Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 176 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 176 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7737-H7745]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 466 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 466

Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the
legislative day of November 18, 2011, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though
under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 2) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. Debate on such a motion
shall be extended to five hours.
Sec. 2. The Chair may postpone further consideration of a
motion considered pursuant to this resolution to such time as
may be designated by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. 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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, House
Resolution 466. The rule provides for consideration of what may be the
very single most significant piece of legislation that I've had the
opportunity to vote on since coming to this body over 10 months ago.
This rule is what allows the House of Representatives to move forward
and vote on H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget amendment to the United
States Constitution.
My resolution that we're considering here today suspends the rules
and allows the House to vote on H.J. Res. 2. I'm sure that some of my
colleagues may be concerned we're moving to consider the balanced
budget amendment under suspension of the rules for fear it would
somehow limit debate.
I agree with them. Amending the United States Constitution is not to
be taken lightly. This is why the rule provides for 5 hours of debate
on this vital issue, because, you see, Mr. Speaker, what we're doing
here today is something that should be discussed, something that must
be discussed.
We're fundamentally challenging the way Washington works. And you
know what? It's about time. It's about time we had real conversation
about how our Nation spends its money. It's about time that we made the
Federal Government budget the way I did when I was a sheriff of a
county in Florida.
It's about time that we balance the Federal checkbook the way
American families do every day. It's about time. That's what I think
and, more importantly, that's what the majority of the American people
think.
The mere fact that we're here today is a failure of leadership. For
decades, Washington politicians have kicked the can down the road,
choosing deficit spending over fiscal responsibility, choosing
frivolous pork projects, wasteful programs, and easy answers over
making tough decisions and cutting back. Republicans did it when they
were in power, and Democrats did it when they were in power too. Nobody
is blameless in getting us to where we are today.
But the days of finger-pointing are over. We don't have the luxury of
time to look back and play the blame game. We need to move forward and
find a solution to get us out of the hole that we're already in. A
balanced budget amendment is a vital part of doing just that.
Yesterday, the United States surpassed $15 trillion in debt. Let me
say that again: we're now $15 trillion in debt. While recognizing this
sad landmark, I can't help but think about the fact that this didn't
have to be the way it is.
In 1997, the House of Representatives passed a balanced budget
amendment. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass this amendment by
one vote. One vote, Mr. Speaker, one vote that would separate us from a
road towards fiscal responsibility to where we are today. So here we go
again, 14 years later, having the same debate.
I can't stand here today without thinking about my three sons. With a
debt of $15 trillion, each of my boys owes over $48,000 in national
debt. It means the children and grandchildren of each and every person
in this room owes $48,000 to the Federal Government, $48,000 that they
didn't spend, that they didn't ask for, and that they now are saddled
with by a government of excesses.
Only one Senator stood between where we are now and $15 trillion in
debt and where we could have been. So today I stand up in support of
this rule and support H.J. Res. 2. I stand up for my kids, my future
grandkids, and for all Americans who are saddled with that $48,000 in
debt from the day that they're born.

{time} 1310

I stand up for giving Congress a second chance, a chance to get it
right this time. Unfortunately, I understand the Democratic leadership
is whipping against this.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know how else to say this. This simply baffles
me. Thanks to the whipping efforts of the Democratic leadership, there
are Members in the House who voted for the balanced budget amendment in
1997 who now say they're going to oppose it. In fact, two members of
the Democrats' three-person leadership team voted for the 1997
amendment.
I've only been here in D.C., like I said, for a little over 10
months, but of all of the inexplicable things I've seen since coming to
Congress, this just stumps me more than just about anything else I've
seen here. What could these Members have been seeing between 1997 and
today that makes them say, Yeah, you know what? Spending is right on
target. Let's just stick with the status quo. It's dumbfounding.
It's often said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing
over and over and over again and expect a different outcome. I don't
understand how anybody can argue that we can continue to spend the way
we do and expect to free ourselves from this monstrous, burdensome
debt. We need to break the cycle. We've got to hold Congress' feet to
the fire now and into the future. A balanced budget amendment

[[Page H7738]]

is the change away from the status quo and back to sanity.
I don't think I can say it better than Congressman DeFazio said in
his letter to his Democratic colleagues when he wrote that Democrats
who walk away from sincere bipartisan effort will have let the American
electorate down. If any of us walk away from this effort, we will have
let all Americans down.
We've been working without a budget, this greatest Nation, for over
900 days now. Continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases are not
the answer. Supercommittees and sequestration is not the answer.
Enough's enough.
Today we have a clear choice: whether you want to change the status
quo or you don't; either you believe that the government must operate
responsibly on a balanced budget or you don't; either you want to
rescue our Nation, ourselves, our children, and our children's children
from crippling debt or you don't.
I would like to close with the words of Ronald Reagan, who once said
this: ``The congressional budget process is neither reliable nor
credible. In short, it needs to be fixed. We desperately need the power
of a constitutional amendment to help us balance our budget.''
Now, that is presidential leadership.
With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule,
``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding
the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What we have before us today should not be called the balanced budget
amendment. What it should be called is the unbalanced budget amendment
because that is what this bill is--unbalanced. It upends prudent fiscal
policies, makes a mockery of congressional authority, and does nothing
to address the economic struggles of millions of Americans.
This proposed amendment no more balances the budget than passing
legislation to declare the tooth fairy as real. Saying it out loud
doesn't make it true. What this proposal says, instead, is that
Congress needs to enact legislation that balances the budget. It
doesn't tell us how to do it, just what we must do.
Well, if we could do that, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't need a
constitutional amendment telling us to do it, would we? If Congress
could enact legislation that balanced the budget, it could do that
without a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Merely
imposing a mandate within the Constitution does not mean that Congress
will be able to fulfill it.
With this kind of circular reasoning, we could go back and forth
until the next election and never have to spend one more minute on
creating jobs to improve the economy. But that is exactly what my
colleagues on the other side want.
They've been in the majority for nearly a year now in the House of
Representatives and have failed to put forth any kind of plan to create
jobs and improve the well-being of millions of Americans, unless you
count reaffirming ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto, weakening
the Environmental Protection Agency, or watering down gun safety laws.
I was here in 1995 when this body passed a balanced budget amendment.
And let us not forget that under President Clinton and, yes, Speaker
Newt Gingrich, we did manage to balance the Federal budget and leave a
hefty surplus for President Bush. But then President Bush and the
Republican Party squandered that surplus on two wars. And people should
never forget that. They squandered it on tax cuts for the richest
Americans, and they squandered it on unpaid-for prescription drug
benefits, leaving a big old doughnut hole that we've been talking about
ever since.
Now the Republicans in this body are so extremist that they refuse to
consider any tax increases of any kind on even the best off of us in
America. Instead, they're leaving it up to the struggling middle class
and poor people to bear the burdens of the Republican Party's free-
spending ways over the last decade. And I wish I had the time to really
lay all of that out.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party's intransigence makes this
amendment's voting requirements particularly unbalanced. This proposal
requires a two-thirds vote, 290 votes here in the House, to pass an
increase in the debt ceiling. Do you know what the definition of
insanity is, as said by my friend? Repeating the same thing over and
over again. And real crazy insanity is just doing it over and over and
over and over again and expecting the same result. Or as Ronald Reagan
put it, ``There you go again.''
The Republican majority wants to enshrine in the Constitution a
permanent hostage crisis for our economy. This supermajority
requirement for basic economic management will ensure that we will, on
a regular basis, bring our economy to the brink of collapse. Just look
at the Republican's performance over the debt ceiling vote. I don't
have any confidence that they'll act rationally just because there's a
constitutional amendment telling them to do so. That is why this
proposal is unbalanced.
By mandating so many onerous, supermajority votes, this amendment
guarantees permanent gridlock in the budgeting process. And without the
inclusion of a general emergency waiver, this amendment imperils our
national security. Let me repeat that. Without the inclusion of a
general emergency waiver, this amendment imperils our national security
by creating a scenario in which Congress cannot agree whether or not to
vote on funding for national emergencies such as a military conflict.
Mr. Speaker, this unbalanced proposal does not even include a clear
enforcement mechanism. I asked about that at the Rules Committee, and I
got an answer that I still don't understand.
Making the balanced budget a constitutional requirement means that
budget disputes would be solved by America's court system. This body
has already failed to pass a balanced budget when the power of the
purse is already our constitutional obligation. How can we be expected
to pass one when each and every provision is also subject to years of
litigation?
The Republican majority wants to hand off our constitutional
obligations to the Federal courts that will have the power to raise
revenue. No less an authority than Judge Robert Bork made a statement
regarding that.

{time} 1320

He opposed a balanced budget constitutional amendment, declaring
``the result would likely be hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits
around the country, many of them on inconsistent theories and providing
inconsistent results.''
Celebrated late-Professor Archibald Cox of Harvard Law School
predicted ``there is a substantial chance, even a strong probability,
that Federal courts all over the country would be drawn into its
interpretation and enforcement.''
Since my friend used President Reagan, the former Solicitor General
to President Reagan, Professor Charles Fried, has testified ``the
amendment would surely precipitate us into subtle and intricate legal
questions, and the litigation that would ensue would be gruesome,
intrusive, and not at all edifying.''
The former Attorney General to President George H. W. Bush, William
Barr, opined that judicial power could be invoked ``to address serious
and clear-cut violations.''
The Republican majority wants to hand off our constitutional
obligations to these courts that will then have the power to raise
revenue, impose taxes, cut spending, and reform major government
programs.
I guess, if that's the case, we can all just go home now, Mr.
Speaker.
This body has previously considered balanced budget amendments on
numerous occasions, initiated by both Democrats and Republicans. The
majority party has always ensured sufficient floor time for debate and
to allow the minority to offer alternatives; but here we are in a
situation where the proposal before us was never marked up in
committee, never had a hearing, and, in fact, was drafted late this
past Thursday night by some mysterious tweaking of H.J. Res. 1 that
became H.J. Res. 2. This version was changed in secret and was filed
with last-minute surprises that fundamentally changed the nature of the
legislation and will come under a procedure that doesn't even allow a
motion to recommit.

[[Page H7739]]

This is no way to amend the Constitution.
By all means, Mr. Speaker, if we want to balance the budget, let's
not do it on the backs of the hardest hit in America. I don't need a
constitutional amendment to tell me that balancing the budget without
raising taxes on those of us who are best off in this country is
unbalanced.
Where Americans need the Federal Government to support the economy,
Republicans are trying to strangle it. Where Americans need us to put
politics aside, Republicans are bringing forward legislation written in
secret. Where Americans need this Congress to focus on economic issues,
Republicans are insisting that we vote on God and gays and guns. We
don't need to be voting on God and gays and guns. What we need are some
guts to tell the American people that, yes, we can do this and that we
can't wait any longer for those who are waiting for us to create jobs.
Now the Republican majority wants to pass a constitutional amendment
to tell us that we have to balance the budget every year in a way that
no individual, State or local government or business does: no
borrowing, no trust funds, no way to plan for long-term projects like
highway construction, national defense, and public schools.
This amendment guarantees budgetary gridlock forever and moves budget
decisions to the Federal courts, not to Congress. This proposed
amendment locks into the Constitution the most far right of the
Republican Party's policies, forcing future generations to reap the
pain imposed by the callous disregard for the least among us--the ones
who need the most help.
Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, there were 273 national organizations
that oppose H.J. Res. 2, the balanced budget amendment. It's too
lengthy to place into the Record or to put forward, but some of them
are among the most celebrated organizations in our country.
I also would recommend to the membership an article written by the
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a nonpartisan group
that discusses how unnecessary this particular provision is, and it
ends with the following paragraph:
The threat a balanced budget amendment would pose to our
constitutional order is unavoidable. Congress, of course, remains free
to enact a balanced budget if it believes this is sound economic
policy. It also remains fully equipped to institute effective controls
to ensure restraint and balance in the budgeting process. Therefore,
there is no sufficient reason to incur the dramatic risks that the
balanced budget amendment would entail for our Constitution and our
Nation.
This is not a balanced budget amendment, Mr. Speaker--but it is an
unbalanced one.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California, the chairman of the august Rules Committee,
Mr. Dreier.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my
appreciation to both of my friends from Florida who serve on the Rules
Committee.
This is a very, very important debate. It's a debate that we haven't
had since January of 1995, which is the last time that the House of
Representatives had a vote on the issue of a balanced budget amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
Back in 1995, when we had just won our majority, Mr. Speaker, I was
one of the enthusiastic supporters, one of the two-thirds of the House
of Representatives who voted in favor of the constitutional amendment
requiring a balanced budget. I felt very strongly at the time that as
we looked at the fiscal challenges that we as a Nation faced that the
only thing that we could do to achieve a balanced budget would be to
have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would call for that.
Mr. Speaker, I have changed my mind. I have changed my mind, and I
will be voting against the constitutional amendment calling for a
balanced budget.
Now, this is not something that I have done lightly. My friend from
Spring Hill was absolutely right when he said that looking at the tough
challenge of amending the Constitution is something that needs to be
addressed; but I will say that I agree with a number of the arguments
that were put forward by my friend from Fort Lauderdale and with a lot
of the arguments put forward by my friend from Spring Hill. At the end
of the day, I concluded that we should not amend the U.S. Constitution
in calling for a balanced budget.
I said I've changed my mind, and I am reminded of a statement that
was made by our former colleague, the mentor of our friend Jeb
Hensarling, who is working tirelessly to ensure that we get our fiscal
house in order with the work of the Joint Select Committee. His mentor
was Phil Gramm--a Democrat, then a Republican--who served in the House
and the Senate. Phil Gramm once said that ours is one job where you can
never admit to having learned anything.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that I've learned something, and I'd like to
take just a few minutes to explain why it is that I've come to the
conclusion that I have.
I said at the outset that I believed when I cast that vote in January
of 1995 in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution
that it was the only way that we would be able to achieve a balanced
budget. I was wrong. Two short years later, we balanced the Federal
budget. We balanced the Federal budget, and that went on for several
years. It went on until 2001.
My friend was talking about the fact that we had two wars. We've got
to remember that it took literally billions and billions of dollars to
deal with national security issues, like establishing the Department of
Homeland Security and many other things that were very, very costly;
but what I found, Mr. Speaker, is that we were able to balance the
Federal budget without touching that inspired document, the U.S.
Constitution.
Now, James Madison in Federalist No. 58, I believe, gave the real
description of the power that lies here in the House of
Representatives. He said that the power over the purse is the most
complete and effectual weapon that can empower any group of elected
representatives of the people.
We in this institution, Mr. Speaker, have the power of the purse. We
have the power of the purse, and we proved in the late 1990s that we
have the will to balance the Federal budget without touching that
inspired document, the U.S. Constitution. Those were the words of James
Madison in Federalist No. 58, that the power over the purse is the most
complete and effectual weapon that elected representatives have.

{time} 1330

Now some people point to Thomas Jefferson who famously, in a letter
to John Taylor written November 26, 1798, talked about how it was
essential for us to have a single amendment to the Constitution that
would call for a balanced budget. Well, I've got to say, Mr. Speaker,
it appears that Thomas Jefferson obviously learned something as well,
because 5 short years later, in the third year of the first term of his
Presidency, he embarked on the largest deficit expenditure to take
place since the Revolutionary War. It was not a war expenditure. It was
not any kind of emergency expenditure. It was the 1803 Louisiana
Purchase. And that was a decision that Thomas Jefferson made that most
of us inferred led to a change in his position from the November 1798
letter that he wrote to John Taylor.
As we look at some of the other arguments--my friend from Fort
Lauderdale went through the Fried, Barr, Archibald, Bork arguments on
the court. I think it's important for us to look at not just that part
of it, but we also need to look at the enumerated powers provision in
the U.S. Constitution. I believe that not only could we create, as
these brilliant jurists said, a real problem within the court
structure, but what we create is a transfer of power from the first
branch to the third branch of government, something that is completely
contrary to Article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, where the
power lies right here in the United States House of Representatives.
Why? Because most have said that if we were to get into these
protracted legal battles, this could end up in the court, and we could
have, several years from now, a court deliberating over a budget that
had passed, again, literally years before.

[[Page H7740]]

So, as we look at these arguments, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that
I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to our commitment to get
our fiscal house in order. I do happen to believe that our former
colleague Jack Kemp was right when he said we shouldn't have to worship
at the altar of a balanced budget; but we all know that with this $15
trillion figure that my friend from Spring Hill pointed to, we need to
do everything we can to reduce that debt and our annual deficit. But
it's important for us to focus on economic growth. And that's why I
congratulate those on the Joint Select Committee who are working on
that, and I believe that that's something that we need to do.
But having a balanced budget does not guarantee job creation and
economic growth. Yes, of course having a degree of fiscal solvency goes
a long way towards generating a climate that can make that happen; but
we need to have pro-growth economic policies, and fiscal restraint is
only one of those tools. That's why I believe that, as we look at the
challenges that lie ahead, I don't want to say to the American people
that I'm going to protect you from your future leaders that you are
going to elect.
The American people deserve the Congress that they elect. I
personally think they deserve better than some of what we have had here
over the past several years. Right now we all know we've got a 9
percent approval rating. But the American people cannot have
Representatives who say, We are going to say to you that you can't have
the leaders that you elect do what you think is right. Maybe there is
another Louisiana Purchase out there, and that decision is something
that should be made by leaders.
I believe in very carefully amending the Constitution. And I will say
that I have always been troubled by some who argue that the level of
your commitment to a public policy issue is based only on your
willingness to amend the Constitution to implement it. Well, I think
that's silly. I think that's ridiculous. I think that someone can be
passionately committed to an issue like saying we shouldn't burn the
American flag and yet be willing to say it shouldn't be enshrined in
the U.S. Constitution. I feel the same way about the issue of a
balanced budget.
I'm proud to have voted to bring about these kinds of spending cuts.
I'm proud to have done everything possible to try to reduce the size
and scope and reach of the Federal Government. I do think that a lot of
work has to be done. And my friend from Spring Hill, again, correctly
pointed to the fact that both sides have responsibility for increases
in spending. But I think we can come together. I think we can have the
will to do this.
Even if we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we
all know very well we're not going to balance the budget overnight with
a $15 trillion debt and now multitrillion-dollar deficits. We're not
going to do it overnight. But we have to get ourselves on that road,
and I'm convinced that we can. And I don't think that amending the
Constitution is going to do anything to help us get there.
So I do support the rule, and I think the rule--by the way, I should
say to my friend--is one that was used when the Equal Rights Amendment
passed the House of Representatives. The argument was made that somehow
having this done under suspension of the rules is not fair. There's
going to be 5 hours of debate. There's going to be an opportunity to do
this.
I've had the opportunity to say my peace. I know that I'm in the
minority in my party. I know that there's not a lot of enthusiastic
support on my side. I know that there are many Democrats who are going
to be supporting the amendment to this. So we are going to have a
chance to discuss these as we move through today and tomorrow.
I do support the rule and the work of the Rules Committee. We've
worked long and hard on this. But at the end of the day, I have come to
the conclusion that I have.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I wish to compliment the chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
I don't want to get into any more trouble than I already have. So if
the gentleman could withdraw his compliment, I would be very
appreciative of that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am delighted to withdraw the compliment.
What I wanted you to be able to do, since you had become so
enlightened about the balanced budget amendment, was to be equally
enlightened with reference to the rules and allow us a motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House
adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for
Fair Trade Act, which will help create jobs in the United States by
making American-manufactured products more attractive to Chinese
consumers.
At this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from
the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today we have another triumph for the
Republican public relations office. Their job is to hide the fact that
the select committee of 12 isn't going to get anything done and their
members are going home for Thanksgiving. But what will they talk about?
A failure? No. They want to give them something. So this balanced
budget amendment--that's why we're out here debating a rule on a job-
destroying, poorly thought-out amendment to the Constitution. This
House is considering an amendment to the Constitution that did not go
through the regular order, is not even the product of any committee
debate. It has not been an open and thoughtful process.
Mr. Speaker, the job of this Congress at this time should be creating
jobs. For 11 months, the Republicans have talked about it but have done
nothing. Now, instead of wasting the people's time with this doomed and
irresponsible constitutional amendment, we should deal with this
country's serious economic concerns, one of which is the Chinese
currency manipulation and how it hurts American businesses and our
workers. It's time for this House to vote on the Currency Reform for
Fair Trade Act.
The Speaker needs to stop standing in the way of this important
legislation. We've been discussing this issue with the Government of
China for more than 8 years. American manufacturers should not be
forced to compete against a 28 percent discount on imports from China,
all because of China's predatory currency practices. This legislation
will help to provide meaningful relief to U.S. companies and our
workers who are injured by the currency manipulation of China.
This is a bipartisan measure. The China currency bill passed the
House last year with a strong majority of Republicans. The majority of
the House has cosponsored this bill, including 62 Republicans, and we
can't get it up.

{time} 1340

The Senate has already passed a similar bill with a strong bipartisan
vote. The Speaker is the one who has his foot on it because he's got
his foot on the Rules Committee, and they won't bring it out.
American workers expect every one of us on both sides of this aisle
to fight against China's predatory trade policies and to fight for
American workers. We should be fighting for the American economy rather
than pandering to the Republican base with this terrible attempt to use
the Constitution as a partisan playground and a way to hide from the
American people that we're not doing what they sent us here to do,
which was to create jobs.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Scott), a Rules Committee member.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Let me first thank Sheriff Nugent from
Florida. Sheriff, you're doing a fantastic job with this rule, and I
thank you for leading this important debate.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a simple question of my friends who
oppose the whole concept of a balanced budget amendment: What makes us,
the Federal Government, any different than the State and local
governments

[[Page H7741]]

who have to abide under a simple balanced budget concept? But more
importantly, what makes us any different than the 74 percent of
Americans in a CNN poll who simply say a balanced budget amendment is
in the best interests of the citizens of this country?
Simply put, Washington needs to stop this runaway train of spending.
So often, too often even, it seems that this town has lost sight of the
fact that taxpayer dollars don't just appear from some magical piggy
bank but rather are paid by hardworking American families. We have a
duty to spend these dollars wisely. And, unfortunately, in this town
that simply doesn't happen very often at all. The last 3 years, not the
last 30 years, not the last three decades, but the last 3 years we have
seen the largest increase in the debt of this Nation, in the history of
this Nation, and it is very clear that a constitutional amendment is
the strongest option we have today to ensure that this doesn't happen
again.
How can we expect to create a proper environment for job creation
when we can't even keep the Federal Government's checkbook in balance?
How does the current administration think we can continue to force
small businesses to completely revamp their budgets under an onslaught
of burdensome regulations while Washington does not have to do the same
thing?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. It simply doesn't make sense. We should
get this work done. We should get this fixed today. I will say as part
of the majority-making class of 2010, with 86 out of the 87 freshmen on
the Republican side supporting some form of the balanced budget
amendment, we should move forward now. The American people demand it,
and they should get it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my friend on the Rules
Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I'm sure
has views that are similar to mine. I yield to him 3\1/2\ minutes at
this time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle
claim to be about fiscal prudence; that they are here to get our fiscal
house in order; that a balanced budget amendment is the only way to do
so. Once again, Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle
are wrong. The right way to balance the Nation's budget is by making
good, solid, smart policy, something the Republicans have proven to be
incapable of over the past decade.
President Bush was handed a gift by President Bill Clinton. He was
given a budget surplus. And instead of crafting a smart, long-term
fiscal plan, he blew it in a couple of big spending sprees in the first
few months of his term, with a lot of help from congressional
Republicans. Let me be as clear as I can be. You don't squander a
surplus on tax cuts for the rich, and you don't put two wars on your
credit card. You certainly don't do those two things at the same time.
But that's exactly what the Republicans did, and they drove this
economy into a ditch with unpaid tax cuts and unpaid wars. And now they
want to amend the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. You've
got to be kidding.
What's worse, the Republican leadership has decided to break their
transparency pledge. Not only are they thumbing their nose at their own
rules, they are actually bringing a bill to the floor that has never
been read, amended, or voted on in a committee. That's right, Mr.
Speaker. Despite all of their rhetoric, this balanced budget amendment
was never marked up in committee. And, even worse, it was changed
without a vote before it came to the Rules Committee. Even though there
has been no official consideration of this specific bill by the
Judiciary Committee, something this new Republican Congress promised to
do, the sponsor of this bill had the audacity to say that this bill and
the changes made in the dark of night were supported by the committee.
And if this process weren't bad enough, these changes actually allow
war funds to be exempt from the balanced budget amendment. These wars
have gone on too long, and they should be paid for. They should have
been paid for from day one. That's a mistake we should learn from
instead of repeating. We have already spent $1.3 trillion on the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's $1.3 trillion that's unpaid for, $1.3
trillion on our grandchildren's credit cards.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose these wars. I want them to end now. But if you
support them, the least you can do is pay for them. And yet the
Republicans are repeating their same mistakes. And I shouldn't be
surprised. This is the party that decries government spending, but
turns to FEMA with outstretched hands in times of need. This is the
party that says the Recovery Act doesn't work, but shows up at ribbon
cuttings for projects paid for by the Recovery Act. And now this is the
party that says we should balance the budget, but we shouldn't pay for
the wars that increase our debt.
Mr. Speaker, the fiscal hypocrisy takes my breath away. This is a bad
bill being brought up under a bad process. Vote ``no'' on the rule and
vote ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Hastings has indicated that if we vote down the
previous question, we will bring up H.R. 639.
It's a fact that China's currency manipulation is hurting U.S.
businesses and workers. According to a recent study, imports from China
account for 25 to 50 percent of the manufacturing jobs we have lost
over the past decade. That's 1 million to 2 million jobs, and our trade
deficit with China continues to grow.
An important factor in this picture is currency manipulation.
American manufacturers are forced to compete against an estimated 25
percent discount on imports from China due to that manipulation. That's
on top of China's massive subsidies and other policies.
Dr. Fred Bergsten, who heads the Peterson Institute, says that
elimination of China's undervalued currency would create a million jobs
mainly in manufacturing, and that manipulation is by far the largest
protectionist measure adopted by any country since the Second World
War--and probably in all history.
Meanwhile, the Chinese government is pushing production of high-end
manufacturing products that compete head on with American products--
high-tech products, solar panels, wind turbines, automobiles, aircraft,
and others.
This is a bipartisan measure. A majority of the House, 230 Members,
have cosponsored the bill, including 62 Republicans. The time has come
for action. Eight years of talk have yielded meager results. American
workers and businesses cannot wait any longer, and the U.S. economy
cannot wait any longer. The time is now for action.
Defeat the previous question.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to
tell me how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) also
has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

{time} 1350

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank my able colleague from Florida, Congressman
Hastings, for yielding and rise in support of Congressman Critz's
effort here to focus attention on this whole issue of Chinese currency
manipulation. When Congress passed permanent most-favored-nation status
with China over my objection, we were told by supporters of the
agreement that trade with China would create jobs, more economic
opportunity and trade surpluses for our country. Well, if you look at
the numbers, you'll see since that was passed what's happened is we've
got more and more and more and more trade deficits every year, totaling
in 2010 over $273 billion. With Chinese

[[Page H7742]]

currency manipulation, that's almost an inflated number because it
would be cut in half, it would be cut substantially if goods were
marked to their true value, not their inflated value.
China has never opened up its market. That's why we get these huge
trade deficits. And they aggressively use government intervention
through currency manipulation to rig the markets. We know they're the
largest intellectual property thief, they counterfeit their goods, and
they use industrial policy to promote and protect Chinese industries at
the expense of American jobs and factories. Some call these tactics
market Leninism because we see state-managed capitalism in China
locking down on industry after industry.
Regions like the one I represent in northern Ohio have been
especially hard-hit as production shifted from the coasts of the Great
Lakes to the shores of China. We can see this draining of wealth from
the United States. Last year, our trade deficit again was over a half-
trillion dollars globally, and with China, they had over half of that
trade deficit.
If you look at the trade data, we're on track to send at least as
many jobs to China this year. You can see the jobs being shipped to
China in every community in this country. Even scrap metal is being
sent over there, for heaven's sake.
Economists tell us that every trillion dollars in trade deficit
translates into 14,000 lost American jobs. If we could get the currency
manipulation issue solved, we could bring some of those jobs back to
this country.
It's time for China to play on a level playing field.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that everybody that
may be watching this at home understands we are talking about a
balanced budget amendment.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would have my friend to know that we also
are talking about the previous question, for which at this time I am
pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).
Mr. CRITZ. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I had prepared remarks that I was going to talk about to
defeat this previous question so that we could bring the Chinese
currency manipulation bill to the floor. But we've been talking about
this on a weekly basis. We've been talking about this on the floor of
the House on a weekly basis. And I think back to 10 months ago when
Speaker Boehner made the statement that the House works best when it's
allowed to work its will.
This same bill passed the House last year overwhelmingly. A similar
bill passed the Senate earlier this year overwhelmingly. This bill has
broad bipartisan support. Sixty-two Republicans are cosponsors of this
bill. Four months ago, I brought a discharge petition, which is now
just 30 signatures shy of forcing this bill to the floor. It needs
Republican help. I'm imploring the Speaker to bring this bill to the
floor of the House.
This is so important. As Congressman Levin said earlier, we're
talking about jobs. I did a telephone town hall last evening. The topic
of discussion was jobs. Everyone wants to know when are we going to put
our heads together and work to get this country back to work? Milling
jobs. Manufacturing jobs. This is an issue that everyone knows about
and everyone can agree on. We just want to level the playing field.
This is giving this country the teeth it needs to go after countries
such as China that manipulate their currency and hurt American
manufacturing companies.
This is about locking arms with the American public and moving
forward. So I urge those Republicans, those 62 that are on H.R. 639,
anyone can see those names, anyone can call and say, you need to
support this bill. You need to support the discharge petition, get on
it, let's talk about this. You can't hide behind the Speaker any
longer. We're going to continue this fight day in and day out, week in
and week out. I urge defeat of the previous question so that we can
talk about jobs for the American people.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution has to do with a balanced
budget amendment, which most Americans might say ``yea'' to, but this
is a deja vu because we debated this so many years ago, and it was
found that a balanced budget amendment for the Federal Government will
not work with all of the restraints and necessities of serving the
American people.
But Mr. Critz's bill and the idea of correcting the currency
manipulation of China will work. It will create jobs. The World Trade
Organization cannot help. All the negotiations with China will not
help. I would love for them to stand up and be counted in the world
family so that we can continue to churn the economy, which all of us
would benefit from. But as the euro crumbles and possibly the dollar
will step in--I opposed the euro many years ago--we've got to get a
currency that responds to all of us. Decent pay for a decent day's
work--that does not happen when you have a manipulation of product cost
so that some products are so much cheaper than the ones made by
Americans.
We are not envious, and we are not jealous, but this resolution or
Mr. Critz's bipartisan effort can move forward if we vote ``no'' on the
previous question, and then we can begin to help create jobs. And we
might say to the supercommittee that we thank you for your service, but
we can go into 2012 deliberatively and thoughtfully looking at a plan
that raises revenue and cuts the areas that do not leave the vulnerable
along the highway of despair.
I support Mr. Critz's effort. I want to move beyond the
supercommittee and fund this government and create jobs in the way that
the people elected us to do.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from
Florida that I am going to be the last speaker, and if he is ready to
close, I will go forward doing same.
Mr. NUGENT. Yes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, this unbalanced amendment does not belong in our
Constitution. It enshrines far-right ideology and makes a mockery of
congressional authority to set forth the Nation's fiscal policy. This
hardly belongs in the same company as freedom of speech, the abolition
of slavery, and a woman's right to vote. This proposal does not balance
the budget; it only demands that Congress do so, and yet it does not
provide a mechanism to enforce that rule.
So in a situation of partisan gridlock, the Federal budget might very
well end up in the courts. This is no way to govern. If this Congress
could balance the budget, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment
to tell us to do so. But the fact remains that the Republican majority
has steadfastly failed to set forth legislation that will create jobs
and grow this economy.
Given their inflexibility, a balanced budget constitutional amendment
hardly seems like the magic wand Republicans claim it will be. This
Congress needs to be serious about the real causes of economic hardship
in this country. Focusing on God, gays, and guns and not having the
guts to tell people we're not doing anything to create jobs, that isn't
going to keep people in their homes, and it isn't going to help
Americans obtain quality health care and education.
These are the critical issues facing our Nation. Wasting our time--
and that's exactly what this is, it's going nowhere fast--wasting our
time with political gimmicks like an unbalanced constitutional
amendment is just that, wasting our time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment to the rule in the Record along with extraneous material
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.

[[Page H7743]]

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass real
jobs legislation today, not little old stuff that is appealing to the
right wing of the people who are pushing nothing more than symbolism
and talking about it being in our United States Constitution. I urge a
``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1400

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Florida
for a lively debate. The issue, though, that has sort of gotten muddled
is about a balanced budget amendment, not about anything else that
you've heard about on the floor. It is about a balanced budget
amendment.
But just to remind everybody, when we talk about jobs, we've passed
over 21 jobs bills that are currently sitting idle in the Senate. So I
don't know what else you can do, except it gets kind of frustrating
that we send great pieces of legislation over to the Senate and nothing
happens.
We've heard a lot of debate here about a balanced budget amendment,
pros and cons. You're going to hear 5 hours of debate in the very near
future about the pros and cons of a balanced budget amendment.
This Congress has done things that are amazing. We used emergency
funding to fund the census. Now, I know the census probably snuck up on
everybody around here, but I don't understand why you had to use
emergency funding to do that.
You know, we talk about the Clinton years. We talk about budget
surpluses and how quickly they disappeared. But remember one thing:
Part of the Clinton surpluses also hollowed out our force, which
required us to put our servicemen and -women at risk for way too long.
Some of them weren't allowed to retire through stop-loss, and others
had to serve 15 months in combat positions because we had hollowed out
our force.
Patrick Henry once said the Constitution is not an instrument for the
government to restrain the people; it's an instrument for the people to
restrain the government. Today we start building upon those restraints.
A balanced budget amendment is more of an instrument to check bloated
government, a government that wants to be everything to everyone.
Today we're borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend. We're
writing checks that we can't cash, hoping future generations will be
able to figure out how to get out of this mess on their own. This
spending is just unsustainable.
I wasn't happy with the Budget Control Act, but I voted for it simply
so we could vote today on a rule to allow us to vote on a balanced
budget later this week so we can fundamentally change where we're
going.
After 10 months in Congress, I'm convinced that there are not enough
people in Washington with the determination, the dedication, nor the
fortitude to make the tough decisions for the good of this country. The
Constitution has saved us in the past, and it can save us in the
future. A balanced budget amendment would give Americans a reason to
believe that more efficiently and effectively than any other proposal
I've heard of.
One of the things I hear consistently back home is that you all have
made decisions in Congress that have put us so far into debt. Our
unborn children are facing a debt of $48,000 for every child who's born
this year. How can we stand up and look at people and say this Congress
can fix it on its own? How can we look people in the eye and say, You
know what. Just give us another chance; we've done so well over the
last 30 years.
I don't believe that the American people believe that we can do that,
and I think that's why they're asking for fundamental changes. I think
it's why they're asking us to step forward and do the right thing, Mr.
Speaker, not kick the can down the road anymore.
I have the utmost respect for our chairman and for my good friend
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), but I adamantly disagree. I think that
we've had a change in government because there's a necessary need for a
change in government. I think that you can't continue to do the status
quo, because if we do, we're just going to wind up $15 trillion in debt
today, $20 trillion in debt 2 years from now. When does it end, Mr.
Speaker?
So I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this strongly bipartisan legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 466 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
639) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify
that countervailing duties may be imposed to address
subsidies relating to a fundamentally undervalued currency of
any foreign country. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this
resolution.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee

[[Page H7744]]

on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). 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. HASTINGS of Florida. 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-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on the adoption of House Resolution 466, if
ordered, and adoption of House Resolution 467.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 173, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 854]

YEAS--243

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
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
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
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)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
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
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--173

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
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
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
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
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
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
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--17

Bachmann
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Conyers
Courtney
Gardner
Garrett
Giffords
Hirono
Lucas
Manzullo
Napolitano
Paul
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Roskam
Shimkus

{time} 1430

Messrs. HEINRICH, ROTHMAN of New Jersey, CLARKE of Michigan, and Mrs.
MALONEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. HULTGREN, PETERSON, and Mrs. NOEM changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 854, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No.
854 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the
Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of motions to
suspend the rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248,
nays 169, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 855]

YEAS--248

[[Page H7745]]

Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
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
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--169

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
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

NOT VOTING--16

Bachmann
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Courtney
Gardner
Garrett
Giffords
Gohmert
Hirono
Lucas
Manzullo
Napolitano
Paul
Roskam
Shimkus
Yarmuth

{time} 1439

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 for:
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 855, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No.
855 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 466--Rule providing for
consideration of motions to suspend the Rules.

____________________