[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 119 (Monday, August 1, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5831-H5839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 365, BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 384 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 384
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 365)
to make a technical amendment to the Education Sciences
Reform Act of 2002. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate, with 30 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules, 15 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 15 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from California is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentlewoman from
Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, after months and months of debate, we have
arrived at the ultimate goal to which we are all committed: a
bipartisan agreement to avert the debt ceiling crisis looming right
before us. Even more importantly, we have crafted a plan that addresses
the real underlying challenge of our ballooning national debt.
The bipartisan agreement before us today is an historic achievement.
Mr. Speaker, this is the 76th time that we have raised the debt ceiling
since 1962. Seventy-five times it has been raised. This is the 76th
time. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is the very first time that we have done so
while making corresponding cuts in spending that exceed the ceiling
increase. To most of us, this is just good common sense. It's the only
responsible thing to do. Yet 75 times before, no connection was made
between the debt ceiling and efforts to tackle our debt.
With today's underlying legislation, we are fundamentally changing
the way business is done here in Washington. We are setting a new
precedent for fiscal discipline and accountability. This is a
tremendous achievement that will have a profound and lasting impact on
our budget and our economy in both the short, medium and long term.
This is an especially critical point to focus on.
{time} 1500
Today's legislation has dramatic implications for both the budget and
our economy. Mr. Speaker, as you know very well, the two are
inextricably linked. This is why our fiscal situation is so important.
We don't need a balanced budget for the sake of a balanced budget, we
need to balance our budget because job creation and economic growth
depend on it.
There is a reason why the major credit agencies have said that our
AAA credit rating is in jeopardy if we don't dramatically cut spending.
Multitrillion-dollar deficits and a national debt that approaches 100
percent of GDP are not sustainable. Democrats and Republicans alike
recognize that. If we want to inspire confidence in the U.S. economy,
create jobs, and restore our position as the world's most vital and
dynamic economy, we absolutely must chart a new fiscal course.
The bipartisan agreement that we will consider today does just that.
It makes meaningful, immediate spending cuts. It sets up a process that
guarantees votes in both Chambers by Thanksgiving on an even bigger
package. This will give us the time necessary to go beyond cuts to
significant new reforms. That includes reforming entitlement programs
to keep them solvent and ensure that they don't force us back onto a
path of spiraling deficits and debt.
Mr. Speaker, by setting up this process, we can responsibly make the
hard but essential choices that will restore our economy and unleash
its power to create new opportunities for Americans. The underlying
legislation will also impose additional automatic cuts, should Congress
fail to continue on a path to real reform.
Mr. Speaker, we are all in this together, Democrat and Republican
alike. We all stand to suffer tremendously if we fail to either raise
the debt ceiling or take this opportunity to fundamentally change
course. We will all suffer if we fail to continue the process of
meaningful reform. But by coming together and enacting real reform, by
remaining committed to this joint effort into the future, we can all
share in the benefits of a surging economy and job market. We can't
approach a challenge of this magnitude as Republicans and Democrats
first, but as fellow Americans who share a commitment to our prosperity
as a Nation now and into the future.
Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity. I urge my colleagues to
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from California, my good friend,
Mr. Dreier, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, after a tense standoff over a self-
inflicted crisis, I'm extremely disappointed with the solution that is
being proposed today.
It's important that we raise the debt ceiling; in fact, it is the
duty of every Member of Congress to ensure we pay our bills.
Unfortunately, we have reached this point because some on the other
side see paying our bills as optional and have asked a king's ransom
for doing so. In the process, the majority has shown the world that our
democracy is currently dysfunctional. Even if we avoid default, the
process that got us to this point has already shown the world that the
greatest nation on Earth can barely keep the lights on.
Recently, IMF Chief Christine Lagarde told CNN in not so many words
that we are destroying the world's faith in our ability to be the most
powerful economy on Earth and our ability to pay our bills. This
dysfunction is only highlighted further by the proposed creation of a
so-called ``Super Committee,'' a closed-door committee that will
determine how to cut another $1 trillion in government spending while
523 elected Representatives are told to sit on the sidelines and vote
up and down when all is said and done. I repeat what I said last week,
my constituents did not send me to Congress to sit on sidelines while
the most important issues of our time are being decided.
The crumbling faith in our democracy is already having an effect on
our
[[Page H5832]]
economy. Just last week, Roll Call reported that the prolonged debate
over raising the debt ceiling resulted in an increase in Federal
borrowing costs--a fancy way to say that interest rates for car loans
and home mortgages are higher now than they should have or would have
been.
Furthermore, today's agreement does nothing to create jobs for the 25
million Americans who failed to find full-time jobs last month. On
Friday, we will receive a jobs report that will provide even more
evidence that while Congress has shrugged aside the urgent need to
create jobs, millions of Americans continue to suffer. This bill does
nothing to serve them.
The majority has steadfastly refused to consider a balanced approach
to reducing our deficit, rejecting attempts to close tax loopholes for
the rich and extend unemployment benefits for those unable to find
work. Instead, they have decided to only consider the draconian cuts
that threaten to reverse whatever fragile economic recovery is
underway.
On Sunday, Mohamed El-Erian, the CEO of a major financial firm, spoke
of the damage that proposed cuts will inflict on our economy. While
speaking on ABC, he said, ``Unemployment will be higher than it would
have been otherwise, growth will be lower than it would have been
otherwise, and inequality will be worse than it would have been
otherwise.'' He added, ``We have a very weak economy. Withdrawing more
spending at this stage is going to make it even weaker.''
Today's agreement will endanger the potential for new jobs while
asking absolutely nothing of those in our country who are the most well
off.
Democrats will continue to vigorously fight for Social Security,
Medicaid and Medicare to ensure that not a penny is cut from the checks
of seniors and working people who rely on these programs every day. It
is a contract.
We believe that ultimately we must take a balanced approach to
reducing our deficit. Tax loopholes must be closed, and those who have
benefited the most in this country must be asked to pay their fair
share. And regardless of the outcome of today's bill, these are the
priorities for which I will continue to fight.
Especially as the debt debate continues, I urge my colleagues to look
towards a balanced approach and return this country to its rightful
place as a shining example of democracy and equality for which we
should once again aspire.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say that this is a very unique moment for us. We have the ability to
come together at a time when we are faced with a deadline. That
deadline, as we all know, is midnight tomorrow.
The commitment that has been made to Social Security, Medicare, our
veterans, and other programs is one which we, as Republicans, clearly
stand by. And I've got to say that we know that since those programs
have been put into place, when it comes to Social Security and
Medicare, every working American has been forced to pay into the
Medicare and Social Security funds through their FICA tax. By virtue of
that contract that we have, we stand here strongly committed--contrary
to what many people may say--to ensuring the solvency and the strength
of Social Security for today's retirees and future generations as well.
And I believe that this package that we have here today, that will
enjoy bipartisan support, reaffirms that exact commitment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. My colleagues, I'm voting against the rule because, in
the later years in this Congress, I've seen a whole lot of things, but
it's never been this polarized, it's never been in terms of attacking a
President, and it's never been risking the whole fiscal credibility of
the great United States of America in order to make political gains.
Clearly, when everyone talks about everyone must make a sacrifice, I
assume that we're talking about a sacrifice in cutting the budget, not
receiving the benefits; the protections of some programs and not
others. And then on the other side, I have to pause because I don't see
any sacrifice. It's assumed by the general public that the sacrifice
means that maybe if you became wealthy under the great support that you
received from this country, that you'll make some small sacrifice; or
maybe that sacrifice could be interpreted as that when you received
preferential treatment in the Tax Code for all of these years, that
you're willing to say I don't need it now, you were there when I needed
you.
{time} 1510
But I think it's safe to say that the American people will be making
sacrifices, and they're making it for a crisis that they're so far away
from.
The people that enjoyed the crisis in terms of financial gain are not
asked even to say ``I'm sorry.'' And the people that really love,
respect, and hope, and dream, that lost their homes and their jobs,
their self-esteem, these are the ones that will make further
sacrifices. Only this time it won't be the executive branch. It
certainly won't be the courts. It would be our own colleagues, from the
Senate and from the House. A group of ``super members'' will go into a
room to decide for us what the next trillions of dollars is going to be
cut from a budget.
And if they can't succeed, then there would be an automatic cut right
across the board regardless of whether or not some programs should
survive and others should be abolished.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. May I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds, Mr.
Speaker, and I ask him to yield to me.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the distinguished chairman of this great
committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the
patriotism that you have shown not only to the committee and the
Republican Party but to this great country over the years.
I'm just so sorry on this great occasion that you would take your
chairmanship to produce a rule like this that Americans cannot see
their way clear to say this has been fair and this has been equal.
I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you so much.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend, and I would like to
have a discussion with him, if I might. I would yield an additional 30
seconds and ask him to yield to me, especially if he wants to continue.
Mr. RANGEL. I'm so sorry.
Mr. DREIER. I yielded time to my friend and then asked him to yield
to me.
Mr. RANGEL. Oh, yes, I didn't understand you had made that request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has
again expired.
Mr. DREIER. I will yield an additional 30 seconds, and I would hope
that he would continue what he was saying in the first half of his
presentation about me rather than the last half.
Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that it is very clear that what we have
before us is in fact a bipartisan agreement to do exactly what my
friend at the end of his statement was saying. We want very much to
ensure that people are able to keep their homes. We want to ensure that
people are able to see their businesses thrive. We want job
opportunities to be created for every American.
I know my friend agrees that getting our fiscal house in order, it is
going to be critically important to do that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has
again expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would say to my friend that frankly we're in a position where 75
times since 1962 we've increased the debt ceiling without focusing on
the challenge of the debt itself.
Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you.
The answer to this problem is three things: jobs, jobs, and more
jobs.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I totally associate
myself
[[Page H5833]]
with the remarks of my very good friend from New York and say that
jobs, jobs, jobs continue to be our top priority. And I believe that
this legislation before us is going to go a long way towards doing just
that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I think that my friend from California, the
chairman, my friend from New York, the chairman emeritus, have it
exactly right. The issue is jobs. And that's really what this bill on
the floor today is about.
One of the reasons, but for sure not the only reason, that our
companies aren't hiring and our economy is not growing is uncertainty
about interest rates. If you're thinking about adding on a new store or
hiring more people to do more R&D and you think the interest rates are
going to rise, you don't to it. If you're not sure what they're going
to do, you don't do it. And we've been living under a period of
uncertainty for two reasons with respect to interest rates.
The first is are we going to default on our national obligations? The
House today will and should emphatically say no, we will not. And then
the second question is will Uncle Sam continue to eat up too much of
the entrepreneurial capital in this country to finance ever-growing
Federal deficits?
The House today will and should, in my view, approve the bill before
us that will begin to make a reduction in that deficit. This bill will
reduce our projected deficit by anywhere from 25 to 35 percent. And
it's important to understand what history tells us about sincere and
legitimate deficit reduction.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton's plan was supposed to reduce the
deficit by 28 percent. It did not. It reduced the deficit entirely.
That bill was supposed to generate $500 billion in deficit reduction.
In fact, it generated $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction. That's the
elixir that the American economy needs now.
And I do not, my colleagues, believe that this is the only step that
we need to accomplish in order to reduce unemployment. But it is an
essential step. And for that reason, I am pleased to join with both
Republicans and Democrats in voting ``yes'' for this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DREIER. I would like to thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend for his very
thoughtful statement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I would say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, that if we look back on the
juxtaposition of that projected $500 billion in deficit reduction and
the $1.6 trillion that we attained, we know why it is that that came
about. It was gross domestic product growth. And my friend and I have
been working together for many years focused on how it is that we can
get our economy growing.
In so doing, I believe as we continue to focus on that, that we will
be able to see benefits beyond those anticipated today when it comes to
deficit reduction if we're able to generate--unfortunately, we have had
1.3 percent GDP growth reported from the last quarter. If we can get to
3, 4, 5 percent GDP growth, my friend knows very well that we're going
to be in a position where we will be able to see an even greater
reduction of the deficits in years to come.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I agree with him, and I think that we owe it to the
country to find common ground on economic growth.
The best deficit reduction plan is full employment. And the best full
employment plan will be one that we could come together on. I think
today is an important first step. It came too late, it was ugly getting
here, but I'm glad we got here.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful remarks.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the gentlelady, my good friend from
New York.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery
in contravention of the rules of the House. The Sergeant of Arms is to
remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order
to the gallery.
The Sergeant of Arms will restore order to the gallery.
The Sergeant at Arms will remove the disturbance from the gallery.
{time} 1520
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had no idea that
my pending remarks would lead to such a wellspring of apparent support.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the last rejoinder between
the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from California,
spending cuts at this level are not going to create any jobs. The idea
that spending cuts and deficit reduction will lead to unprecedented
economic prosperity is absolutely a false economic premise. Getting
control of our fiscal house to make sure that we make productive
investments and create jobs will create jobs.
With respect to the proposal underlying this rule, Mr. Speaker,
there's plenty for members of both parties to find objectionable, and
they might be right, but the choice before us is not that between this
proposal and some platonic ideal. It is between this proposal and
catastrophic default tomorrow.
Unlike the cynical bill this Chamber passed on a party-line vote last
week, this bill commits America to meeting its obligations for the
longer term, it leaves all options on the table, including revenue for
the bipartisan committee this fall to further reduce the deficit, and
having triggers, painful for both parties, adds real accountability and
strict enforcement.
The American people understand we need a balance to restore fiscal
responsibility and grow our economy. Recent GDP and manufacturing
numbers are painful reminders, Mr. Speaker, of the fragility of our
economy and its recovery, and the actions of House Republicans, sadly,
have only exacerbated that by pulling back on key investments in
infrastructure and innovation.
It's time to end the reckless game of chicken being waged here in
this House. I commend President Obama and other leadership for leading
the adult conversation to bring about this compromise. It is now time
for us to do the responsible thing and bring to heel the wolf at the
door.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it is
very interesting that as we have come together in a bipartisan way to
address the crisis of increasing our debt ceiling, tackling the
challenge of reducing the $14.3 trillion national debt that we have, we
had this disruption in the gallery.
Now I turned around, Mr. Speaker, and looked up there, and I will
tell you--I don't know if you saw the placard that they were carrying--
it had in great big letters across it, Create Jobs. Create Jobs is the
message that they had. And, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we are
doing, again working very diligently in a bipartisan way to ensure that
we do just that.
With that, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a hardworking
member of the Committee on Rules, my good friend from Grandfather
Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from California, the distinguished
chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding.
I just did an interview with the TV station in my district. One of
the questions that the interviewer asked is, ``What does this mean to
the average person in your district? People are paying attention to
what's going on in D.C.''
And I said, ``That's probably the best thing that's happened out of
this whole debate, that people are paying attention. Had they been
paying attention
[[Page H5834]]
the last 40 years, we wouldn't be in the situation that we're in.''
I then pointed out to her that in today's dollars, Federal spending
per U.S. household went from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. That
tells us all that we need to know. The Federal Government is addicted
to spending. We need to cut spending, not raise taxes, and this
compromise bill does that.
Mr. Speaker, as the distinguished gentleman from California said, we
want to create jobs, and the best way to do that is to stop taking
money out of the private sector, stop overtaxing the people in this
country, leave that money in the private sector and allow it to be used
to create jobs.
This is not a perfect bill. We all say it's not a perfect bill, both
sides of the aisle. That generally means that it's a good bill because
it's not perfect, and when people want compromise and they hear that,
then they know that's right.
But the change in direction is historic. We're going from seeing how
much money we can spend to how much can we cut. I am intrigued at a lot
of my colleagues across the aisle, they've obviously been on the road
to Damascus, because their whole language has changed in response to
this bill, but I am glad they have finally seen the light and I hope in
the future they're going to join us in more efforts like this.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Tea Party for
extorting a deal made in their image and their image alone. The cuts
will be deep, they will be lasting, and they will weaken an already
depressed economy. What's clear is that the Tea Party is so
ideologically driven to kill government that they're willing to kill
the private sector, kill jobs, and kill growth in the process.
What's more, these cuts will be loaded onto the backs of seniors and
the American middle class, all while asking the wealthiest among us to
sacrifice nothing. Once again, the rich will feel no pain and the
vulnerable will pay for their spoils.
Mr. Speaker, the process in which we got here has undermined our
democratic system. While Democrats and the President negotiated in good
faith, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle demonstrated a
craven willingness to risk financial collapse for their extreme
demands. As Democrats conceded time after time and provision after
provision on this deal, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
just continued to issue new demands, all the while compromising
nothing. Moreover, I am very concerned with the precedent set by this
``super committee'' whose establishment threatens our democratic
process with its unconstitutional structure.
Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say if this bill passes, it may be the
single worst piece of public policy to ever come out of this
institution. I cannot support this rule, and I urge my Democratic
colleagues not to be complicit in a Republican plan to eventually cut
Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and investment in our future, all
while asking the rich to sacrifice nothing.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my
fellow Angeleno that, while I've associated myself with the remarks of
most of my other colleagues, I'm hard-pressed to associate myself with
her remarks.
With that, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another hardworking
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Lawrenceville,
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I was excited to come down here today, because when I ran for
Congress, there was just a short list of things that I wanted to do
when I got here. I'm one of the new guys, one of this crowd of 96 new
freshmen.
Two things among those: Number one, folks back home said we're
spending too much. $1.091 trillion is how much we spent in
discretionary spending in 2010. This bill that the Rules Committee
brings to the floor today brings it down to $1.043 trillion, a $50
billion cut from 2 years ago, not decreasing the rate of growth but
actually changing the trajectory of spending in this country. That's
what folks back home said they wanted me to do.
Number two, I hold in my hand the United States Constitution. I turn
to the back; conveniently enough in my edition, there's a little blank
space after Amendment 27. There is space for Amendment 28, and for the
first time in 15 years, this bill guarantees us a vote on a balanced
budget amendment. If you don't trust your Members of Congress, trust
your United States Constitution, and trust that this bill gives the
American people a vote that they have not had in far too long.
{time} 1530
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Collinsville, Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I am not coming down here to blame one side
or the other for the financial position that we are in because we all
have a part to play in the story, but this is a great day. I was also
asked earlier about how I felt about today, and I told them I felt
relieved.
I was afraid of the credit markets. I was afraid of rising interest
rates. Whatever recovery we are having, I was afraid that it could stem
that tide. So I do feel a great relief. This is one of the few times,
in the 103 times that we have actually cut spending, when we tried in
attempting to raise the debt limit. We can no longer continue to spend
and borrow 42 cents of every dollar that we spend. It's ridiculous, and
this is starting to change that process.
We are going to have discretionary cuts. We are going to have
entitlement reforms.
I do like the supercommittee: bicameral, bipartisan, equally divided.
When have we had a committee where we have equally divided the
decision-making not upon majority and minority side, but equally
divided, three Republicans, three Democrats in the House; three
Republicans, three Democrats in the Senate? If this committee can't
start addressing our entitlement reforms, then I am afraid we are never
going to do it.
So I have great faith in my colleagues who will be put on this
committee. We really have to make the great choices.
I appreciate the Rules Committee for bringing this to the floor, and
my good friend, David Dreier. And I hope that we will continue to move
forward, pass the rule, and pass the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself 30 seconds to comment on the
supercommittee.
When was the last time we had a bipartisan group like that? Simpson-
Bowles, which got absolutely nowhere; the Gang of Six in the Senate,
again which got absolutely nowhere. And six and six, I can imagine what
it is going to be like to get somebody to be the seventh vote on the
other side.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that there is a great big difference between
the commissions that have been established in the past and the fact
that this is a congressional committee, for the first time made up of
our colleagues from the House and the Senate.
The gentlewoman is absolutely right. These outside commissions that
have been there have made recommendations and they have gone virtually
nowhere.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. If I may respond to the gentleman, I don't think the
Gang of Six was any outside committee.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from New York for yielding to me.
I rise today in opposition to the Budget Control Act amendment. Over
the past months, I have been urging for a clean vote to raise the debt
ceiling, a vote that has taken place 75 times since FDR was President,
18 times under Reagan, eight times under Bush. And I think that's what
we should have done, and then put our heads together.
You see, I disagree with my friends on the other side of the aisle.
It isn't just entitlement reform that we need;
[[Page H5835]]
although, we do need entitlement reform. It isn't just for government
to spend less that we need; although, we do need government to spend
less.
But what happened to fairness? Why are we asking this bill to balance
our budget on the backs of the middle class and poor people? Why do we
not have anything in this bill that makes millionaires and
billionaires, who can afford to pay a little bit more, pay a little bit
more? Why don't we close tax loopholes so that Big Oil and gas and
other corporations pay their fair share? Why don't we do any of that
whatsoever?
So this bill is unbalanced to begin with. Now we are talking about
some supercommittee, even amounts of Democrats and Republicans, even
amounts from the Senate and the House. To me, that's a recipe for
gridlock. And I guarantee you, my colleagues, we're going to be here at
that point after Thanksgiving when nothing is going to happen, and we
are going to wind up with entitlement cuts that are going to hurt my
seniors and your seniors with Medicare and graduate medical education
in New York, which is so important. Hurt that, hurt the providers.
Who are we kidding? We're going to cut from the providers, the
hospitals and think it's not going to impact on patient quality and
patient care? What about the doc fix, when our doctors say, We're not
taking Medicare patients anymore?
This bill, to me, is a pig in a poke, and I'm not willing to buy a
pig in a poke.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I first yield myself 30 seconds.
I was engaging in a colloquy with my good friend from Rochester, the
distinguished ranking minority member, and I would be happy to yield to
her in just a moment, Mr. Speaker. But back to this issue of this joint
select committee that is going to be charged with coming up with $1.5
trillion in proposed cuts, and their recommendations will be sent to
both Houses of Congress for an up or down vote.
Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented, because unlike the commissions
that have been put together, the Bowles-Simpson Commission, unlike this
little caucus of Senators that my friend just mentioned, this Gang of
Six, there is no legislative authority or power.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
There is no legislative authority or power. This time this
demonstrates that Members of the House and Senate will, in fact, come
together and work in a bipartisan way to ensure that we bring about
meaningful spending cuts to the tune of $1.5 trillion. That's the
difference that exists with this proposal that is before us.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend
from Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question this isn't a perfect bill. There's
a lot of things that I would have liked and I know that other Members
on my side of the aisle would have liked. We would have liked deeper
spending cuts. We would have certainly liked some entitlement reform in
this. We would have preferred to mandate that this House and the other
body take up a balanced budget amendment and give the people in the
States an opportunity to render a decision on that. Those things aren't
in this bill.
I know there's things that some of my friends on the other side
wanted: higher taxes, no changes in entitlements. They didn't get
everything they wanted either.
But this bill does adhere to the principles our Speaker laid out at
the very beginning of the negotiations.
First, most importantly, and both sides agree on this, it avoids
default. It avoids the United States not paying its obligations for the
first time in 235 years. I am glad both sides cooperated and got that
done.
Secondly, it actually cuts spending and links those spending cuts to
the raising of the debt ceiling. There's more spending cuts than there
is increased borrowing going forward. That's a good thing.
Third, no new taxes, something that would be a killer on the new
economy.
And, finally, while we don't get a guarantee of a balanced budget
amendment, we do get a guaranteed vote.
This is exactly what the American people have asked us to do: come
together, compromise, work together on their behalf, and let them get
about their business without creating additional problems for them.
With this bill, we put the American people first. We're going to
continue to work on their problems. So I urge that we pass the rule and
the underlying legislation.
I thank my friend for giving me the time to speak.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is a challenging day.
It's a difficult day, but it's a day that we're making a decision, a
big decision, an important decision that the United States of America
will not default on its obligations. This sends stability to the
financial markets all around the world, and it really embellishes our
stature as the gold standard. And that is very important.
It also gives us until 2013 for us to be able to revisit this again,
as the President of the United States asked. And I think another
important thing that it does is it helps us to hurry up and get this
all-consuming issue of the debt and the deficit and the raising of the
debt ceiling off the front burner so we can immediately put jobs back
on the front burner.
So, ladies and gentlemen, we must focus our attention now on jobs.
That's what the American people want us to do. On this Friday, we're
going to have a jobs report. And I want us to carefully look at that
jobs report, and especially look at that side of the jobs report that
shows the number of jobs we're losing in the public sector.
{time} 1540
So as we are here engaging, and some of my friends are celebrating,
the whole issue of us cutting $2.5 trillion out of our budget over the
10-year period, it is important to know that there is a cost for this,
my friends, and that cost is a loss of public jobs.
So as we set this new commission up, this new committee, we have got
to make sure that as these cuts go forward that we understand the
sensitivity of trying to make these cuts away from putting more of our
people on the jobless rolls. Right now, the greatest contribution that
the Federal Government is making to jobs is putting more people out of
jobs.
So I ask that we take time now, now that we are going to put this
issue behind us, to focus like a laser beam on jobs.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of our
diligent new members of the freshman class, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Dold).
Mr. DOLD. I want to thank the distinguished chairman from San Dimas,
California.
Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, our getting our fiscal house in order
is one of the most important things that we can do in this body to
jump-start our economy.
Just recently our economy has seen weak economic growth, especially
over the last two quarters. Just today we find out that manufacturing
is at its lowest level in the last 2 years. In my district, the 10th
District of Illinois, we have one of the largest manufacturing
districts in the country, and there is no doubt that families--not only
in the 10th District, but across the land--are struggling.
Today I am optimistic that Washington is finally coming together in a
bipartisan way to find some common ground on this debt ceiling debate.
We must, we must move forward. Hardworking taxpayers have had enough,
and I get it. We have spending discipline here in Washington, no more
budget gimmicks, no more accounting tricks, no more empty promises.
American families have had to tighten their belts all across the land.
American businesses had to do the same. They should expect the Federal
Government should follow suit. Now is the time to move forward and
focus on jobs.
If we were serious about paying down our debt and increasing revenue,
then we must empower job creators. Small businesses in our Nation are
overburdened by economic uncertainty, government regulations, and
redtape. We need to implement commonsense solutions and create jobs to
get our economy moving again.
[[Page H5836]]
As a small business owner, Mr. Speaker, I employ just under 100
families, and for me that's an enormous responsibility. We have to move
forward. We have to empower job creators. We have to talk about getting
9.2 percent unemployment down so that we can get our economy going and
bring additional revenues into the Federal coffers by putting more
people back to work.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Budget and Ways and Means
Committees.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.
Well, we are facing an artificial Republican debt crisis that was a
crisis of choice, of their choice. Remember, we have repeatedly
increased the debt ceiling for Republican and Democratic
administrations and congresses year in and year out.
This proposal moving forward is very troubling on several levels.
First, it empowers the most reckless and extreme elements, not just in
the House Republican Caucus today, but it is a blueprint for mischief
for either party in the future.
Next we are starting down a path of more budget cuts at a time when
all the experts assure us this will weaken the economy, when, instead,
we should be strengthening, dealing with economic growth, not reducing
demand. It's all the more frustrating because there is a path going
forward that is clear.
The public strongly supports a balanced approach, which should
include tax reform that would raise money while make the Tax Code more
fair and simple. Do we need a commission to implement suggestions, to
right-size the military, both its mission and its budget? Absolutely
not.
There are lots of ideas and support on both sides of the aisle that
could be enacted to achieve this goal. But the magnitude of the trigger
actually invites mischief. Again, when we have seen the Republican
``take no prisoners'' attitude, what leads anybody to believe they
won't do it in this case?
Most important, we should be revitalizing the economy by rebuilding
and renewing America, financed by modest increases in user fees. This
has support all across the business community, labor, environment,
local government, even some of my Republican friends, but they take
this off the table.
And, last but not least, one of the most simple things we could do
would be to implement agricultural reform to save money and help people
who farm and people who eat, rather than lavish subsidies for large
agribusiness. These are things that we should be doing. These are
things that actually could have bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, this agreement, if it goes forward, will delay that
important work of reform and fiscal responsibility while it weakens
both the economy and the decisionmaking process for years to come.
Government on autopilot in a slow, downward spiral is not a victory in
anybody's book.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I would say to my very good friend that I agree with some of the
remarks that he made on doing things like eliminating agricultural
subsidies. I would say to my friend from Oregon, who is still in the
Chamber here and now walking off the floor, I would say to my friend
that I agree with his remarks about the need for us to focus on
agriculture subsidies and bringing about a reduction there.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
I would say that we are trying to work this out with a spirit of
bipartisanship. My friend began his statement by saying that this was a
crisis developed by Republican policies.
Since we are working in a bipartisan way, I think the notion that
recognizing that an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary
spending over the past 4 years clearly played a role in getting us
exactly where we are.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another one of our hardworking new Members
of Congress, the gentleman from Little Rock, Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, when I announced and wanted to run for Congress, my
focus primarily was on the debt, on the issue of the debt and the
impact that the debt was going to have on my daughter and my little
boy. My daughter, Mary Katherine, is sitting with me right here today
for this historic day. It's critically important to me. And a lot of
the folks back home that I hear from, when they contact me, they
contact me about the debt and about spending.
Now I came up here to do something about it, and I have been watching
this debate closely, and I have been a supporter of the Speaker both on
the plan last week, and I am a supporter of the agreement that is going
to come before us today. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it great?
Absolutely not. It is good? It's a good first step.
I would say this: If a President and a Senate that I agreed with put
this type of plan forward, I would reject it out of hand.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. If a deal, an agreement like this, came from
a President with which I generally agree, and a Senate with which I
generally agreed, I would reject it out of hand. But that's not what we
have. We have divided government. We have this Chamber controlled by a
different vision for America.
So I believe this is about as good as we are going to get, and I am
supporting it because it is consistent with my principles. There are no
tax increases. It controls spending now, controls spending in the
future, and allows us to vote on a balanced budget amendment.
These are all things that I can support. These are the principles
that we have been fighting for over the last few months. And I would
say this: If this were the only step ever in dealing with the debt, I
would vote ``no,'' but it's not.
{time} 1550
It's only the beginning. We didn't get in this mess with one bill or
one piece of legislation. It took a long time and a lot of votes, and
it's going to take a long time and a lot of battles to get out of it.
And this is a good first step.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
references to guests on the floor of the House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. At this point I'm very happy to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my good
friend from St. Joseph, Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. I appreciate the minute.
My constituents are saying get the job done. Vote for the rule and
vote for the bill. The President said about a year ago, I want to say
it was the State of the Union Address, the debt today is unsustainable.
He's right. And for the first time, we are coupling an increase in the
debt ceiling with real reductions in spending. No, this is not reducing
the rate of growth in spending. This is actually reducing spending. In
fact, at the end of the day, when we look at fiscal year 2012 versus
fiscal year 2011, we are going to be spending less money in 2012 than
we did in the 2011.
Nobody--nobody--is coming to our offices and saying cut our spending.
But, in fact, the American public is saying, Federal Government, cut
your spending. That's what this bill will do. It's going to reduce
spending. Yes, it's going to increase the ceiling on the debt, but it's
coupled with real reforms that I think the American public want, and
that's why it's going to have some bipartisan support when we deal with
this issue a little bit later on this afternoon.
So I commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle. Let's get the
job done. Let's get it over with so we can get to the business of
running the rest of the government and the country.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another one
of our thoughtful new Members, the gentleman from Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the opportunity
to address the Chamber this morning.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of this bill, a bill that will
address the
[[Page H5837]]
terrible uncertainty that has been taking place over the course of
these last few weeks--the seniors, the taxpayers, the small business
people who have been speaking to me as I have been making the phone
calls and talked with them about the concerns that they have in this
era of uncertainty.
I've heard commentary that this is identified as a crisis caused by
Republicans when, in fact, the crisis has been the business as usual
which has been taking place in Washington, D.C. This is finally a time
in which we looked at the issues that are before us and made the tough
decisions to address the long-term unsustainability of this debt; $14.2
trillion in debt is going to be facing the next generation. I note that
there are arguments that somehow it was policies of Big Oil and health
care, the things that have been Republican policies when, in fact, if
you look just at the beginnings of this administration, there was the
commitment to Medicare, there were the subsidies to Big Oil, we were in
with the subsidies, not just to Big Oil, but also involved in two wars
and the debt was $162 billion. Now it's 1.2 trillion.
We must take these kinds of steps and work together. This is a
solution that will allow a genuine bipartisan opportunity to address
this for the future generations, create predictability, and allow us to
get back to creating jobs. I urge Members from both sides of the aisle
to support this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Small Business
Committee, Ms. Velazquez.
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the
gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the era of debts and deficits must come
to an end. However, in addressing this problem, we must look at what
got us here. It wasn't overspending on low-income housing, job training
or education--which all stand at historically low levels. It was two
unfunded wars and the Bush tax cuts which keep on giving to America's
wealthiest.
Unfortunately, the legislation before us today keeps every tax break
for the wealthy and means billions more in resources will be used to
fund these two wars.
We keep hearing how critical this bill is to getting our economy back
on track. It is hard to imagine how this legislation will do so. I
cannot support any proposal with such big cuts in education, economic
development and job training that will hamper our recovery. In the
weeks leading up to today there was a lot of rhetoric for shared
sacrifice. Unfortunately, what we are considering today places the
burden of the fiscal mess squarely on our Nation's working families,
and that is something I cannot support.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on
this ill-conceived legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say that your superb presiding over
this House is only exceeded by the gentlewoman from Hinsdale, Illinois
(Mrs. Biggert), and I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it's been a long road and one with more uncertainty than
the American people should have to put up with. Fortunately, the ugly
part of the process is behind us, and it's time to come together behind
a realistic deal that will restore strength to the economy and deliver
peace of mind to the American public.
I believe that this is that deal. It's not perfect, but with a
majority in just one Chamber, House Republicans negotiated a compromise
that will be part of the debt solution, not part of the debt problem.
It will stop a job-killing default, but cut spending even more. And it
will hold Congress and the President accountable with automatic
spending cuts and a guaranteed vote on the balanced budget amendment.
Most importantly, it doesn't raise taxes--something that would damage
our recovery.
We have changed the conversation. The President is no longer asking
for a blank check; he is negotiating with us to cut spending. This is
how we'll end this spiral of debt that is draining our economy of
capital, competence and jobs.
I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have contributed
to this discussion, and I urge them to support this bipartisan deal.
Let's get the job done.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very happy to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to my good friend from Clinton Township, New Jersey (Mr.
Lance).
Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Chairman Dreier, for your leadership on this
extremely important issue.
I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in support the underlying
legislation which is, by its nature, bipartisan, bicameral and a
compromise that avoids default, adds certainty to our economic
recovery, and puts our Nation on a sustainable path towards fiscal
responsibility. What we need in America is jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, and
this will help that effort forward.
This support is consistent with my longstanding efforts to bring
fiscal sanity to New Jersey and to be among those attempting to bring
it here to Washington. The main portions of the compromise have been
outlined, but for the first time the narrative on Capitol Hill is no
longer how much can government spend, but how we can best reduce
spending. This new awakening to fiscal prudence is in the best
interests of the Nation and, indeed, I believe is the critical issue of
our generation.
I commend Speaker Boehner for his superb leadership on this issue,
and I shall vote for the rule and the underlying legislation in the
belief that it will help move our Nation forward.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 9 minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we should never have found ourselves
where we are today, facing a self-inflicted crisis and being asked to
vote for a bill that has so many flaws. The prolonged debate that led
us here has caused the world to question our Nation's credibility and
already inflicted harm on the U.S. economy.
{time} 1600
The irony of our situation is the other side claims to be bringing
certainty to the market, but the reality is they have undermined faith
in the United States Government's ability to lead the global economy.
Throughout this debate, Congress has gotten lost in the crisis created
instead of the true crisis of unemployment that faces our constituents.
Nobody, even Members of Congress, especially Members of Congress,
should have the ability to bring the faith in the American Government
to its knees.
It's high time we address the crisis of jobs in our country and
resolve the self-inflicted crisis we are facing today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, 224 years ago this summer, the framers of our
Constitution were in Philadelphia at Constitution Hall, and they were
working very hard to put together what ended up being this inspired
document authored by James Madison.
On July 16, 1787, they actually completed a compromise. It was known
as the Connecticut Compromise. The Connecticut Compromise is what
established a bicameral legislature--two Houses of Congress. That
Connecticut Compromise was also called the Great Compromise.
I know that the word ``compromise'' is seen as a pejorative in the
eyes of many, but what we have before us is a compromise. It hasn't
been easy getting here. When James Madison was asked often about the
first branch of government, putting together the process of lawmaking,
he said that the process of lawmaking is an ugly, messy, difficult
process. Over the last several months, we've seen, as we have been
pursuing this day, we've seen an ugly, messy, difficult process.
I am reminded that a couple of summers ago, I was talking with this
amazing woman, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. She is the first woman to ever be
President of any country on the continent of Africa. She is the
President of Liberia. And we were talking about the development of the
parliament in Liberia through this great commission called the House
Democracy Partnership that
[[Page H5838]]
Mr. Price and I are privileged to lead. When we talked about the ugly,
messy, difficult process of lawmaking, the President looked to me and
she said: Ah, David, you've forgotten one thing. Yes, it is an ugly,
messy, difficult process, but it works.
So while we have so much time and energy and effort expended on
partisan bickering, at the end of the day, this for me is a much, much
more enjoyable time, when we are able to come together, tackling the
serious problems that we as a Nation face and for the first time ever
taking this issue of increasing the debt ceiling and actually dealing
with the root cause of it.
I like to say that we don't have a debt ceiling problem; we have a
debt problem. We have a $14.3 trillion national debt. We all know that,
fingers pointed from both sides of the aisle at the other on a regular
basis.
Yet today, today is a time for us to recognize that we have come
together to deal with it. And, for the first time in that 75 times
since 1962 that the debt ceiling has increased, we're actually going
to, with the establishment of this joint select committee, see our
colleagues, in a bipartisan way, from the House and Senate come
together and recommend $1.5 trillion in proposed cuts. And there are
mechanisms put into place, sequestration, which will actually force
across-the-board cuts if they don't come up with recommendations.
So we are looking at a very, very good proposal that will help us do
that. We are increasing the debt ceiling to pay our past obligations. I
don't like the fact that we went through an 82 percent increase in non-
defense discretionary spending over the past 4 years. Even though I
voted against almost all of it, I have to say, those bills have to be
paid. And that's why it is we're increasing our debt ceiling.
I want to join in extending congratulations to all those who have
been involved in this process in a bipartisan way.
So I will say again, it has, over the past several months, been an
ugly, messy, difficult process. But with the vote that we are about to
have on this rule--and I look forward to working on the underlying
legislation itself, and I'm convinced we will have a strong bipartisan
vote for it--we will prove, as President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf reminded
me, even though it is an ugly, messy, difficult process, it works.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. 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-vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by
a 15-minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 384, if ordered; and a
5-minute vote on approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 184, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 686]
YEAS--242
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
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
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
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)
Quayle
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--184
Ackerman
Altmire
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
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
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
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)
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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--6
Andrews
Baca
Cantor
Giffords
Green, Gene
Hinchey
{time} 1632
Ms. EDWARDS and Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. FORTENBERRY and KINGSTON changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 249,
nays 178, not voting 5, as follows:
[[Page H5839]]
[Roll No. 687]
YEAS--249
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
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
Connolly (VA)
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
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
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
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
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--178
Ackerman
Altmire
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
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
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
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)
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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--5
Baca
Boren
Giffords
Green, Gene
Hinchey
{time} 1648
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.
____________________