[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]]



                          ____________________