine that total outlays do not exceed total
receipts. That's what it means to balance a budget, as families and
businesses across America know.
Instead, the proposal before the House is a recipe for tying the
Nation's budget policy in knots and handing power over the budget
process to a minority of the House Members or unelected Federal judges.
It would make the entire Congress cease to function as a representative
body by locking them into arbitrary percentages that were set without a
single hearing or any process in our United States Constitution as a
public expenditure share of GNP.
If you require a supermajority for even the smallest possible
increase in revenue, you've essentially ensured that all the major
pieces of legislation that Congress has passed would never have passed.
If this amendment were in place in 1965, Congress never would have
passed Medicare. In 1993, we wouldn't have passed President Clinton's
deficit reduction plan and balanced the budget, or the 1997 balanced
budget agreement under President Bush.
Furthermore, the spending caps that this bill sets for spending are
completely arbitrary. They're pulled out of thin air. They bear no
relation to our national needs now or in the future.
A balanced budget amendment must treat outlays and revenues equally,
not bias one or the other in the Constitution itself, our fundamental
governing document.
The majority is not only ignoring the realities of basic math,
they're turning their backs on the pledges of an open process. This
bill was brought to the floor rapidly through the Rules Committee
yesterday, without a markup, without hearings, without witness
testimony, and without allowing amendments from Republicans or
Democrats.
{time} 1300
A bill of this magnitude with such far-reaching consequences for our
democracy itself should be treated more seriously than this. The
concept of enshrining a particular percentage of public expenditures as
a percentage of GDP is contrary to the concept of a democratic republic
in which Congress is elected by the people of this country to govern
this country.
For these reasons and others, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the
rule and the bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a
gentleman who held a very persuasive Special Order on this topic last
night, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, all financial budgets will eventually balance. No
individual, no family, no business, and no government can indefinitely
continue to spend more money than they take in without someone having
to make up the difference. Mr. Speaker, that includes the Federal
budget of the United States.
Neither Mr. Obama nor congressional Democrats can repeal the laws of
mathematics. The Federal budget of the United States Government will
eventually balance. The question is whether the White House and those
of us in this body will balance this budget ourselves by wise policy or
whether national bankruptcy and financial ruin will do it for us.
From the day Barack Obama walked into the White House, his
breathtakingly arrogant policies have absolutely ignored economic and
financial reality. It took America the first 216 years of its existence
to accumulate the debt that Barack Obama has accumulated in the short
2\1/2\-year span of his Presidency. He rammed a nearly $1 trillion
government takeover of health care down the throats of the American
people, and he spent another nearly $1 trillion on a failed government-
based boondoggle for economic stimulus. During his short time in
office, he has increased our Federal debt by nearly $4 trillion in new
debt, and now he says we will have $1 trillion-plus deficits ``for
years to come.''
Then, when speaking of the effort to reduce the deficit, the
President has the hubris to tell conservative Republicans to take a
balanced approach and to eat our peas. To that, I would just say to the
President: Please pull up a chair, sir. We are ready to eat our peas,
and we need help.
This Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is actually a solution to America's
problem. It does not cut Social Security. It does not cut Medicare. It
does not cut compensation to our men and women in uniform by one dime;
but the balanced budget amendment it proposes does give us an honest
chance of reforming and saving those programs and our country from
bankruptcy in the future.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the Democrat Congress of last year that gave
a standing ovation to a $2 trillion increase in our debt limit. This is
the Congress that was sent here by the American people to turn things
around--and the American people are awake, Mr. Speaker. They are
watching us, and they are tired of Democrats telling them that 2+2=13.
If Democrats and the President are not willing to give the American
people this chance by helping Republicans pass a balanced budget
amendment in this Congress, the resulting consequences will be theirs
alone, and I believe the people will hold them accountable.
By passing this Cut, Cap, and Balance bill along with the balanced
budget amendment, we can restore confidence in the American economy in
markets here and across the world. We can see more revenue come into
these coffers than has ever happened in the history of the Nation, and
we can set this country on a new road to the brightest days it has ever
seen. It is something that is truly an opportunity beyond our dreams.
This is the time to do it, and by the grace of God, that's exactly what
we intend to do.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Under the Republican plan,
they will cut Social Security and Medicare by $6,000 per senior
citizen. Talk about a tax increase.
At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding.
I am just overwhelmed with the words ``breathtakingly arrogant
policies.'' I am literally shocked, and let me tell you why.
When you want to understand, my Republican friends, why we're in the
position we're in, what about the 37.5 percent of the debt being the
Bush-era tax cuts of which this bill and any of your negotiations don't
in any way suggest revenue?--which the American people understand.
Arrogant policies by the President? The Recovery and Reinvestment was
only 5.2 percent, creating 3 million jobs. Let me say that again: 3
million jobs. The economic downturn came about with the Iraq war and
others.
So, today, my friends come on the floor of the House with the Cut,
Cap, and Balance. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, let me
suggest to you that the amendments that were put in the bill have
destroyed any sense of balance to the balanced budget amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have a new name for the bill, the bill
which tap dances around the question of revenue and lifting the debt
ceiling, which was done 60-plus times over America's lifetime with
Reagan, Carter, President Bush and President Bush, and Clinton. So it's
the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club and Bust the benefits bill.'' The losers
are seniors and young people and those who need Social Security and
those
[[Page H5174]]
who are disabled. Then, finally, instead of the balanced budget
amendment, it is the bust the benefits of those who are in need and of
the young people who are looking forward to a prosperous future and
expanded opportunities in this Nation.
What do we need?--not the Cut, Cap, and Balance. It in no way invests
in America. It in no way ends the tax loopholes that are part of our
increasing debt. It will block the United States Congress from closing
the loopholes of those who make billions of dollars every 3 months. We
need innovation, infrastructure and education. That equals jobs.
Parents, I don't want to see the end of your children's opportunities
by closing elementary and high schools and by disallowing them from
going to college. That is what this bill is--not to cut, not to cap,
not to balance. It's the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club, and Bust the
Benefits of the American People bill.'' Let me suggest to you that
these are the losers of this bill. Don't support a bill that will cause
the American people to lose the American Dream.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2560, the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance
Act of 2011,'' which attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by
authorizing an increase in the debt limit while implementing spending
cuts, caps on future spending, and requiring an amendment to the
Constitution. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt
limit, I cannot support a bill that is a clear attempt to enact the
policies embedded in the Republican budget resolution and to then
enshrine the Republican budget in our Nation's Constitution.
This bill should be called the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust
Bill.'' It tap dances around raising our debt ceiling and acting in a
responsible manner to pay our Nation's debt obligations. Our Nation
will be joining the losers club by threatening to eliminate important
social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Pell
grants. There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting
programs for the most at need and ignoring the need to focus on job
creation. This bill busts the hopes and dreams of our children,
seniors, and military families. It busts the hopes to grow our Nation
in the future. H.R. 2560 has earned the name the ``Tap Dance, Loser
Club, and Bust Bill.'' I will call it that from this point forward,
because that is what it is . . . when something walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck and looks like a duck . . . Call it a duck!!!! This
bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused
on paying our Nation's bills and resolving our differences!
I stand here today to state firmly that increasing the debt ceiling
is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and
approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my
Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold
the American people hostage to their extreme agenda. They know that the
``Tap Dance Loser Club, and Bust Bill'' is not a realistic proposal.
The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of
political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to
raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament
to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However,
this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse
based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I
understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with
respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in
order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over
pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will
begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not
raised.
This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is
perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the
undertaking of any new spending by the Federal Government. Rather,
raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing
legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to
by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.
Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it
not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to
finance the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, as well as
the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that
fund.
If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the
stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time
in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in
American history has the country's full faith and credit been called
into question.
Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance
our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future.
Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince
banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its
debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend
money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the
United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt
less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the
part of the investors.
Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury
bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the
increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance
of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require
the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the
loan worth the risk for investors to take on.
Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As
we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market
hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but
small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments
tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings,
will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American
people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement
accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to
default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of
citizens.
As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market
would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a
housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause
a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity
families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis.
Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in
the housing market.
Republicans are attempting to place into our constitution the
requirement that we balance the budget every year. In
reality, achieving a balanced budget is not something that should
automatically be required every year. For example, during economic
downturns, the government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and
increasing spending. A constitutional amendment requiring us to cut
spending to match revenue every year would limit our ability to respond
to changing fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal
responses to high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food
and medical assistance.
As it stands, H.J. Res. 1 requires spending cuts even deeper than
those in this bill; in fact, it requires that spending be cut to the
levels in the Republican Study Committee budget, levels that were so
extreme that fewer than half of House Republicans voted for that
budget. Finally, requiring a two-thirds vote to approve revenue
increases creates a barrier to fixing inequities in our tax code by
protecting more than $1 trillion in spending through the tax code--
spending that often benefits special interests, like owners of
corporate jets--and well-to-do Americans.
H.R. 2560 cuts $111 billion in FY 2012, places firm caps on future
spending, and is contingent upon House and Senate passage of a Balanced
Budget Amendment.
H.R. 2560, is yet another attempt to enact the policies that
Republicans approved with their budget resolution this spring--to end
the Medicare guarantee while continuing tax breaks for special
interests and the wealthy. It requires immediate and steep spending
cuts starting this October that will put more Americans out of work
while the country is still recovering from the worst recession since
the Great Depression. It caps total spending--including mandatory
spending programs, such as unemployment benefits, that are designed to
grow when the economy is bad--for fiscal years 2013-2021 at lower
percentages of the economy (Gross Domestic Product, or GDP).
While it is clear that the country cannot continue on an
unsustainable fiscal path, the bill limits spending to a percentage of
GDP that the country has rarely achieved in the past. For example, the
bill limits total outlays to 19.7 percent of GDP in 2018; outlays were
at or below that level in only 12 of the last 43 years (from 1997
through 2004, and from 1969 through 1972).
Enforces the Republican budget resolution by limiting total federal
outlays--including Social Security and Medicare--at the Republican
budget's percentage of GDP in fiscal years 2013 through 2021. Automatic
sequestration again would occur if the levels are breached. More
immediately.
H.R. 2560 requires passage of a specific type of a so-called
``balanced budget'' constitutional amendment by both the House and the
Senate before the debt limit can be increased. This new hurdle makes it
even harder for Congress to increase the debt limit by August 2, which
it must do to avoid fiscal calamity and higher interest costs for
consumers and the government alike.
[[Page H5175]]
STEEP SPENDING CUTS FOR 2012
H.R. 2560 limits fiscal year 2012 discretionary and entitlement
spending to the levels in the Republican budget. If spending exceeds
these limits there would be an automatic sequestration that makes an
across-the-board cut to most programs to bring down spending. Spending
in 2012 is to be cut by a net total of $111 billion below current
services.
Discretionary Cap--The bill's authors say they intend to cut non-
security discretionary spending for next year by $76 billion (a roughly
one quarter reduction in budget authority), to below the 2008 level,
and increase security spending, matching the President's request.
However, the bill does not provide separate discretionary caps except
for war funding, so Congress could cut where it chooses.
Entitlement Cap--The bill exempts veterans' benefits, Medicare,
Social Security, and net interest from its entitlement (or direct
spending) cap. These programs comprise roughly two-thirds of all
entitlement spending. The bill cuts the remaining direct spending by
$51 billion (7 percent) in 2012, down to the levels in the Republican
budget. The cuts will fall on programs like school lunches, student
loans, food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, and unemployment insurance--some
of the very programs designed to automatically increase when the
economy is down in order to lessen the impact of job losses and
associated economic hardship.
As with the discretionary cap, there would be an automatic
sequestration if direct spending is not sufficiently cut. Past
sequestration provisions exempted specific programs, including low-
income programs, but this bill repeals the broad list that has been the
basis for sequestration in the past. Instead the bill exempts a smaller
range of programs (but comprising about half of the budget): military
personnel accounts, TRICARE for Life, military retirement, veterans
benefits, Medicare, Social Security, and net interest.
Holds Debt Limit Increase Hostage to Passage of Specific Type of
Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment
This bill will add a new obstacle to increasing the debt limit before
the August 2 deadline by mandating that the House and the Senate first
pass a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. The bill
specifies that the Constitutional amendment has to be H.J. Res. 1 or a
``similar amendment'' that (1) limits total outlays to no more than
total receipts; (2) limits spending as a percentage of GDP; and (3)
requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both
Houses of Congress.
Moreover, the Constitutional amendment itself is merely a ploy to
make tax cuts for the wealthy and tax loopholes for big corporations a
permanent fixture of American governance. It would make any revenue-
raising measure unconstitutional unless a two-thirds supermajority
approves it. This is simply unprecedented and unacceptable.
An alternative plan, put forth by Senate Democratic and Republican
Majority and Minority Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell,
respectively, deals with the debt ceiling crisis in a way that is less
controversial for Democrats. Although still in the negotiation stages,
the plan has a few emerging ideas and general bipartisan support in the
Senate. However, House Republicans have expressed their dissatisfaction
with the proposal.
Tentatively, the Reid-McConnell Debt Ceiling Proposal would allow the
President to raise the debt ceiling 3 times in the next year in an
amount totaling $2.5 trillion. Furthermore, it permits Congress to vote
on a resolution of disapproval of each increase of the debt ceiling,
essentially assigning blame to President Obama for each increase. It
includes a plan to reduce the deficit in the amount of $1.5 trillion
over 10 years through cuts to domestic programs, while avoiding cuts to
entitlement programs or raising new taxes.
Moreover, the Reid-McConnell debt ceiling proposal would create a new
Congressional Panel tasked with coming up with, by the end of the year,
a way of reducing the deficit by another $2.5 trillion or more through
cuts in entitlements and other yet-to-be identified steps. The proposed
committee would be comprised of 12 lawmakers who would issue a report
to Congress on how to achieve this. While I am still not convinced that
the cuts for this proposal will not unfairly harm our seniors and other
beneficiaries of domestic programs, I anticipate the product of these
negotiations, as they appear to be far more realistic than the bill
before us today.
I urge my Colleagues to oppose H.R. 2560 which I have called the
``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill,' for it will send our Nation in
the wrong direction. This detour into a spending debate is as
unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not
obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the federal government.
Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay
existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already
agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present. We must
protect Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants and a plethora of other
programs that are aimed at helping our citizens. I will not stand by
any bill which threatens to eliminate Medicare.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the
gentlelady that there is only one bill in this Congress that abolishes
every single corporate loophole in the entire United States Tax Code.
That's H.R. 25, the Fair Tax. I would welcome the gentlelady on that
bill because I too share a desire to see those loopholes eliminated.
I now yield 2 minutes to a cosponsor of the Fair Tax, the gentleman
who has cosponsored bipartisan tort reform legislation here in the
House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise, of course, in strong support of this bill and
rule, that of cut, cap, and balance.
The gentlelady from Texas just stood up and said she would call it
the ``Tap Dance'' bill. Quite frankly, what the President has in mind I
would refer to as the ``Whistling Past the Graveyard'' plan. This cut,
cap, and balance approach to this problem is just that within the first
provision of cutting spending, Mr. Speaker, of $111 billion and with
$35 billion of that, by the way, for mandatory spending, yet not one
dime--not one dime--from Social Security or Medicare. We protect our
seniors.
But as to this spending problem, I mean, it's just like the problem
in this country with drunk driving. Are we going to solve that problem
by raising the blood alcohol level? Absolutely not. Are we going to
solve this problem of runaway spending by just simply raising the debt
ceiling without these caveats of cut, cap, and balance? Absolutely not.
That's why we have to do this--to rein in this spending and to bring it
down to historical levels of 20 percent of GDP.
Then the final part of cut, cap, and balance, Mr. Speaker, is the
balance part. The President is asking for a balanced approach. That's
exactly what this is. This is the balanced approach that makes sense
because every other pledge in the past with regard to reining in
spending, whether we're talking about Pay-As-You-Go--the Democrats like
to tout that plan--never has worked because we don't abide by these
pledges; we continue to spend.
The only way to make sure that future Congresses rein in this
spending on a permanent level is to have a balanced budget amendment
that calls for a supermajority to raise taxes. There are 49 out of 50
States that have a balanced budget amendment. Why in the world wouldn't
Democrats join with Republicans in calling for a balanced budget
amendment? Then to think that the President would issue a statement of
administrative policy in opposition to this is absolutely ridiculous.
Support this commonsense bill. Stand strong for our country. This is
the land of the free, but it has to be the land of the strong before it
can become the land of the free.
{time} 1310
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I just want to say to the gentleman from Georgia the reason why the
President issued a veto threat is because he doesn't want you to
destroy Social Security and Medicare, two of the most important social
programs in this country that benefit millions and millions of seniors.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and
the extreme ideological bill before us today.
The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, or as it should be more appropriately
called the ``cut, cap, and end Medicare act,'' is one of the most
radical bills to come before this body.
But perhaps I should not be surprised. I've already seen the majority
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle vote to end Medicare,
slash Medicaid, and now they want to cut Social Security benefits, too.
Instead of listening to the American people, the House Republican
leadership continues to advocate for the elimination of Medicare, all
while continuing to protect tax loopholes and
[[Page H5176]]
subsidies for Big Oil and Wall Street executives. This bill is actually
more extreme than the Republican budget passed in April calling for
deeper cuts and more hardships for the middle class and older
Americans.
In fact, this bill does nothing to create jobs nor invest in the
roads, bridges, clean energy technology, and job training that would
really get our economy moving.
In short, H.R. 2560 will stifle growth, hurt middle class families,
and undercut America's seniors. In my district there are over 93,000
Social Security beneficiaries and over 85,000 Medicare enrollees.
On behalf of my constituents and for future generations, I stand in
strong opposition to this bill and the rule. I know that there are
those on the other side of the aisle who want to support a reasonable
plan to reduce the deficit. This is not the plan.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this
dangerous proposal.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and urge strong support of my
colleagues for the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, H.R. 2560.
I really believe if you owe debts, pay debts. We must find a way to
honor the full faith and credit of the United States of America. But
even more important than that, we must find a way to restore the faith
and confidence of the American people and the world community in the
fiscal integrity of the United States of America. That is our dual
challenge.
After years of runaway Federal spending by both political parties,
after failed economic policies by this administration, we find
ourselves at a place of unprecedented fiscal crisis--more than a $14
trillion national debt, $1.65 trillion deficits. We now borrow more
than 40 cents of every dollar that we spend here in Washington, D.C.
The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act applies commonsense principles and
fiscal discipline to the challenges of spending restraint today, but it
also introduces a new element--and that is a balanced budget amendment
to the Constitution. Yes, we cut spending by $111 billion next year,
about $5.8 trillion over 10. Yes, we cap Federal spending to back under
20 percent of GDP. But I think the time has come to make any increase
in the debt ceiling contingent on sending a balanced budget amendment
to the States. And here's why.
Washington, D.C., is not only broke, it's broken. Let me say again.
After more than a decade here seeing my party in power in Congress and
in the White House, seeing another party in power in Congress and the
White House, I am convinced that Washington, D.C., is not only broke,
it's broken.
And the American people know in their heart of hearts there is
something missing in the equation. It's in the guardrails in the
Constitution of the United States of America. It is the guardrails that
say it must be the objective of the Congress and of this and of future
administrations to live within our means.
Thirty-one States have a balanced budget requirement in their
constitution. Indiana has a prohibition on incurring debt. Forty-nine
States require a balanced budget.
The time has come to cut, the time has come to cap spending, but the
time has come to make any increase in the debt ceiling contingent on
sending a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to the States
for ratification. And this we must do.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to use the 30
seconds, but I wanted to ask the distinguished gentleman from Indiana a
question with my 30 seconds if he would be willing.
Will the gentleman engage in a brief question and answer?
As I understand it, under your balanced budget amendment, in the
event that Congress is unable to achieve a balanced budget, a lawsuit
could be filed forcing the Federal judiciary into the budget process.
In effect, your balanced budget amendment would reverse the
constitutional relationship by legalizing the legislature and
politicizing the Judiciary. Is that your expectation, that a Federal
judge could ultimately have the final say over budget matters in the
House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. PENCE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. PENCE. It would be my expectation that we would not yield the
jurisdiction of constitutionality exclusively to the judiciary.
Throughout American history, it has mostly settled there, but we
contain it as well. But ultimately it would put the American people in
charge----
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. WOODALL. At this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another
cosponsor of the Fair Tax, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, today the House is honoring a pledge that
we made to America in the largest landslide election in 70 years last
November when the people of America spoke clearly and elected a new
majority to govern the House to take America down the path to a
balanced budget to restore prosperity, to restore jobs that had been
lost under this President.
The American people spoke decisively last November and asked this new
constitutional conservative majority in the House to cut spending, to
cap spending, to enact a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,
to shrink the size of the government, to get the government out of our
lives and out of our pockets and put us back on a path of prosperity,
which this legislation does.
I am very proud to be a coauthor of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of
the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which has worked so
well in Texas. Texas is a beacon for other States. We have demonstrated
in Texas when you live within your means, when you cut taxes, when you
limit litigation, when you limit regulation, when you get the
government out of our pockets and off our backs that American
ingenuity, American entrepreneurship will thrive and the economy will
grow.
People have been voting with their feet to move to Texas, and we in
this new constitutional conservative majority in the House are doing
today what we promised America we would do last November. We are
cutting. We're reaffirming the Ryan budget which, by the way, does not
affect--anyone over the age of 55 is unaffected by the Ryan budget, is
unaffected by this Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, but if we do nothing, if
you are under the age of 55, you will be affected because Medicare is
on a path to bankruptcy, as is Social Security.
So we're taking decisive action today, Mr. Speaker, to put America
back on a path to prosperity, to grow jobs, to get the Federal
Government back within the bounds of the Constitution with a balanced
budget amendment. I am very proud today, Mr. Speaker, to be here in
support of this legislation, which will honor the promise we made to
America.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Honda.
Mr. HONDA. I rise today to oppose this ridiculous cut, cap, and
balance proposal.
By walking away from every negotiation--from the Deficit Commission
to the Biden Commission to direct talks with the President--Republicans
have made it clear that they place petty politics above responsibly
solving the country's budget challenges. This is the first budget bill
or deficit reduction plan in the past quarter century that fails to
specifically protect programs for the most vulnerable Americans from
across-the-board cuts.
[[Page H5177]]
{time} 1320
The ``duck, dodge, and dismantle act'' will butcher Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, child nutrition, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, nutrition for Women,
Infants, and Children, Planned Parenthood, supplemental income for the
elderly, public schools, teachers, and pay for firefighters and cops--
all so that the Republicans can protect tax breaks and tax subsidies
for the wealthy and powerful by erecting a constitutional barrier to
any measure that would raise any revenue.
This bill is as extreme as it is unprecedented. It is not a serious
response to months of good faith negotiations by the Democrats. I call
on the House Republicans to stop the games and the posturing and do the
responsible thing for the American people, and I urge my colleagues to
reject this bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Our country is at a pivotal point in its history. Economists would
call this an inflection point. But for those of us who are not
economists, it's a critical time; it's a pivotal time. We have to
decide, are we going to compete in the 21st century and see this
country prosper and lead in the 21st century? Or will we sink in a sea
of red ink? That's what it's come down to.
I think we need to move forward with a bold plan. We haven't seen
anything from the President. He hasn't put anything on the table. We're
coming forward with a plan that's credible. It lays out a path, a
credible path to get us back to fiscal sanity. $46,000 for every man,
woman, and child is what the debt stands at today, and that does not
include the unfunded liabilities going to the future, which takes us
well north of that figure. We have a lot of work to do. It's time for
this Congress to get serious about its responsibility, its
responsibility to bring fiscal sanity and fiscal balance back.
We have a spending problem. There is clearly a spending problem. But
if you look at the two fundamental problems facing the country, it's
our unsustainable debt, but it's also the lack of economic growth to
create private sector jobs. Now if we take the path that our friends
want to take, they're going to raise taxes. They're going to raise
taxes across the board. And what you're going to see is a worsening
economic situation. We're not going to see the kind of job growth--in
fact, we very well could go back into a recession with that type of
plan.
Our plan puts us on a sustainable path. Coupled with tax reform,
coupled with an energy strategy which we have, and moving forward with
an aggressive export-oriented trade policy, you will see a competitive
America; you will see job growth in this country. But we have got to
get spending under control.
And today is the day we can cast that vote. Today is the day we can
decide we're going to restore American competitiveness, we're going to
restore American credibility, and we're going to restore American
confidence.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from
Louisiana that we can't compete without investments in innovation and
infrastructure and education, and the bill that my Republican friends
have brought before us today on the floor would devastate this economy.
It would absolutely devastate the American economy.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman.
I rise today to speak against this rule and this bill. This will not
solve our Nation's problems but, instead, will devastate our economy
and the most vulnerable in our society.
Our Nation has run into fiscal problems for three reasons, none of
which are addressed by this bill: the Bush tax cuts, foreign wars, and
the recession.
When the fiscal situation of the government was better, I warned that
their spending on tax cuts and foreign wars would cause fiscal problems
which Republicans would then balance on the backs of social programs.
But when the times were good, Republicans ignored these valid concerns,
saying that ``tax cuts pay for themselves'' and, famously, ``deficits
don't matter.'' They were wrong, and working families are suffering.
Now we get the explanation that by cutting government jobs and
spending, you will create jobs and revive the economy. However, it is
clear that what we really need are good, stable jobs and stimulus in
order for the economy to grow again. My constituents never got the
benefits of the Bush bubble. They worked the jobs that were available
and paid their taxes. Now the jobs have evaporated, and the social
safety net that they paid into is under severe threat.
I will vote against this bill on behalf of my constituents and the
people like them across this Nation. I will be casting a vote for
fairness and economic growth, against the Bush policies that the
Republicans are seeking to extend, and for a better future for our
children.
Our Nation became great by making investments in our people and
infrastructure and by creating a stable middle class and a robust
social safety net. It became great through Americans supporting one
another and paying their fair share of the taxes. Today, we watch as
the Republicans continue to turn their backs on that history and
continue their push towards a ``me first'' economic system. I want no
part of that bleak future, nor should our Nation.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that that
competing vision of trillions more in stimulus and more in government
jobs and more in government spending is one idea of how to revive this
economy. It's just not one that I share.
I yield at this time 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Brooks), who also I do not believe shares that opinion.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, back home in my district, one of the things
I am understanding and communicating with people is the difficulty in
their understanding the difference between millions in debt, billions
in debt, and trillions in debt. So I heard an analogy the other day
that I thought was appropriate, that hopefully will help the American
people better understand the financial situation in the United States
of America.
Imagine that you are a family and you haven't been keeping track of
your finances for a good while. Finally, you decide to sit down at your
kitchen table, the two spouses get together, and they accumulate their
income, they accumulate their expenses, and they accumulate their debt.
And as they go through their income, they discover that they have about
$50,000 that they can spend--that's their income--for the upcoming
year. And then they look at their expenses, and they put all the bills
together and how they spent over the past year. And they discover that
last year, they spent $80,000, meaning that they have spent $30,000
more than their income. And then finally, they pick up their Visa card
bill, and that Visa card bill is $320,000.
Well, those are the exact same ratios that we're talking about with
the United States Government and the debt that we face. We have got a
budget that's around $3.5 trillion. We have got an income that's a
little over $2 trillion, and we have a deficit that is $14.3 trillion.
All of that is unsustainable. It is a financial house of cards. And we
have to take a tough but reasonable course, and that's what cut, cap,
and balance is all about. Cut, cap, and balance, that is the way we
score financial security for the United States of America, and that is
the way to create jobs.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the
legislation before us today.
If we do not act in 2 weeks, the United States will, for the first
time in history, default on its debt. With the economy in a vulnerable
position right now, we should be working to create jobs. Instead of
acting responsibly and in a bipartisan way to raise the debt ceiling,
the Republican majority has decided to make this a form of hostage-
taking to press their agenda.
Congress has always paid for its past financial commitments with
Republican majorities agreeing to raise the
[[Page H5178]]
debt ceiling seven times during the Bush administration. Everyone
understands the long-term challenge posed by budget deficits, and
President Obama and Democrats support a balanced approach to addressing
that challenge.
Yet the ideological and extreme bill before us today does not address
the number one concern of the American public, jobs, but rather seeks
to implement an agenda that will, in fact, destroy jobs and the social
safety net, ends Medicare, and reduces the Social Security benefits
that our seniors have earned and deserve. Rather than making
investments to create jobs and economic growth, the Republican majority
is proposing cuts which will lead to a loss of hundreds of thousands of
jobs, even as we are mired in unacceptably high unemployment.
With this bill, the Republicans choose to put in place a spending cap
that will cement in law the Republican budget that chooses to end
Medicare, places the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of the
middle class and the most vulnerable. And, finally, the Republican
majority is choosing to hold hostage an increase in the debt ceiling to
the approval of an amendment that will make it impossible to raise
revenue.
What do I mean? It will make it impossible to end the subsidies to
Big Oil, make it impossible to close the loopholes that allow
corporations to ship their jobs overseas, or abuse tax havens that
allow them to pay almost nothing in Federal taxes. To achieve deficit
reduction, they will end Medicare, implement deep cuts to Social
Security and other programs that are critical to the middle class.
{time} 1330
Instead, what they need to do is to go after the 12 largest
corporations in this Nation. The Citizens for Tax Justice has said that
those corporations pay a negative 1\1/2\ percent tax on $171 billion in
profits and about $64 billion in tax subsidies.
You want to do something to balance the budget and make a deal with
deficit reduction? Go after those corporations that are paying zero in
taxes instead of going after middle class Americans or seniors who rely
on Medicare and who rely on Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, this Republican agenda undermines America as a country
where middle class American families have an opportunity for a decent
retirement.
Oppose this outrageous piece of legislation.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a colleague who is a
great leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs.
Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, this is quite an interesting debate that
we're having, and I think it is an historic day. It is a time when we
have the opportunity to do something about the out-of-control, reckless
Washington spending. It's long overdue.
I had an email from a constituent a few minutes ago. They're watching
the debate and, I would offer to my colleagues, I think lots of
Americans are watching this debate. They're waiting to see if we have
the courage, if we have the political will to actually do something
about spending money we don't have for programs our constituents don't
want.
Amazingly, my constituent could not believe that there are people who
would actually come to this floor and say that they opposed cutting
what the Federal Government spends because we're borrowing 40 cents of
every dollar that is spent. They were amazed that people would oppose
placing a cap over what that government can spend. And they were quite
amazed that they would actually stand and oppose a balanced budget
amendment, something that is long overdue for our country.
This problem has been years, decades in the making. I think we all
agree with that. But I also think there's one thing that we will all
agree with: The past 3 years has seen such a rapid rate of accelerated
spending that it has added $3.4 trillion, this administration has added
$3.4 trillion to our debt. Unprecedented.
And, indeed, included in that was the passage of the President's
health care bill, PPACA, or Obamacare, which spent another $1.2
trillion. And, by the way, to my colleagues, you all made the choice
and the decision in that bill to cut $575 billion out of Medicare. I
just remind you of that.
The time has come for fiscal responsibility. It is time to pass Cut,
Cap, and Balance. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and to
support the bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, I just would like to respond to the gentlelady from
Tennessee.
When she talks about the need for political will, what we need is the
political will to stand up to Big Oil and to end subsidies that amount
to corporate welfare.
The bill that my Republican colleagues are bringing to the floor
today let's them off the hook and, instead, goes after the poor and the
most vulnerable and our senior citizens. That's why this bill is so
outrageous, because they are so unfair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Americans today are getting an up-close view of
Republicans' misguided plans, misplaced priorities, and massive assault
on the middle class. It's not, as they call it, ``Cap, Cut, and
Balance.'' It's really a ``Cash Cow for Billionaires.''
The Republicans are pushing Grandma and middle class families
overboard while protecting the superrich and the powerful.
Will Republicans protect Grandma's Medicare and Social Security
checks? No. Grandma is being pushed overboard.
What about programs that help low-income children visit their doctor?
No. They are getting pushed overboard.
What about programs that ensure that veterans benefits are paid on
time? No, veterans are being pushed overboard.
But the massive Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the tax subsidies for
Big Oil? They're too precious, the Republicans say. They have to be
kept on board. So billionaires will not see their undeserved tax breaks
taken away. The oil industry will not see their unjustified tax
subsidies, as consumers are tipped upside down at gas stations, taken
away from them. No, those subsidies, they have to be kept on board.
And, ladies and gentlemen, that's not fair. That's not balanced.
Grandma, kids, veterans, they should not have to contribute to
balancing the budget, but billionaires and Big Oil are exempted by the
Republicans. This is the face of their party--Big Oil and billionaires.
That's who they are protecting.
They have deficit attention disorder. If there were such a thing as a
Nobel Prize in economics in reverse, they would be the first winners of
it.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a mentor of mine, the
gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. After a 3-year spending spree in which the President
drove up the national debt by 56 percent, the President has the nerve
to tell the American people that they have to eat their peas. This from
a President who has had the Federal Government on a supersize me diet
since the day he was sworn in. Marie Antoinette would be proud of such
arrogance.
One must ask, where has the President been? He owns this economy.
It's his policies that have left 15 million Americans without work.
It's his policies that have stifled business growth and investment.
It's his policies that have given us more deficit spending than any
other administration in history.
The President talks about entitlement reform but offers no plan, no
legislation. The President talks about his budget fairness, and yet
this very budget was rejected by the Harry Reid Senate Democrats by a
vote of 97-0.
The President denounces the Bush tax cuts yet personally extended
them a few months ago. In 2006, the President voted against increasing
the debt ceiling citing a lack of leadership, now he offers none.
But today, the House Republicans will lead with a plan. That plan is
cut, cap, and balance. And on the back, we have the President's plan.
This is it: speeches. That's what we get after 3 years and the largest
deficit in history from the President of the United States, speeches
and admonishments.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to my friend from Illinois.
[[Page H5179]]
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Is it the gentleman's opinion that under the Republican cut, cap, and
balance program----
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, you've got to go fast because I'm
willing to answer your question but I can't----
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the gentleman prepared to turn the
balancing aspect of this program over to the Federal judiciary?
Mr. KINGSTON. The President has backed us up against the wall. If we
don't do something serious and, yes----
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the gentleman prepared to turn the
balancing aspect over to the Federal judiciary?
Mr. KINGSTON. I agree with you. By law we need to have a balanced
budget amendment so that Congress' hands will be tied from increasing
the deficit.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will it be the responsibility of the Federal
judiciary?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
{time} 1340
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms.
Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill.
For months our colleagues on the other side have known of the need to
avoid a default crisis and meet our Nation's obligations. But instead,
today they move with lightning speed to the floor a sham bill that is
nothing more than a way to score political points at a time that we
need, the markets need, and the world needs seriousness.
It's time to meet our obligations for seniors, retirees, and
veterans, for Social Security and Medicare, and to create jobs and grow
this economy. Those on the other side of the aisle know that the bill
that's on the floor today would do nothing like that. The underlying
bill would in fact reap catastrophic consequences for our Nation's
economy and our most vulnerable communities, and that's the truth.
What kind of majority wants to throw our economy into another
tailspin by having us default on our obligations? Well, I'm going to
tell you it's the irresponsible kind. They have been unrelenting in
their quest to eliminate Medicare and cut Social Security, and this
bill is no different.
The American public needs to understand what is at stake here: It's
the default on our Nation's obligations that will throw out of whack
Social Security, Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, everything that
we know in this economy because of the foolishness that's going on here
in this Chamber.
I ask my colleagues to please be responsible. Protect our future;
protect our children's future; invest in our roads and our bridges and
our infrastructure; create jobs; but please stop this foolishness.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill and a ``no'' vote on the
underlying rule.
Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm
going to try to speak as quickly as I possibly can.
Under the balanced budget amendment, the sole responsibility for
interpreting the Constitution of the United States is the Federal court
system, a Federal judge. And I wanted to ask the gentleman if he would
join me in just an answer to the question--since it's on my time--what
would qualify a Federal judge to cut a Federal program? What would
qualify them? Would we take them through a process in the Senate,
asking them what programs they support? Are we politicizing the
judiciary?
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The answer is there's absolutely nothing different from this
amendment than any other amendment to the Constitution that relies on
the judiciary to interpret it.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, so instead of the
Congress of the United States making a judgment about programs and then
answering to the people in an elective political process, we are
shifting the responsibility to a Federal judge to make a cut in the
program; is that correct?
Mr. WOODALL. That is not correct. The responsibility lies here, as my
colleague knows. But as is true with every word in the Constitution, it
relies on the judiciary to interpret it.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, the responsibility for
interpreting the Constitution is a Federal judge. Under a balanced
budget amendment, a Federal judge would be responsible for cutting
these programs; is that correct?
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman
from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. I have the sponsor of the legislation right here to
answer that very question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Does
the gentleman have additional speakers?
Mr. WOODALL. I don't, though I do have the bill's sponsor here to
answer any questions you all might have.
Mr. McGOVERN. He didn't answer any of them last night; so I'm not
sure whether we will get many answers here today.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I will not take a minute. I will just ask the sponsor of the bill, as
I did last night in the Rules Committee, do you genuinely believe that
this particular measure is going to become the law?
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I genuinely hope it does become the law. I think the
American people deserve this Federal Government to live within the
confines of a balanced budget amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I heard the word that
you ``hope.'' Let me tell you what I told you last night; I'll bet you
cash money that it ain't going to become the law.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. If the gentleman will yield, I don't take cash bets.
But you know what? You also talked about bouncing; and the only thing
that's going to bounce is the government's check.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has yielded back
his time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I'm sorry. I thought he yielded to me. I apologize.
Mr. WOODALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, once again I stand in strong opposition to this closed
rule and to the underlying bill.
It's time for a grown-up moment, Mr. Speaker. It's time for the
Members of the House, Republican and Democrat, to come together to
address the looming crisis over the debt limit. We are exactly 2 weeks
away from the possibility of the United States defaulting on its
obligations of not paying its bills. This is not an acceptable outcome.
I know that there are some on the other side of the aisle--in fact I
talked to one just this morning--who will not vote for anything that
raises the debt ceiling. That's unfortunate. Default would result in
collapsing markets and skyrocketing interest rates. It would deal a
devastating blow to the full faith and credit of the United States. It
would throw even more Americans out of work. The bill before us does
nothing to prevent that outcome.
Slashing Medicare and Social Security while protecting tax cuts for
the wealthy is not a responsible solution. I think the American people
have made it clear in poll after poll after poll. They have said to my
Republican colleagues, keep your hands off of Medicare and off of
Social Security.
What my Republican colleagues are trying to do with this legislation
is lower the standard of living for our senior citizens. They deserve a
hell of a lot better. The fact of the matter is our senior citizens
have built this country, they have worked hard to make this country
what is today. They deserve better from this Congress. They should
[[Page H5180]]
not have to pay to balance this budget because they did not cause this
economic crisis.
It is just simply unfair to protect all this corporate welfare, all
these tax loopholes to protect corporations with jets and to protect
corporations so they don't have to pay taxes, and they can incorporate
overseas in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. It is just wrong. It is
wrong to continue these subsidies to Big Oil that have made billions
and billions and billions of dollars. Why aren't they paying their fair
share?
And Mr. Speaker, it is just wrong to radically alter the Constitution
of the United States of America. We need to focus on jobs, and
innovation plus infrastructure plus education equals jobs. We have to
invest as well as cut. This bill would slash the investments we need to
put people back to work and to grow our economy. It cuts Pell Grants.
It would cut education at every level. It would cut monies for roads
and bridges. It would cut money that would help this economy grow that
can help put more people back to work so we can start reducing the debt
in a responsible way.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, I will ask the House to
defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I
will offer an amendment that will ensure that this bill does nothing to
impede job increases and economic growth. So a vote in favor of the
previous question is a vote to increase unemployment and to threaten
our economic recovery.
Given the fact that you gave us a closed rule, I don't think it's too
much to ask that we have at least some language in here that protects
jobs and that would protect the American worker.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, reject this closed rule that is unfair, and reject the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it was 224 years ago that the Constitutional Convention
was wrapping up that summer in 1787. Ben Franklin walked out of the
front door and a woman asked him, ``What did you create?'' And he
famously responded, ``A republic, if you can keep it.'' That's what the
debate is about here today, Mr. Speaker--our Republic, and can we keep
it?
Mr. Speaker, the last time we debated a balanced budget amendment was
back in 1995, 16 years ago. At that time, now-Minority Leader Steny
Hoyer said this: ``This country confronts a critical threat caused by
the continuation of large annual deficits. I am absolutely convinced
that the long-term consequences of refusing to come to grips with the
necessity to balance our budget will be catastrophic. And those who
will pay the highest price for our fiscal responsibility, should we
fail, will be those least able to protect themselves and the children
of today and the generations of tomorrow.''
Mr. Speaker, this debate is about those who are least able to protect
themselves, and this is about the vision that we have chosen for
ourselves as Americans.
{time} 1350
Mr. Speaker, 223 years ago, in a letter written in November, Thomas
Jefferson said this: I wish it were possible to obtain a single
amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that
alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the
genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article
taking from government the power of borrowing.
Our Founding Fathers, 223 years ago--folks talk about a bill being
rushed to the floor. This is a debate that has been going on since the
founding of our Nation, since the founding of our Nation. We had this
discussion in 1995. We had this discussion in 1994. Every Congress for
the 10 years between 1985 and 1995, we discussed a balanced budget
amendment. Apparently, there was no need to discuss it any longer, and
look where we are.
I was down in Chinatown the other day, Mr. Speaker, where,
conveniently enough, our United States debt auctions were held, right
downtown in Chinatown. We sold $36 billion of debt in Chinatown the day
I was down there at 0.0005 percent interest. But hear this--I will
close as I opened, Mr. Speaker--from our friends at S&P: ``We view an
inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium-term fiscal
consolidation policy as inconsistent with a AAA sovereign rating.''
Mr. Speaker, this isn't about raising the debt limit; this is about
preserving the Republic. Go ahead and raise the debt limit; Moody's
says that's not enough. Go ahead and raise the debt limit; S&P says
that's not going to get you anywhere. Inconsistent with a AAA rating is
the borrowing and spending that this Congress has brought to the House.
Now, we talked about rushing a bill to the House floor, Mr. Speaker.
I'll say this, and some of my Democratic colleagues have said it, and I
associate myself with their comments: This reflects the priorities of
this House. What we're working on today is exactly what we were working
on when we worked on H.R. 1 in February, one of the most open and
brilliant moments in this House's history in terms of debate. Well, the
priorities we are setting today are the same priorities we were setting
when we had that very open budget debate earlier this year in April
where we brought every budget to the House and said: What can we agree
on as a House? And you know what we agreed, Mr. Speaker? We agreed on
the priorities that are set forth in Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Now, there has been a lot of talk about who is willing to compromise.
Mr. Speaker, I can't find a single colleague on this side of the aisle
who is enthusiastic about raising the debt limit, not one. But folks
are willing to do it if we can preserve the Republic for our children
and grandchildren, which we can do with cut, cap, and balance.
Mr. Speaker, there's all of this talk in Washington about default on
the national debt. That is a serious conversation, a serious
conversation.
I want to talk about defaulting on the promises of our Founders. I
want to talk about defaulting on our Republic. One wish Thomas
Jefferson had, one wish: If it were possible to obtain a single
amendment to our Constitution, it would be an additional article taking
from government the power of borrowing.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there's a lot of reluctance to do
that. There are lots of great things that folks have, priorities that
they would like to spend on. This isn't about those spending
priorities. We'll still have that conversation. H.R. 1 was about those
priorities. Our budget discussion was about our priorities. Today, it
is about the future of our Republic. You need read no further, Mr.
Speaker, than the credit rating agencies telling us that August 2 is
not the date we have to fear. Today is the day that we have to fear
because, if we fail to pass this bill, our Republic stands in peril.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this rule. I am grateful to
the Budget Committee for bringing forward this resolution, and I ask
for a unanimous vote of support as this resolution comes to the floor.
The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 355 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
(1) Strike ``the previous question'' and all that follows
and insert the following:
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget; (2) the amendment
printed in section 2, if offered by the Minority Leader or
her designee, which shall be in order without intervention of
any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
(2) At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of
this resolution is as follows:
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
[[Page H5181]]
TITLE IV--PROTECTIONS FOR JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
SEC. 401. PROVISIONS OF ACT INEFFECTIVE IF RESULTING IN JOB
LOSSES OR SLOWER GDP GROWTH.
No provision in this Act or amendment made by this Act
shall apply if it would result in a reduction in private
payroll employment or a slower growth of GDP.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 175, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 603]
YEAS--235
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)
NAYS--175
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--21
Bachmann
Blumenauer
Capuano
Castor (FL)
Cravaack
Doggett
Ellison
Filner
Giffords
Graves (MO)
Hinchey
King (IA)
Loebsack
McDermott
Moore
Pascrell
Rush
Schrader
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1419
Messrs. ISRAEL, GUTIERREZ, and KILDEE changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
[[Page H5182]]
Messrs. GUINTA, BARTLETT, and FRANKS of Arizona changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 603, I was unable to vote due to
previous commitments in my district. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
____________________