[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 116 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5739-H5750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 382 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 382
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of August 2, 2011.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my
friend, 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. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 382 waives the requirement of clause
6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the
same day it is reported by the Rules Committee. This would allow for
the same-day consideration of any resolution reported through the
legislative day of August 2, 2011. This rule will ensure that Congress
has the necessary tools to pass a bill that ensures we cut spending
without defaulting on our national debt.
Madam Speaker, today you will hear my friends the Democrats argue
about a closed process, but you will not hear them discuss the
unprecedented spending spree that my friends the Democrats on the other
side of the aisle went through for the last two Congresses. We will
discuss how Republicans continue to come up with thoughtful solutions--
and I add, balanced, thoughtful solutions--to our Nation's economic
troubles, what we think will, and what has up to now, only failed in
the Senate. We will talk about the magnitude of this vote and the
importance of reaching an agreement before Tuesday. Madam Speaker, it
is time to stop pontificating and start acting like Members of
Congress. The Nation calls for a solution, and Republicans are the only
ones to offer solutions in legislation, in debate on the floor, and
with actual votes.
My friends on the other side of the aisle will go on and on today
about how Republicans are closing the process and shutting out Members
of Congress, when we're really here providing for the flexibility for
the Speaker of the House to simply work with the Senate to ensure a
solution to the looming debt crisis deadline is met so that we will not
default on our obligations. If my Democrat colleagues were serious
about finding solutions to this problem, they would vote in favor of
this rule today.
The facts of the case are clear: The chairman of the Rules Committee,
the gentleman from California, David Dreier, has issued more open rules
in the last month than Congress has seen over the last two Congresses--
or for a total of 4 years combined. Additionally, in the 111th
Congress, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and the chairman of the
Rules Committee at the time, Louise Slaughter, 26 same-day rules were
reported out of the Rules Committee. And in the previous Congress, the
110th Congress, under the same leadership, 17 same-day rules were
reported out by the Rules Committee. In comparison, the process
regarding these rules in this Congress is a far cry from the previous
Democrat leadership's unorthodox and unprecedented closed processes.
I rise today in support of this rule. This rule is essential to allow
the House of Representatives the flexibility it needs to ensure the
safety and soundness of our country's economic future. Over the past 4
years we've seen record debt and deficits, which have brought us to the
crossroad that we face with the looming August 2 deadline for raising
the debt ceiling. Americans continue to speak out loudly and clear. And
just as they did last November, they are saying it is time to stop the
out-of-control spending, wasteful Washington spending, and excessive
government. Republicans have cut spending at every opportunity in this
Congress, and we are hoping to do that again today.
Discretionary and mandatory spending at Federal levels are on
unsustainable paths. In the last 2 years of Democrat control, Congress
has approved and the President has signed into law an 84 percent
increase in non-defense discretionary spending, and the President's
budget proposes to freeze discretionary spending at these inflated
levels. America can no longer support or afford this kind of
leadership.
The President's proposed FY 2012 budget also doubles, then triples
the Federal deficit over the next 10 years. And while increasing taxes
on the Nation's job creators by $1.6 trillion sounds like a good deal
to the President, in fact, free enterprise system employers and
American workers know otherwise. Additionally, the President's budget
makes no substantial effort to address the unsustainable rate of
entitlement spending, one of the major aims of the President's own
fiscal commission, which he has ignored. Obviously, the President has
no intention of cutting spending or reining in Big Government programs.
Big Government, more taxes, more regulations are directly in the
President's strike zone. And that is the process he intends to
challenge Congress to come right along with him on and keep marching
toward the cliff.
Madam Speaker, we're at the end of the road. Once again today,
Republicans are saying, We are going to have to make tough choices.
That's why we came to Congress. And the majority party will continue to
do that today. Over the past 7 months, Republican leadership has been
steadfast in their support for cutting spending and getting control of
our record deficit and debt. The House passed H.R. 1, a continuing
resolution that brought back spending levels to 2008 levels, cutting
$100 billion in 1 year. In April, this House passed a budget that would
cut $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade compared
to the President's budget. Just last week, this body passed Cut, Cap,
and Balance, which would limit discretionary spending, cap spending to
a lower percentage of GDP, and lead to a Balanced Budget Act, so
Congress could no longer write checks that they can't cash without
passing the debt on by asking foreign governments and others to make up
the difference for us.
[[Page H5740]]
Republicans are willing to pay the balance if the President is
willing to cut up the credit card. And that is why we are here also
today. Republicans have again and again in the House offered
commonsense solutions to rein in spending and cut down our debt. My
friends on the other side of the aisle continue to reject every single
proposal. So, one might ask, What is their solution? What have they
have offered this Nation to spur economic growth and to put Americans
back to work, we would ask. So, let me tell you. By raising taxes. By
raising taxes on individuals, on small businesses, and corporations
alike. This is no wonder why we see stagnant job growth, GDP that lags
behind, and high employment rates--and that means we cannot meet the
needs of this country.
{time} 1410
Even when the increase in taxes hurts our economic recovery, slows
job growth and places more uncertainty in the marketplace, our friends
the Democrats continue to argue for more spending and more taxation.
President Obama has asked Congress for an increase in the debt
ceiling, and my Republican colleagues and I refuse to grant that
request without a commitment to long-term spending cuts. We reject
President Obama's insistence for a blank check to pay the credit card
bills that he has run up over the past 2\1/2\ years. President Obama's
unwillingness to address the true drivers of our debt assured me and my
party that we cannot achieve a true solution to the debt crisis we are
facing today unless we're able to make tough decisions.
The Budget Control Act we discussed yesterday and what we will
discuss today is a step in the right direction. It accomplishes what
Republicans and the American people have been asking for since the
beginning of this process. It will reduce spending more than we
increase the debt limit, it imposes no new taxes on anyone, and it
guarantees to Americans that the House and the Senate will vote in the
next 6 months on the only permanent solution to our debt crisis.
Yes, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here on the floor again
working on behalf not only of employers and employees but the middle
class of this country, those of us who are concerned about where we are
headed. There is nothing in this resolution that should cause anyone to
worry about losing Social Security or Medicare. That is not even
intended in this process. What is is to solve the spending and the debt
crisis that we have in this country.
I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, before I begin, I have a point of personal
privilege. I thank the gentleman from Texas for the time.
We on the Rules Committee and as Members of Congress rely on the hard
work of our staff people, particularly on Rules Committee, working into
the wee hours of the night, last night being an example, until 11:30.
After 3 years of tremendous service, my Rules associate, Rosalyn Kumar,
has accepted another position in the Senate, and I just want to express
my appreciation for her hard work.
She hails from the city of Dallas, Texas, and her hometown
Representative is my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions.
I'd like to yield for a moment to my colleague from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Rosalyn, congratulations. I am going to miss you. It is a good day
for you; it's a bad day for us. It is with regular occurrence that I
look over at you. You have a bright, smiling face. You have the
enthusiasm not only of a bright, young professional staffer on the
Rules Committee, but I think you will be a true asset to Senator
Stabenow, as you take the experiences from a body that does a lot of
work to a body that needs to do more work, and I wish you the very
best.
If I could, I would also like to tell the gentleman that Jenny
Gorski, who is behind me, a professional staff member of the Rules
Committee, will also be leaving, I have found out, after this process.
She will be going to Congressman Doc Hastings' office to be his adult
supervision. So we're taking two Rules Committee professional staff
members who will aid and help other Members in their betterment.
I again thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear about what we're talking
about here today. From the moment Speaker Boehner walked away from the
negotiating table last Friday to the opening bell of the stock markets
this morning, shareholders in U.S. stocks, American retirees,
investors, our middle class have lost $405 billion based on Third Way's
analysis of data from the Standard and Poor's 500 Index, and Americans
stand to lose more if we fail to resolve this crisis.
Third Way has put together a comparison between the interest rate
paid on sovereign debt between AAA and AA nations. This is why credit
is important. People understand that. Depending on your credit rating,
you pay a different rate on your home mortgage. You might have
different financing opportunities on your credit card. If America
misses a debt payment, the rating agencies have let us know that it
likely will result in a downgrade from AAA status to AA status.
I would also point out that this current bill before us would likely
lead to that as well because it only contains a short-term, a 6-month
renewal of our debt ceiling. Having watched the dysfunction of Congress
over the last few weeks, the global investment community, those who
loan us money, will say the last thing we need to do is put ourselves
through this again in 6 months to ensure stability.
Countries that have AAA ratings have an average 10-year bond rate of
2.98 percent. Countries that have AA have an average bond rating of
3.75 percent. So, three-quarters of a percent difference. What does
that mean? It means three-quarters of a percent on your variable rate
home mortgage; it means three-quarters of a percent on your automobile;
and, yes, it means more government expenditures, bigger government
expenditures, just to cover the debt that we already have. In fact,
that difference, that 0.75 percent difference over the next 10 years,
will cost taxpayers, in additional interest payments, over $1 trillion.
So here we are with a bill that cuts spending, cuts $915 billion of
spending, but, because it will likely lead to a downgrade, will cost
over a trillion. The bill before us today will increase the deficit by
over $100 billion. At a time of record deficits when we all know we
need to enforce fiscal discipline, the last thing we need is an
irresponsible bill to increase the deficit by $100 billion, which is
what we have before us today.
Now, if we had this bill before us 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago, I
would still oppose it--increasing the deficit is the last thing we need
to do now--but it would have been an interesting discussion. It would
have been maneuvering and politics and all this stuff that this body
does too much of in posturing, in my opinion. But here we are 3\1/2\
days from the debt ceiling expiring, and the gentleman from Texas and
the chairman of our Rules Committee and many others have said, We want
to. We know we need to do this. We know we need to do this.
If we know we need to do this, why are we doing this 3\1/2\ days
before the expiration of the debt ceiling? Why are we potentially
passing a bill that will increase the Federal deficit? that will almost
certainly lead to a downgrade? that the Senate has said they will kill?
that the President has said he will veto?
I understand that the plan was to pass this bill last night. I
understand that the majority party was short of a few votes. That would
have been yet another window of opportunity for this Speaker, who has
had many, to negotiate a real solution, to be the statesman, to work
with the President and the Senate to come up with a bipartisan package
to increase the debt ceiling, cut spending, decrease the deficit.
The President has talked about decreasing the deficit by $4 trillion.
Instead, we have a force of bill that's likely to increase the deficit
by $100 billion--the last thing we need from Congress at this juncture
in time. Three-and-a-half days is how long we have to get this right.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, is this the step we need to take towards
that
[[Page H5741]]
outcome, passing yet another ideological bill that will cost taxpayers
$100 billion and cost middle class families another percentage point on
all the debt that they have?
Madam Speaker, there is a route out of this, and the route out of
this does not involve the majority party trying to pull back the four
or five or six people that they need over there. The path out of this
is the Speaker engaging us, engaging all Members of this Chamber,
engaging the President of the United States, who has to sign this at
the end of the day, engaging the Senate majority leader and the Senate
minority leader, to go back to that table that Speaker Boehner walked
out on last Friday, to negotiate a real solution to the deficit crisis
and the spending crisis that has gripped this country, that could very
well lead to a downgrade and increased deficit spending unless we get
our arms around it.
{time} 1420
Look, I think many on my side of the aisle are open to a compromise.
President Obama, himself, has called for a compromise, and I know my
office and the offices of many other Members of Congress have received
hundreds of calls from constituents who echo that desire to reach a
solution on this. I fear that the step before us today is yet another
example of the dysfunction of this institution under this leadership,
but it's not too late.
I call upon the Speaker to move away from this direction and get back
to the negotiating table to establish a real solution: to reduce the
deficit, retain our Nation's good credit and faith in our system and
show that this institution--the institution of the House of
Representatives and the institution of Congress--can work and do what's
right for our country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to a
brand new member of the Rules Committee, one of our 87 new Republican
freshmen, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia, Congressman
Woodall.
Mr. WOODALL. I very much thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
It's true. I'm one of the new guys there on the Rules Committee, one
of the new guys here in this Congress; and because I haven't been
watching this process go on quite this closely before, I'm prepared to
answer the questions today of ``Why are we here?'' and ``Why are we
here doing this?''
Now, for folks who don't watch the process, who haven't watched it
like I have, this rule that we're working on today is to say that you
can bring up a bill in the Rules Committee and then bring that bill to
the floor on the very same day. That's unusual because regular order in
this body says, if you bring something up, let's let it sit overnight
so that everybody has a chance to look at it, and we'll bring it up the
next day. I'm a big proponent of regular order. I believe we get the
best work product out of this body when we work through regular order,
and we've done that time and time and time again in this Congress, and
we'll do it time and time again in the future.
But today we're faced with a predicament where August 2 is looming on
the horizon.
Now, it's Friday. For folks who don't know, we're not going home
tonight after work. Don't worry, Madam Speaker. As you know, this House
is going to be in full swing tonight, tomorrow morning, tomorrow night,
on Sunday, on Monday to get America through this challenge; but my
White House, my President, tells me that August 2 is the day by which
we must pass a bill, and here we are at the last hour to make that
happen.
Now, why are we at the last hour? That was a question my friend from
Colorado asked, and I have the answer: because we didn't actually start
this process today. We didn't start it last night in the Rules
Committee. We started this process back in February with H.R. 1, a bill
to fund the government all the way through October 1 of this year.
It was an open rule. For the first time in the history of this House
of Representatives, it was an open rule on a continuing resolution. It
took us 5 days, going day and night--24 hours a day at the end--to get
that bill discussed fully, because we all had input on that process; we
all had things that we wanted to add. This House passed that bill. It
went across to our friends in the Senate, and they did nothing.
We had another shot at this in April when we worked through the
budget process. That budget process, as you know, Madam Speaker, is
supposed to take us through 10 years--10 years. We asked every Member
of this House of Representatives to bring their ideas to the floor. The
Rules Committee, in its wisdom, made every single budget that any
Member of this House offered available as a bill on the floor to
consider, and we debated them all. There were some that raised taxes by
$10 trillion. There were others that cut spending by $10 trillion and
all in between. We debated them all, and the House decided on one: the
House budget in April of this year. We sent it to the Senate, and they
did nothing. In fairness, they did defeat that bill we sent to them.
They defeated ours. We only got 40 votes on ours, which was better than
when they worked on the President's budget over there--he got zero
votes on his. So they're good at defeating things, but they didn't pass
anything at all.
That's the partnership we have to have. I say to my friend from
Colorado that I'm so proud of our partnership in the Rules Committee
and, really, of our partnership beyond the Rules Committee, too, on
some of the issues that we work on here. If we could develop the kind
of partnership with our friends in the Senate that we've been able to
develop between ourselves here on the House side, it would be a
completely different situation here in Washington, D.C.
But even as part of that raucous freshman class that folks read about
in the newspaper, I don't have the ability to control what goes on in
the United States Senate. All I have the ability to do is to come down
here and participate in our process, which in February produced H.R. 1,
which could have averted this crisis today; in April produced the House
budget, which could have averted this crisis today; and last week
produced Cut, Cap, and Balance--which was sent to the Senate and they
did nothing--which could have averted this crisis yet again.
In light of all of those failures of action in the Senate, we are
forced to come here today. We don't have overnight to lay a bill over.
We don't have 72 hours to lay a bill over. We only have 72 hours until
my President tells me D-day arrives for our financial markets. So we're
here supporting this rule for same-day consideration so that we can do
whatever it takes to get the job done.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. I very much thank the gentleman from Texas.
We're going to do whatever it takes to get the job done, but there is
a teaching moment in this process, Madam Speaker. Maybe it's obvious to
some of the senior Members. Again, I'm one of the new guys--only 7
months on the job here in Congress--but what I've noticed this week is
this:
Last night, we tried to bring up a bill. Now, it was a bill that our
Speaker and the majority leader of the Senate negotiated over last
weekend. We thought bringing that bill to the floor would be that
compromise, and I promise you it was a compromise because it was not
what I wanted to bring to the floor of this House. We thought that
compromise would be the solution to get America out of this situation.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. The majority leader in the Senate has never at any time
expressed support for this bill and actually opposes this bill.
I would ask the gentleman to clarify that.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend.
There is a lot of conversation in this town, but I maintain that this
was the topic of discussion and agreement between the Speaker and the
majority leader last week. Absolutely, the majority leader has walked
away from that agreement since then, and I don't dispute that; but
here's the thing:
We had this agreement on the floor of the House last night, and we
couldn't find one Democrat vote in favor of it. Fair enough. Folks
ought to vote their
[[Page H5742]]
consciences; they ought to do what they need to do. We couldn't find
one Democrat vote in favor of it, and we've come back with a new bill
today that moves us to the right. Now, as someone who comes from one of
the most conservative districts in the country, I think that's
fantastic. More moving to the right. Let's keep on moving. There's a
lot more space over there. Let's move some more over to the right.
But I say to my friends on the left as we try to get through a
crisis, a national crisis, that we only needed a few votes from you
last night, and then this would have been a bipartisan bill. Instead,
we're back down here today.
Mr. POLIS. I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget
Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding.
Here we go again, my friends. Here we go again wasting another day of
debate on a proposal that is more of a press release than a plan. News
broke this morning that, from the moment Speaker Boehner walked away
from the table last Friday to the opening bell this morning,
shareholders in United States stocks lost over $400 billion.
My colleagues have been unwilling, not unable, to reach compromise in
this Chamber. They have been unwilling, not unable, to tell extremists
that while they write their press releases and shake their fists, the
rest of us must get down to governing. They have been unwilling, not
unable, to let us vote on a balanced plan; and that choice, for it was
a choice, cost the American economy almost as much in 5 business days
as my Republican colleagues are trying to cut from the budget in 5
years. They're using a manufactured crisis to make the problem worse.
So here we are again. My Republican colleagues have wasted another 24
hours making a bad plan worse, a plan that is based on the same tired
policies that got us into this mess: cut taxes for millionaires; give
kickbacks to special interests; pay for it all with cuts to the middle
class, including Medicare and Social Security.
{time} 1430
If they try to tell you that these cuts are not in this bill, ask
them to sign a pledge that this legislation will not be used to cut
benefits for seniors in the next 12 months. They won't.
After my Republican colleagues pulled their bill from the floor last
night, they went back to the negotiating table. But with whom? The
Senate? No. The President? Surely not. No, they went back behind closed
doors to negotiate with themselves to run further to the right at the
behest of the most ideologically entrenched members of their caucus.
This may be good politics, but it's not good government.
I'm tired of it, my constituents are tired of it, anyone who's
watched the nightly news for the last 6 months is tired of it.
Washington loves to kick the can down the road. That's how we got
here in the first place. This is our moment. We need a plan, not
another Republican manifesto, and there are better plans out there.
So, again, I ask my Republican colleagues, let us vote on a plan that
has a chance.
Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Again, my colleague from Georgia mentioned that there are
no Democrats behind this initiative. Again, Democrats were not
consulted or talked to to ask for their support or input into this
initiative. And you won't find much support for a proposal that would
increase the deficit by $100 billion over 10 years.
The Democrats and our Democratic plan are seeking to decrease the
deficit by trillions of dollars over that same period rather than
increase it by $100 billion as the Republican plan does.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
closed martial law rule.
Today is a sad, sad day. In just a few days, the process in this
House has completely devolved. It's shameful. We've gone from open
rules to closed rules to same-day martial law rule all because a few
extreme Members of the House refuse to do the right thing.
The rule today paves the way for a bill today that is even a worse
bill than the one the Republicans were forced to pull from the floor
yesterday. That's not coming together, Madam Speaker. It's pushing us
further and further apart.
These last few days have not been about trying to find a united
solution. These last few days and last few weeks have been about trying
to unite the House Republicans. It has been wasted opportunities.
For weeks and weeks and weeks my Republican friends have walked away
from a balanced, fair, and bipartisan approach allowing the United
States to pay its bills. They've walked away from a balanced, fair, and
bipartisan approach to addressing the Nation's long-term fiscal
challenges. Democrats have been willing over and over and over again to
move forward on such an approach.
To be honest, I'm not thrilled with some of the things that President
Obama has put on the table. But I'm willing to consider them in order
to get past this crisis. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of
this House is unwilling to meet us halfway. They're not even willing to
meet us a tenth of the way.
All we're asking for, and I think all the American people are asking
for, is a balanced approach. All we're asking for is for everyone to
chip in to solve this problem.
I'll say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if you're
going to ask seniors to pay more for their Medicare, if you're going to
cut vital investments in education, transportation, medical research,
and other programs, then the least you can do is ask the various
wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.
How in the world can my friends on the other side of the aisle
justify slashing Medicare while they refuse to ask Big Oil and gas
companies or corporate jet owners or hedge fund managers to give up
their unnecessary and unjustified taxpayer subsidies. But that's their
position, Madam Speaker, not asking billionaires to pay a little bit
more but asking middle class families to pay a lot more. It's reckless,
it's wrong, it's unfair. And I for one will not go along with it.
My friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) says we have to make tough
choices. I agree, we have to make tough choices. But why do you always
have to be tough on working families or on poor people or on senior
citizens? They didn't create this economic crisis.
We're in this mess because of unpaid-for tax cuts, mostly for wealthy
people; we're in this mess because of two wars that are not paid for
that are on our credit card; we're in this mess because of a
prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for.
I would say to my colleagues, enough of the press releases, enough of
the theatrics, enough of the political stunts.
I urge you to reject this martial law rule and get back to the
negotiating table and avert an economic crisis.
Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. We are now 4 days away from an historic, unprecedented,
and needless default that could grind this economy to a halt. And yet,
even as they show their disarray to the entire world, this House
Republican majority is continuing to hold our Nation hostage to press
their radical agenda. Worse, there's only 4 days to go. They're moving
in the wrong direction.
The Speaker should have taken yesterday's rebuke by his own party as
a clear indication that he needs to go back to the drawing board and
pass a debt ceiling increase that both parties can sign on to.
Instead, he and the Republican majority have doubled down on ideology
and dangerous brinksmanship requiring that a balanced budget
constitutional amendment--a total nonstarter--that would threaten
Medicare and Social Security be sent to the States before a second debt
ceiling increase is approved. This ensures another Republican-created
crisis in only a few short months.
This bill slashes $917 billion from critical public investments:
education, infrastructure, research, law enforcement, food safety. And
even though the
[[Page H5743]]
spending on these programs is less than what it was under the Reagan
and the first Bush administration, in fact members of the majority even
balked at $17 billion in Pell Grant funding in the bill because to some
of them helping Americans go to college is ``the welfare of the 21st
century.''
We know the deficits have grown because revenues are lower than
they've been in the last 60 years thanks to the Bush tax cuts for the
wealthy and the two wars that have been put on the Nation's credit
card.
With 14 million unemployed, we should be focused on creating jobs,
putting Americans back to work. It's time for the majority to quit
playing political games, start acting responsibly with the stewardship
of our economy.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Start to work on what the
American people need most right now--that's jobs.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the gentlewoman
comes down and talks about this game that's going on about jobs.
I am going to read from an article that I will insert into the Record
regarding information on tax hikes and what that does to American jobs:
``This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law a 67
percent increase in the State personal income tax rate and a 45 percent
increase in the State corporate tax rate. Between its passage then and
June, Illinois lost 56,223 jobs.
``To combat the job loss caused by the higher taxes on businesses,
the Illinois Department of Commerce `has already shelled out some $230
million in corporate subsidies to keep more than two dozen companies
from fleeing the State.' ''
Well, this is exactly what President Obama is suggesting for America,
the same thing that they do in his home State in Illinois, raise taxes
substantially on all of those rich people and corporations. Madam
Speaker, a 56,000 job loss. They're now having to spend an incredible
amount of money to convince people, really to pay them off, just to
stay.
This is the game that the Democratic Party plays. This is exactly
what the gentlewoman was talking about about the serious elements of
jobs and the consequences of killing jobs in this country.
Madam Speaker, I will tell you the Republican Party will not fall
victim to raising taxes like the Democratic Party and like President
Obama want us to do.
We will not raise the debt limit without making tough choices. And,
Madam Speaker, we're going to add jobs and do the things that are right
that the American people expect us to do. And that's why we're here
today.
The Real-World Impact of Tax Hikes on American Jobs
(By Rep. Pete Sessions & Rep. John Shimkus)
[From the Daily Caller, July 28, 2011]
Over the last few weeks, President Barack Obama has
adamantly supported raising taxes on corporations and small
businesses that employ millions of American workers as a
precondition for cutting our bloated federal spending.
To see the real-world effect of this proposal on jobs and
the economy, President Obama's home state provides a useful
and cautionary example.
This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into
law a 67 percent increase in the state personal income tax
rate and a 45 percent increase in the state corporate tax
rate. Between its passage and June, Illinois lost 56,223
jobs, according to statistics released last week.
To combat the job loss caused by the higher taxes on
businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already
shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep
more than two dozen companies from fleeing the state.''
So not only is Illinois bleeding productive jobs, but it's
now allowing the government to pick winners and losers.
Extracting an ever-increasing toll from job creators is
simply the wrong answer for American jobs. Just ask the
56,000 Illinoisans who have lost their jobs since January.
Spreading this failure nationwide is simply not an option.
We are in a debt crisis not because we tax too little, but
because Democrat-led Washington spends beyond its means.
House Republicans have been focused on encouraging and
providing certainty (not new burdens) to our nation's job
creators--and trying to get our debt and deficit-spending
under control.
The rest of America simply cannot afford more of the failed
policies of the president's home state, and House Republicans
will fight against tax hikes so that we may ensure a brighter
future for generations to come.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I have an article entitled, ``Debt Ceiling
Impasse Rattles Short-Term Credit Markets,'' again from The New York
Times, discussing how this uncertainty that is not being caused by
external factors but is being caused by us, by politicians, by people
here in this body, is rattling those who lend our country money. And
that's why this plan before us today will increase the deficit by over
$100 billion over 10 years. In addition to those spending cuts, it will
cost taxpayers more in interest payments if it jeopardizes our credit
rating.
[From the New York Times, July 28, 2011]
Debt Ceiling Impasse Rattles Short-Term Credit Markets
(By Nelson D. Schwartz and Azam Ahmed)
The reverberations of Washington's impasse over a debt deal
are already being felt in the short-term credit markets, a
key artery of the economy that daily supplies trillions of
dollars of credit.
Over the last week, big banks and companies have withdrawn
$37.5 billion from money market funds that invest in Treasury
debt and other ultra-safe securities, the biggest weekly drop
this year. Meanwhile, in the vast market for repurchase
agreements, in which many financial firms make short-term
loans to one another, borrowers are beginning to demand
higher yields.
These moves underscore how companies and big financial
institutions are beginning to rethink their traditional view
that notes issued by the United States Treasury are
indistinguishable from cash, even though many experts say
they think it is unlikely that the government would miss
payments on its obligations.
The $37.5 billion drop, reported Thursday in a weekly
survey by the Investment Company Institute, echoed what other
analysts were seeing.
In the first three days of this week, investors pulled $17
billion from funds that invested only in government
securities, a reversal of the daily inflows of $280 million
for much of July, said Peter Crane, the president of Crane
Data, which tracks money market mutual funds.
``It's big, no doubt about it,'' he said. ``Seventeen
billion isn't a run, but it's definitely indicative that
investors are shifting their assets. If this were to continue
for another week or two, it would be very disturbing.''
Though lawmakers have been clashing all week on proposals
to cut the deficit and raise the debt limit ahead of an Aug.
2 deadline set by the Treasury Department, bond markets have
largely shrugged off the risk of a default or a downgrade of
the Washington's AAA credit rating.
Interest rates on longer-term Treasuries have held steady,
but the yield on notes coming due next week, after the
deadline, has moved sharply higher in recent days. The yield
on Treasury bills coming due Aug. 4 jumped five basis points
to 15 basis points, a significant move for a security that
carried a yield close to zero earlier this month, said Jim
Caron, head of interest rate strategy at Morgan Stanley.
``It's a tell-tale sign of something that could reverberate
if it spreads to other markets, and all the uncertainty with
the debt ceiling is the functional equivalent of a
tightening,'' Mr. Caron said. ``I don't think there is a
default risk at all but the market is saying it's not going
to take any chances.''
While money market fund managers say they are not seeing a
sizable wave of redemptions yet, they are setting aside more
cash, leaving it at custodial bank accounts in case investors
demand their money back. At Fidelity, the Boston-based firm
that has $442 billion in money market assets, managers are
avoiding Treasury bills that come due on Aug. 4 and Aug. 11,
however unlikely a technical default may be.
``We are positioning our portfolio to respond to a
downgrade or a default and we are positioning the fund to
respond to redemptions,'' said Robert Brown, president of
money markets at Fidelity. Mr. Brown would not say how much
cash was being kept at hand, but said ``it's a higher balance
than one would expect to see.''
In the commercial paper market, where companies raise funds
for their short-term borrowing needs, buyers are also seeking
shorter-term paper.
In the last week, investors have shown signs of wanting
quick access to their money, with financial borrowers raising
on Wednesday only $1 million in notes that come due in 81
days or more, according to the Federal Reserve. That is down
from $479 million on July 22.
At the same time, the amount of commercial paper issued
with a duration of just one to four days rose to $920
million, from $771 million.
``Investors are scrambling to bolster their liquidity
profile,'' said Chris Conetta, head of global commercial
paper trading at Barclays Capital. ``They understand that a
default or downgrade could be a big, systemic event.''
In the repurchase market, known as the repo market,
borrowers take loans and in exchange hand over a little more
than the equivalent loan amount in securities. Because of
their risk-free status, Treasuries are highly favored as
collateral, estimated to account for about $4 trillion in the
repo markets.
The fear is that if the United States credit rating drops,
the value of those treasuries
[[Page H5744]]
could respond in kind. Borrowers would then have to post more
collateral to obtain their loans, effectively raising the
cost of borrowing. That could ripple into the broader market,
raising interest rates on all types of loans, analysts warn.
``The repo market is a pressure point because it can have
an impact on overall credit availability, which bleeds
through to mortgage rates,'' said Robert Toomey, managing
director at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association. ``Treasuries become a little less attractive if
they are more expensive to finance.''
The overnight repo rate, which started the week at about
three basis points, was about 17 basis points Thursday
evening, according to Credit Suisse. That means that to
finance $100 million overnight in the repo market it would
now cost about $472 per day, up from about $83 on Monday.
``It's a bigger deal than a lot of people recognize,'' said
Howard Simons, a strategist at Bianco Research, a bond market
specialist. ``If you downgrade the securities you have to put
more up for collateral and that affects pretty much everybody
out there who has held these in reserve. I don't care if
you're a bank, insurance company, exchange or
clearinghouse.''
To be sure, most observers say the ripples in the repo
market will not be anything like those felt in the fall of
2008, when creditors lost faith in the ability of banks to
pay back their short-term loans. That caused a problem for
companies like General Electric, which struggled to finance
its daily operations as a result. Back then, the sharp drop-
off in repo lending helped bring the financial system to its
knees.
``I think people are looking at the U.S. as the cleanest
shirt in the dirty laundry pile,'' said Jason New, a senior
managing director at GSO Capital Partners.
``To me, the downgrade is not dropping a boulder in a still
lake. This is dropping a pebble, but nevertheless there are
still ripples.''
{time} 1440
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
Madam Speaker, yesterday our Republican colleagues said that their
party was using the leverage of the default crisis to get what they
want, their ideological agenda passed. The problem is it's not what the
American people want. Our constituents have made it very clear that
when we're trying to solve our deficit crisis, they want a real
compromise, shared sacrifice, where millionaires, billionaires, and oil
companies are asked to contribute. They also want their Social Security
and Medicare benefits protected. Now with the clock ticking on the
entire economy, they definitely don't want us wasting time on this hoax
of a bill that has no chance of passing in the Senate.
The Republicans took a bad bill and made it worse and less likely to
pass, putting in the requirement for sending a constitutional amendment
to the States, which requires a two-thirds vote in each body. If that
doesn't happen, 6 months from now, what happens? The country defaults
again. That may help the Republicans. It may help the Republican
leadership save face with the Tea Party and their party, but it does
nothing to help the American people or save us from a pending economic
chaos.
This isn't leadership. It's the worst type of failure. It's a failure
to stand up for what we know is right, a failure to stand up for the
American people, and a failure to protect and preserve the United
States of America.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, Americans have had to tighten their belts. All around
the country, American families have had to decide what is important to
them and to divide their needs from their wants. Washington, D.C., has
to do that. We have to have not just a balanced approach, we need to
have a balanced budget. We need to cut our spending, we need to control
our spending, and we need to have accountability so that when
Washington politicians make decisions, that the families back home can
take a look at it and decide what are the consequences of these
decisions.
Now, there have been a lot of consequences that America has suffered
because of the failed economic policies of President Obama. One must
ask him- or herself, when will President Obama admit that his stimulus
program was a failure? When will the President admit that the
consequences of his health care mandate has killed jobs? When will
President Obama admit that Cash for Clunkers wasn't such a great idea?
And, most importantly, when will President Obama admit that it's a
failure of leadership not to present a plan to balance the budget to
Congress? We need to see the President's plan.
Today, we will be voting on yet another Republican proposal to cut
spending and control spending and give accountability to our process,
but we have yet to have a bill introduced by the President of the
United States. And keep in mind, before he was President, as a Senator,
he voted against increasing the debt ceiling, siting a lack of
leadership. Today, the bill that we will be considering cuts spending
now. It also controls spending because it has an across-the-board
trigger that if we spend too much money, there will be a cut.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, these cuts are real. They are
measurable. This is what the American people need to know, something
that is accountable. This puts in place a 10-year budget.
The United States Senate, under Harry Reid's leadership, has not had
a budget in 3 years. There's no end to their spending without a budget.
American families have budgets. Why doesn't the U.S. Senate?
So this bill puts in accountability, 10 years' worth of
accountability. It puts in controls in spending, across-the-board
triggers. And finally, it has cuts to it.
Again, Madam Speaker, American families have had to tighten their
belts. Washington must do the same thing, and that's what we're doing
here today.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation and ``yes''
on the rule.
Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that the President
hasn't introduced a bill. I would just like to point out that the
President of the United States cannot introduce a bill in the House or
Senate. The President can sign a bill. In fact, in this particular
case, he said he would veto this bill because it increases the deficit,
it risks increasing it by over $100 billion.
I would like to submit for the Record a study that shows the
difference in interest rates between AAA and AA ratings, which
demonstrably shows, in fact, that if this bill is passed here today
with only a 6-month extension, it would likely cost taxpayers over $100
billion.
AAA or AA? In Which Club Do We Want To Belong?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Year
AAA Ratings bond yield
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia.................................................. 4.92
Austria.................................................... 3.39
Canada..................................................... 2.93
Denmark.................................................... 2.99
Finland.................................................... 3.13
France..................................................... 3.25
Germany.................................................... 2.76
Hong Kong.................................................. 2.26
Luxembourg................................................. 3.29
Netherlands................................................ 3.14
Norway..................................................... 3.24
Singapore.................................................. 2.10
Sweden..................................................... 2.75
Switzerland................................................ 1.45
United Kingdom............................................. 3.04
USA........................................................ 3.00
------------
AAA Average............................................ 2.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AA Ratings 10-Year
bond yield
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Dhabi.................................................. 3.84
Belgium.................................................... 4.32
Chile...................................................... 2.92
China...................................................... 4.12
Israel..................................................... 5.16
Japan...................................................... 1.09
Qatar...................................................... 3.95
Saudi Arabia............................................... 3.97
Spain...................................................... 5.99
Slovenia................................................... 4.43
Taiwan..................................................... 1.50
------------
AA Average............................................. 3.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
What's going on here, Madam Speaker, is extraordinarily dangerous and
it's completely unnecessary. We are using the full faith and credit of
the United States, the reputation this country has had since its
founding that we are a country who pays our bills, we are using that as
political leverage to get our way on budget and tax issues. That's
wrong. It's dangerous.
[[Page H5745]]
Ronald Reagan, no stranger to fierce tax and budget battles, would
never allow the linkage to be made that would jeopardize the full faith
and credit of the United States. We're a bigger and better country than
to threaten that we won't pay our bills. This is wrong. We should raise
the debt ceiling cleanly because that is what Americans do. We pay our
bills.
Second, the bill before us now is, as my friend from Kentucky said,
making a bad bill worse. The process that Americans want is a balanced
approach. Balance is revenues along with cuts. Democrats have to make
concessions on cuts. We're prepared to do that. The President has led.
But there have got to be revenues, particularly when we have got a Tax
Code that is completely a mess.
What we've seen is that in the Biden discussions, Mr. Cantor walked
out when there were revenues on the table. The Speaker walked out on
the President when revenues were still on the table. And now this bill
is attempting to impose a constitutional amendment and has no chance of
passing; and it, in effect, is a white flag of surrender to a small
group in the Republican caucus who won't pass the bill that was brought
to us before.
We've got to work together. That means we've got to put everything on
the table. We've got to maintain our credit rating by paying our bills,
and we have to have a balanced approach to long-term fiscal stability
that requires revenues as well as cuts.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to
another one of our 87 new freshmen, Mr. Womack, the former mayor of
Rogers, Arkansas, one of the most beautiful cities in America.
Mr. WOMACK. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman not
only for yielding some time but also for his glowing remarks about a
great community and one of the 10 most livable cities in all of America
that I had the privilege of presiding over for about 12 years as mayor,
a city that continues to enjoy tremendous economic development and
influence in the State of Arkansas.
And let me just say this, using that as a context for my remarks,
that I think the model that the community that I had the privilege of
presiding over for 12 years is the model that Washington needs. It's a
model that balances its budget.
When I inherited that city in 1999 as its mayor, it did not have a
balanced budget. The government was in the way. The discriminate
developer did not want to develop in that community because there were
too many regulations, too many reasons why they could go elsewhere and
have better margins. Well, we changed all that, and now the city is
flourishing in a remarkable sort of way.
And I want to steal something from a colleague of mine from
Mississippi that was said yesterday out on the Triangle in a media
event. He said: All across America we're sitting down with legal pads,
and we're drawing that line down the middle and we're discussing the
amount of income that we have. This is what's happening to families
around the country, what kind of income we have and what kind of
expenses we have.
{time} 1450
Where the expenses exceed the income, we are having to make some very
difficult choices as to what do we do without. Well, quite frankly, I
think that that's exactly what's happening in this Congress right now.
We have to take the legal pad out. We have to decide those things that
we can do that we need and those things that we can do without based on
the amount of income that we have coming in.
The sad thing is in order to be able to create that kind of fiscal
discipline, it's going to take something like a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution in order to guarantee an enforcement
mechanism that this Congress or future Congresses cannot undo. So it's
that context that I bring to the table today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. WOMACK. It is that basis on which I think this Congress should
rally behind the plan that we have offered today that is going to cap
spending, that is going to cut spending, and is going to require a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so that future Congresses
can't put us in a similar situation that we are in today.
So I would urge a ``yes'' vote. I support it wholeheartedly, and I
would ask the American people to join us by promoting fiscal sanity by
approving this piece of legislation.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
Well, we are approaching the real prospect of default for the first
time in American history, and we have wasted 2 days. While we have
wasted 2 days, the American public has lost over $400 billion of wealth
as the stock markets started to slide when Speaker Boehner walked away
from negotiations with the President. The Republicans have been
twisting arms to make a bill that could never pass the Senate even more
objectionable by chasing a few extreme Members of their party instead
of working with over 180 Democrats on a balanced approach.
I would suggest that people think of three words. First is
recklessness. This is the first time in history that we have taken the
debt ceiling discussion and held it hostage; 102 times we have
increased the debt ceiling since 1917. This is an entirely manufactured
crisis.
Second is abuse. This is an abuse of power to try and hold this debt
ceiling discussion hostage, refusing to compromise, trying to avoid a
balanced approach that is supported by the American public and what
ultimately is going to be required to solve this problem.
The third point is hypocrisy. On this floor, earlier this week, when
Republicans actually had the chance to vote for real spending cuts that
would be required under their bizarre proposal for spending reductions
in the future, when they had a chance to vote for it, in this Congress,
offered up by the Republican Study Committee--and I think it was
misguided, but at least it was honest--and what did the Republicans do?
They voted it down, 104 of them, including their own subcommittee
chairman, because it was too extreme.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire about the time
remaining on both sides, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 5 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, many words will be spoken at podiums on
the House floor today, some helpful and illuminating, some not. But
there are a few facts that need to stand in very stark contrast to all
the din.
First, this has never happened in the history of the United States,
not from the first Congress until this very moment, that a Congress, a
caucus in this body, has tried to hold hostage the American economy in
exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Never before, never. We will
distinguish ourselves as a body that has failed and has deliberately
harmed the American economy because of obstinacy, stubbornness, and
recklessness. First time.
Second, in less than 3\1/2\ days, our Nation will default. This will,
without a doubt, cause a dramatic amount of cost on the American people
in almost every aspect of our lives, whether it's in the area of credit
cards, mortgages, car notes, or many other areas. Our State and local
governments' costs will go up. Investors, pensioners, 401(k) holders
will suffer. This is in no way helpful and in dramatic contrast to
everything we have ever done before.
There is no doubt about it, Madam Speaker. The Republicans and the
Democrats have a very different view of the role of government.
Democrats believe that a government in partnership with a free market
works well to guarantee a strong economy for the American people, and
Republicans see almost no role for government at all and speak
derisively and contemptuously about government all the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.
[[Page H5746]]
Mr. ELLISON. The American people, I believe, will agree with the
Democrats and history will bear us out as being on the right side.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, day after day the American people
receive more bad news, economic bad news, about the shape our country
is in. That is what Republicans respond to.
Today, news came out that the first quarter GDP that was provided by
the Federal Government, first quarter, was actually wrong, dead wrong.
They said the GDP growth was 1.9 percent. Today we find out it was .4.
Madam Speaker, the disastrous results of the Obama-Pelosi years are
evident. Republicans want jobs. We need a middle class, and we are
willing to fight for it. That's why we are here today with commonsense
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Thank you very much for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to the bill that
we will vote on later today. And, yes, the Bush economic policies have
really now come home to haunt us.
It's shameful that the Republican Party continues their drive to
plunge our Nation into default and our economy over the brink. And the
bill that Speaker Boehner has unveiled today does exactly that. His
plan fails to end the threat of default.
And his plan targets, mind you, targets the programs aimed at
America's most vulnerable, our seniors, our children, and our low-
income families for more draconian cuts. And this plan would sign these
cuts into the Constitution; it would sign these cuts into stone into
the Constitution.
Trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor is morally
wrong and it's economically bankrupt. This rule and this bill begin to
erode and dismantle Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; and it
creates more unemployment. There will be more job loss as a result of
this rule and bill.
Instead of creating jobs, the Republicans are holding our economy
hostage once again and threatening to plunge our economy back into
recession. Instead of quickly passing a debt ceiling vote and bill, the
Republicans are marching lockstep towards default. Instead of
supporting the safety net that will protect our most vulnerable, the
Republicans are trying to balance our budget on the backs of the poor
while maintaining tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and Big
Oil. It's totally irresponsible to put forth a bill that would put the
economy on the brink of disaster once again in 6 months.
Madam Speaker, there is no time for these Republican Tea Party games.
This rule and this bill turn the American Dream into a nightmare for
millions. Seniors need to know that they will receive their Social
Security checks. Veterans need to know that they can go to the doctor.
Small businesses need to know that they have some financial security
and stability to create jobs.
Defeat this Boehner rule and bill. It's really a default Boehner rule
and bill.
{time} 1500
Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Tax cuts solve all
problems, especially for the millionaire and billionaire job creators.
We're in the 10th year of the Bush tax cuts: $4 trillion. We're in
the third year of the Obama tax cuts: $1 trillion. Now we have to cut
programs to continue the tax cuts that don't create jobs.
What's one of the specified targets? Student financial aid. Hey, they
don't know anybody at the country club who can't afford to put their
kid through medical school, but at the top of their list is cutting
student financial aid.
Cutting investments in transportation that could put millions to
work. Stopping taxes on the aviation industry, which is, guess what,
capturing the money, not lowering prices, and laying off 90,000 people
and stopping critical infrastructure jobs for that industry. Tax cuts,
tax cuts, tax cuts.
Let's get real. Let's do things for the American people, put people
back to work, and solve the deficit problem.
Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. A very interesting point in our progress here in
America. There is a real difference in view, and we're in the process
now of choosing which path this Nation will go.
This is not about a deficit. This is about the very nature of
America. It's about our heart and soul. Are we going to be a country
that uses all of our resources, whether they are the public resources
or the private resources, to fill the needs of our people--their
education, their health care, their well-being after they retire--or
are we going to go a different path and not use all of our potential?
The Republican proposal that's before us--this is not the first--
would change America and really drive us back to the 19th century, a
time in which the government did not have a social welfare program such
as Social Security and Medicare.
Make no doubt about this and have no doubts that the proposal before
us is a very significant step towards ending Social Security and
Medicare. If that's what the American people want, well, we shall see.
Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman.
You know, this is political theater at its worst. This bill has no
chance of becoming law. It's extreme. It was put together so that the
Speaker could pick up the last two or three votes from the extreme
element of the Republican Party. We refuse to be held hostage and the
American people refuse to be held hostage.
Let me say to my Republican colleagues: Why don't you try working
with us? Why don't you try to work with the Democrats? Why don't we
kind of move to the sensible middle and have a bill that can pass? This
is what the American people want us to do. They are sick of the
political posturing. They are sick of this day in and day out. We are
now bringing our country to the brink of financial disaster because of
cheap political games. Meet us in the middle.
In order to balance our budget, we need to have a cut in spending,
yes, but we also need to have those who can afford to pay more pay a
little more, and we need to close corporate tax loopholes, not protect
the rich. My Republican friends want to balance the budget on the backs
of the middle class, want to tell seniors that Medicare as we know it
will be destroyed, want to tell our students that they cannot get Pell
Grants. We don't want to do this.
Pass a clean debt ceiling. That's what we need to do. We did it 18
times under Reagan and eight times under Bush. We ought to do it again
now and stop the political charade.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the reason why we're here today is
because we're spending too much money.
Another reason why we're here today is because the Democratic Party
and the Members--many of them who have spoken today--took $500 billion
out of Medicare, and that's why that system is in real trouble.
Republicans will save Medicare, not bankrupt it like our friends the
Democrats have done.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, in response to the claim of the gentleman from Texas in
regards to saving Medicare, well, if ending Medicare is one way of
saving it, I guess that would be consistent. In fact, the Republican
package that was passed in this House phased out Medicare. Nobody under
55 would receive Medicare.
By definition, Medicare is a medical insurance program for seniors.
It would be replaced with a voucher that would pay for part of private
insurance that seniors need to get, but it would no longer be Medicare.
It would no longer exist. So, certainly, getting rid of Medicare, if
you consider that a way of saving it, the Republican budget will do
that. But if you want to save Medicare, it requires cutting costs and
investing in the system and making it work for more American families.
Again, what we have before us today, Madam Speaker, is not a
solution; it's further political machinations of the
[[Page H5747]]
House. Rather than talking to the President, rather than talking to the
Senate, unfortunately, the Speaker of this body has chosen to talk to
five or six people, move the bill further away from the middle, further
away from what the President will sign, further away from what the
Senate will pass with only 3\1/2\ days left.
Three-and-a-half days left before what? Three-and-a-half days left
before this country jeopardizes our credit rating and our good standing
as a Nation that pays interest on our debt. And just as American
families, when your credit score gets messed up, you pay more,
taxpayers will pay more if this bill passes.
Madam Speaker, it has been estimated that the approximately 1 percent
interest rate increase that a downgrade from AAA to AA would provide
will cost taxpayers over $1 trillion over 10 years. And this bill will
increase the deficit by $100 billion.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conjecture the gentleman has made and
extrapolated this out of what this bill would do. In fact, that's not
what the bill does at all.
The bill says that we will approach in a reasonable way and with
respect to the American taxpayer--and to the marketplaces--a plan, a
plan that will put America on sound financial footing, which would be
the envy of the world, which is part of what the Republican Party would
choose to do.
Madam Speaker, once again, this rule provides the necessary
flexibility the Republican leadership needs to ensure that we do not
default on our obligations in the next 4 days. Republicans will
continue to provide sound, balanced, and real leadership and pass
solutions while the President continues on the pathway--along with the
Democratic Party, as we've heard here today--of tax increases and job-
killing ideas.
With over 14 million Americans unemployed, a $1.4 trillion projected
deficit this year, and over $14 trillion in debt, our current financial
policies are simply not working. I don't know why we would continue
doing what we've been doing when it doesn't work, but perhaps that's
what our friends, the Democrats, want to do. We, as Republicans,
disagree.
So I'm asking the Democratic colleagues, our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, to join their Republican colleagues and me for real
fiscal change. Cutting spending and reducing government programs, each
of these help us encourage economic growth, not just as we heard in
Rogers, Arkansas, but all over this country. It does work, putting
Americans back to work.
Madam Speaker, I will insert into the Record an article titled,
``Texas Bucks National Unemployment Trends,'' because they do things
that balance out the marketplace.
I applaud our Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio, John Boehner, for his
hard work and commitment to the American people, and those people here
in the House of Representatives who will do their duty and provide for
real and conservative solutions, market-based answers to get our
economy back on track.
Madam Speaker, this Republican House will not raise taxes. We will
not raise spending. We will not yield to the old ways of taxing and
spending and not listening and then thinking we know better than
others.
We're for the free enterprise system.
{time} 1510
We're for families back home. We're for job growth and real
meaningful opportunities for the future of our children. That is what
we stand for.
So we are here today. Yes, we'll stay in town until we get our job
done. We're the people who believe in the free enterprise system. We're
the people who believe in the people back home. And we're the people
who are going to say ``no'' to Washington, D.C., taxing, spending, big
wasteful government. We are the people, the Republican Party. The
elephants are in town, and we have a great memory. We know what works.
So, Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
Texas Bucks National Unemployment Trend
(By Tony Gutierrez)
Finding work may not be quite that simple, but it sure
seems that way. While the nation's job growth has limped
along since the economic recovery began two years ago, the
Lone Star State is enlarging payrolls in Texas-size fashion.
From June 2009 to June 2011 the state added 262,000 jobs,
or half the USA's 524,000 payroll gains, according to the
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Even by a more conservative estimate that omits
states with net job losses, Texas' advances make up 30% of
the 1 million additions in the 34 states with net growth.
The stunning showing could play a role in the presidential
race. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is signaling he may run for the
Republican nomination. If he does, he's likely to ground his
campaign in his state's outsized job growth.
Texas' big gains are partly a reflection of its population
growth. But the recent job gains are outpacing the rate of
population growth in Texas, the nation's second-largest
state, with 25 million residents--about 8% of the U.S.
population.
INTERACTIVE: Sortable chart: State-by-state look at employment changes
The state's payrolls have risen 2.9% since the end of the
recession, third behind North Dakota and Alaska and far
outpacing the USA's 0.4% growth, according to the BLS. Also,
Texas' 8.2% unemployment rate is well below the nation's
9.2%.
``For one large state to grow (jobs) so much faster than
the rest of the nation is very unusual,'' says Moody's
economist Ed Friedman.
Economists point to an array of factors, including high
energy prices that set off an oil-drilling frenzy, rising
exports and a conservative banking industry that helped the
state sidestep the housing crash.
Yet while energy has been a spark--employment in natural
gas, oil and other mining sectors rose by 45,000, or 23%,
since the recession ended--growth has been broad-based.
During the past two years, professional and business services
added 74,000 jobs; education and health care gained 91,000;
and leisure and hospitality grew by 29,000, according to BLS.
State officials cite a pro-business climate that Perry
helped foster that's drawing scores of businesses from high-
cost states--a trend that took on urgency for firms that got
lean in the economic downturn.
The 10-year Texas governor is ``really focused on creating
an environment where people can risk their capital and get a
return on investment, and that, in turn, creates jobs for
Texans,'' says Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for the state's
economic development office.
Nashed notes Texas has no state or corporate income tax and
keeps regulations at a minimum to allow businesses to grow
quickly. She says Perry also has worked to develop a skilled
workforce by requiring additional public school classes and
pushing through tort reform to limit frivolous lawsuits. The
state, meantime, has doled out more than $600 million in
grants and investments since 2003 to recruit out-of-state
companies and help Texas firms expand.
Does Perry really deserve credit?
Yet some question Perry's role in the so-called Texas
Miracle.
James Galbraith, a professor of government at the
University of Texas-Austin, largely attributes the state's
job growth to the energy and export booms. Texas, he notes,
has never had an income tax. From 1990 to 2000, before Perry
took office, Texas payrolls swelled 36%, compared with 21%
for the nation.
``Rick Perry did not come and find a high-tax, high-service
state and dismantle it,'' Galbraith says. ``For something to
contribute, there (has to be) a change. There's been a change
in oil prices.''
Others say the state's low tax burdens exact a high cost:
fewer state services. Perry, for example, refused to raise
taxes to close a $27 billion budget gap last spring. Instead,
the Legislature slashed more than $4 billion in funding for
public schools the next two years, a move that's likely to
lead to tens of thousands of teacher layoffs.
``We're not preparing our children to compete in tomorrow's
economy,'' says Scott McCown, head of Texas' Center for
Public Policy Priorities.
Texas ranks 44th in the USA in per-student expenditures and
43rd in high school graduation rates, McCown says. Seventeen
percent of Texans lived below the poverty level in 2009,
compared with 14% for the nation. The state leads in the
percentage of the population with no health insurance and was
ninth in income inequality in the mid-2000s, the latest data
available, according to McCown and the Economic Policy
Institute.
McCown says Texas should not serve as a job-growth paradigm
for the rest of the nation.
``If you're saying you want to look like Texas, you're
saying you want to be poor and have less health care,'' he
says.
The state's relatively low wages, particularly for low-
skilled jobs, stems in part from its status as a right-to-
work state with little unionization. That dampens consumer
spending and limits economic growth, McCown says. In June,
average hourly earnings for private-sector employees in Texas
were about 5% lower than the U.S. average.
[[Page H5748]]
But Mark Dotzour, chief economist at Texas A&M's Real
Estate Center, says the state's lower pay helps it compete in
a global economy. ``Either you choose to have low-wage jobs
or you choose to have no jobs at all,'' he says.
The state's reasonable cost of living, he adds, makes it
possible for many residents to live comfortably on lower
salaries. The Dallas area ranks 10th in housing affordability
among 82 metro areas with more than 1 million residents,
while Houston is 15th, according to the Demographia
International Housing Affordability Survey. That's partly
because Texas has an abundance of cheap land--another draw
for firms looking to relocate.
Other reasons for the state's robust job growth:
The energy boom. Oil prices have nearly tripled since early
2009. High prices spark more exploration and production.
Meanwhile, technological breakthroughs have let companies
extract natural gas embedded in shale deposits. Barnett Shale
in Fort Worth is one of the USA's largest gas fields, and
drilling began at the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas in
2008. The number of oil and gas rigs in the state has jumped
to 850 from 330 in July 2009, says Ana Orozco, economist for
IHS Global Insight. Each rig employs a few dozen workers and
leads to hiring by engineering firms, pipeline builders and
other services.
Exports. Overseas shipments by Texas' strong computer,
electronics, petrochemical and other industries rose 21% last
year, compared with 15% for the nation, according to the
Dallas Federal Reserve Bank. The state also benefits from its
proximity to Latin American countries that are big importers
of U.S. goods, Friedman says. The surge creates jobs for
Texas manufacturers and ports.
No housing crash. Texas never had a housing boom but also
avoided the bust that decimated consumer credit and home
construction in much of the rest of the nation. While prices
of single-family homes more than doubled from January 2000 to
their mid-2000s peak in cities such as Los Angeles, Miami and
Las Vegas, they rose less than 27% in the Dallas/Fort Worth
market, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price index.
Meanwhile, Texas banks burned by the savings-and-loan
crisis in the 1980s were less eager than those in other
states to approve risky mortgages. And Texas law limits
mortgage debt, including home-equity loans, to 80% of a
home's value.
``People didn't use their houses like ATMs,'' says Dallas
Fed Vice President Mine Yucel.
Texas still was hit by the recession. Annual permits for
single-family homes declined 59% from their 2005 peak to
2010, but that's less than the nation's 73% plunge, according
to Texas A&M. Similarly, employment fell 4% in the downturn;
the USA's overall drop was 6.3%. Texas has recovered 380,000
jobs since its December 2009 low and is now just 54,000 shy
of its 10.6 million peak.
Population growth. Texas' population grew by 4.3 million,
or 21%, during the past decade, more than twice the national
pace. About half the total was because of births, but Texas
also gained 849,000 residents via state-to-state migration,
second only to Florida.
Texas thus benefits from a virtuous cycle: More people are
moving there for work, generating consumer demand that
creates still more jobs. That's expanded the workforce,
keeping the unemployment rate at 8.2%--ranked just 26th in
the nation--despite the strong payroll advances.
One recent arrival is Ife Oyedokun, 26, who this month
moved to the Austin area from Philadelphia, where he worked
as a high school counselor, to be closer to his family.
Within two weeks he had a job as a rehabilitation specialist
for a growing outpatient facility for the mentally ill.
``I was very surprised,'' he says. ``With just how the
economy is now, I figured three, four, five months'' to find
a job.
`Hunting' for possible relocations
Companies also are feeling the pull.
Corporate giants including Fluor, Toyota and Medtronic
recently moved headquarters or operations to Texas, and eBay,
AT&T, Samsung and Cirrus Logic have expanded there. Samsung
added about 700 jobs in Austin since last year, enlarging a
plant that makes chips for smartphones.
Area business leaders, meanwhile, have aggressively courted
out-of-state companies.
The Dallas Regional Chamber this month sent a letter to 50
Illinois corporations, urging them to consider a move to
Texas. The mailing includes a side-by-side comparison of the
two states that notes Illinois recently raised corporate and
personal income taxes and highlights Texas' lower housing,
labor and other expenses.
``States with heavy-duty business taxes, personal taxes or
regulatory mind-sets define themselves as our targets,'' says
Chamber CEO Jim Oberwetter. ``That's just where we go
hunting.''
Texas has particularly tried to lure high-tech California
companies to lower-cost technology corridors in Austin,
Dallas and San Antonio. Medtronic, the Minneapolis-based
medical device giant, has moved customer support for its
diabetes unit from the Los Angeles area to San Antonio in the
past 22 months, creating 750 jobs in Texas.
Jeff Ruiz, head of Medtronic's Texas operations, says the
company was drawn by labor costs that are ``significantly
lower'' than those in Los Angeles and a large, high-quality
workforce. Ruiz also points to more affordable real estate
and the lack of a state corporate tax, though he says the
latter was a minor factor. The company, which also received
$14 million in incentives from the state--a figure Ruiz says
was comparable with other offers--chose San Antonio from
among more than 900 U.S. cities it evaluated.
For some, the benefits are more basic.
Marketing firm Red Ventures this year opened a San Antonio
office that's expected to grow to 250 employees from 60 by
year's end, says spokeswoman Kylie Craig. Besides the
region's ample talent pool, other draws were the city's non-
stop flights to Red Ventures' other offices in Miami and
Charlotte and its 7.3% unemployment rate.
In cities with high jobless rates, ``We're having to sift
through (many) unqualified applicants.''
Then there's Texas' laid-back lifestyle and lower costs,
assets that prompted Vermillion, a start-up developer of
blood tests with 29 employees, to move from Fremont, Calif.,
to Austin about a year ago. ``We found it very difficult to
recruit people into California because of the cost of living,
traffic, congestion,'' says CEO Gail Page.
The corporate relocations and expansions are having a
ripple effect on restaurants, hospitals and other service
businesses. Winstead, a Dallas law firm with about 270
lawyers statewide, has added 50 since last year to handle the
extra workload from firms, such as Comerica Bank, that have
moved to Texas the past few years, says Mike Baggett,
Winstead's chairman emeritus.
And after cutting staff in 2009 and 2010, DeMontrond
Automotive in Houston has hired about 20 employees the past
few months in response to a 20% jump in revenue, says owner
George DeMontrond. Houston lost 120,000 jobs in the recession
but has gained about 50,000 the last seven months.
``I think people who have held off and not purchased large-
ticket items because of uncertainty are a little bit more
ready to do it,'' DeMontrond says.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). 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. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on:
adoption of House Resolution 382, if ordered;
motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 440, by the yeas and nays;
motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 2244, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 185, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 671]
YEAS--237
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
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
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)
Graves (MO)
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 (IA)
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)
[[Page H5749]]
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
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 (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--185
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
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
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
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
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Baca
Bachmann
Coffman (CO)
Giffords
Hinchey
Hirono
Johnson (GA)
Speier
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
{time} 1534
Mr. CLEAVER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 186, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 672]
YEAS--236
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
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
Cravaack
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
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
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 (IA)
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
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 (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--186
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
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
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
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
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
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
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Baca
Bachmann
Crawford
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Hinchey
Hirono
Lujan
Speier
Waters
{time} 1540
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, due to my participation in a meeting with
some of my constituents, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote
No. 672. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this vote.
[[Page H5750]]
____________________