[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 17 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H387-H395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3578, BASELINE REFORM ACT OF 2012, 
AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3582, PRO-GROWTH BUDGETING ACT 
                                OF 2012

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 534 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 534

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3578) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. In 
     lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Budget now printed in the 
     bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
     of the text of the Rules Committee Print 112-9 dated January 
     25, 2012, 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, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget; (2) 
     the further amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by Representative Jackson Lee of Texas or her designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable 
     for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, 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. 3582) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of 
     legislation. 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 the 
     Budget. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on the Budget now printed in the bill, it shall be 
     in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules 
     Committee Print 112-10 dated January 25, 2012. That amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments 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. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to be down here with you today, 
and for the purpose of debate only I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

[[Page H388]]

                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, 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 Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 534, this rule before us 
today, brings the first of two Budget Committee reform bills to the 
floor. As the Speaker is very familiar, the Budget Committee has been 
working very hard, not just this year but last year as well, to put 
together an agenda to make the budget more accessible to the American 
people, to make budgeting in Washington, DC, look more like budgeting 
back home around the kitchen table. We have the first of those two 
reform bills coming to the floor today with the passage of this rule.
  This rule is a structured rule, Mr. Speaker, that brings H.R. 3578, 
the Baseline Reform Act, and H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, 
to the floor.
  We all know it's been over a thousand days since the Senate has 
produced a budget. But here in the House, not only did we produce a 
budget last year on time, we will produce a budget this year on time, 
and we will produce another budget, as we did last year, that the 
American people can be proud of. Knowing that it's a given the American 
people are going to be proud of that work product, Mr. Speaker, because 
you and I will ensure it, the question is, will folks be able to 
understand it. I confess, as a freshman member on the Budget Committee, 
Mr. Speaker, it's not always easy to do.
  The President is going to submit his budget to us in a couple of 
weeks. I think it was going to be next week. I think he's put it off 
for another week. I'm looking forward to seeing it when it finally 
arrives. But my recollection and expectation is going to be it's going 
to be more than 12 inches tall. Not because the President's doing 
anything wrong, but because that's the level of detail and 
sophistication it takes to produce a budget for the United States of 
America.
  So what can we do to make this budget easier to understand? What can 
we do to make this budget more like the budgeting that goes on around 
the kitchen table?
  The Baseline Reform Act, the first bill that this rule would bring to 
the floor, does this, Mr. Speaker. It eliminates the assumption that 
CBO makes today that every Congress is going to spend more next year 
than the previous Congress. Now, there are, as a function of law, Mr. 
Speaker, some areas of the budget that do in fact go up.
  We know, for example, that 10,000 new Americans every day apply for 
Social Security and Medicare. 10,000 new baby boomers every day apply 
for Social Security and Medicare. We calculate that in the law. It 
exists in statute today to say let's go ahead and raise that spending 
level based on those new folks accessing the system.
  But there's over a trillion dollars in spending, Mr. Speaker, for 
which there is no law that says it's going to go up next year and the 
year after that and the year after that. And yet, the Congressional 
Budget Office today, when they chart out the budget for the United 
States of America, assumes that that increase is going to take place.
  Well, I'm tremendously proud, Mr. Speaker, that at least in my short 
time here I've seen just the opposite. Every single bill that this body 
has brought to the floor and sent to the President has reduced 
spending. Spending was $1.91 trillion in 2010. We reduced it to $1.50 
trillion in 2011. We reduced it again to $1.43 trillion for 2012. 
That's the trend that my constituents want back home, Mr. Speaker, and 
I think the trend that America deserves.
  But more importantly, we've all been involved in those conversations 
back home where folks say, when is a cut not really a cut? When is an 
increase not really an increase? Only here in Washington, Mr. Speaker, 
can we spend $10 last year and $12 next year and call that a budget 
cut. Only here. The Baseline Reform Act eliminates that.
  The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, the second bill that this rule would 
bring to the floor, adds a new bit of information to the Congressional 
Budget Office baseline. It's the same information that President Obama 
asked for in his stimulus bill, to say, when we spend this $800 
billion, what impact is that going to have. We know it's going to be 
$800 billion out the door. We know we're never going to get that money 
back. We know that's going to be money that we have to borrow from 
foreign lands. But what do we get for that $800 billion?
  We asked the Congressional Budget Office to score it that way and 
they did.
  What the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act says is let's add that feature for 
every future bill on the tax side of the ledger.
  What happens, Mr. Speaker, when we cut taxes? We know that means less 
revenue comes in from that one tax, but what does it mean for the 
economy as a whole? We see it over and over again when we have taxes at 
their highest. Sometimes our tax receipts are at their lowest. When we 
have tax rates at their lowest, sometimes our tax receipts are at their 
highest. The Congressional Budget Office can give us that information, 
and this bill makes it possible for them to do that.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm tremendously proud and tremendously enthusiastic 
about not only the rule but the two underlying bills, and I look 
forward to that discussion not just on the rule with my friend, Mr. 
Hastings, but with the Budget Committee later on this afternoon.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank my good friend from Georgia for yielding me the time to go 
forward with discussion of this particular rule.
  The rule provides for consideration of both H.R. 3578, which is 
referred to as the Baseline Reform Act, and H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth 
Budgeting Act. Both of these bills, in my opinion, impose convoluted 
new rules on an already complicated budget process, an attempt to 
enshrine the majority's ideology into what is supposed to be an 
objective analysis.
  What my friends on the Republican side are presenting as commonsense 
reforms are actually, in my opinion, nonsense reforms. These budget 
process changes are mere gimmicks to defend the elimination of spending 
on essential government services and to dress up tax cuts for those in 
our society who are well-off in the phony disguise of benefiting 
average Americans.
  These changes tie Congress and the Congressional Budget Office up in 
knots in an effort to prove that conservatives' ideology about taxes 
and spending is going to grow our Nation's economy--not creating more 
jobs, not stimulating demand, not investing in infrastructure or 
education, or any of the many endeavors that are critical to improving 
the lives of all Americans.
  Rather, what my friends, the Republicans, are trying to do is, in my 
opinion, create a Frankenstein budget process: add a procedure here, 
add a little bit of a procedure, sever a rule over there, zap it with 
some electricity or hyperbole, and now you have a budget process that 
proves tax cuts for the wealthiest among us are the only way to grow 
our economy. But guess what? It still ain't human, and it certainly 
isn't humane.
  For the Baseline Reform Act, Mr. Speaker, Republicans propose that 
the Congressional Budget Office not include annual inflation when 
making their budget estimates.

                              {time}  1240

  When I was a child--10 and 11 years old--we didn't get radio programs 
very much, but we got radio programs on Saturdays. One of the programs 
that I enjoyed listening to so much as a little boy, while sitting on 
the rug in the living room, was ``Let's Pretend.'' I never did know 
then that I would be here in this august institution, sitting around 
with people who are pretending in the budget process that inflation 
doesn't exist when they're making budget estimates.
  I talked yesterday with one of my friends on the Rules Committee that 
I'd been down in Florida and that I'd had a major water issue at my 
home in Florida. For the last 2 or 3 months, my water bill had been 
exorbitant, and I couldn't figure out why. Ultimately, this morning, I 
learned for the first time that there is a substantial leak inside the 
house, so the plumbers are

[[Page H389]]

there, and I'm already out more than $1,000.
  Later on, I'm going to be voting about my salary. Yesterday, I voted 
about the cost of living for Federal employees. I think we do them a 
terrible disservice by disallowing them the kinds of increases that 
take into consideration the exact same kind of things that I and other 
Members of this House and other people around this Nation are 
experiencing when it comes to their personal undertakings. We've been 
without an increase here, and, yes, this Nation is in serious trouble. 
Yet the people that we tend to attack are the people who are at the 
lowest end of the scale and the middle class people--the police 
officers, the firefighters, the schoolteachers--who make $35,000, 
$40,000. One or two of them, luckily, makes $60,000 a year. What we 
wind up doing is taking them to task. They have the same plumbing 
problems that I do. There is inflation, and you can't do a budget 
without contemplating it; but if you wish to pretend, then I guess 
that's what we will do is play Let's Pretend.
  This seems like a rather mundane technical change, but it isn't. I 
would be pleased to support this, Mr. Speaker, because it means that, 
in making my own personal budget projections, I could just simply 
ignore the costs for everyday items, but I don't know a single thing 
that I've bought in the last 3 years that has gone down in price. I 
could just simply ignore the fact that costs for everyday items and 
activities tend to go up every year, indeed, every month. Around this 
place, if you're looking at the local gas stations every day, every 
week, I can just assume that what I'm paying today, if I wanted to, I 
guess, I could keep paying 10 years from now and still expect the exact 
same numbers of goods and services.
  But, of course, we all know that that isn't true. Simply wishing away 
or pretending inflation away won't make it so. Fuzzy math does not 
equal fiscal responsibility. By eliminating inflation adjustments from 
discretionary spending projections, my friends, the Republicans, are 
actually just reducing the funding for a Federal program. Since the 
dollar amount would stay the same every year, the number of services 
that could be covered would decrease.
  This morning, I had the good fortune of having in the office a fine 
group of safety patrol students from Pleasant City Elementary School in 
Palm Beach County in West Palm Beach. I was talking with them about the 
fact that I would be here discussing the budget and how everything 
affects their lives as well as the lives of all American citizens 
around this country and that, if we were to allow this budget process 
to take place, all we will have is a continuing decrease over the long 
term of things that I may wish for those children at Pleasant City 
Elementary School or at Cove Elementary, whose counselor was also here. 
We were discussing the number of teachers who have been laid off and 
the number of music programs that no longer exist.
  So let's just pretend that they don't cost but the same thing at one 
time, and you will find over the long haul that you'll get these 
decreases, which will result in massive decreases in essential services 
like fire services and police services and school teachers that 
millions, indeed all Americans, rely on.
  This technical change then is actually a backdoor effort to slowly 
starve necessary government programs rather than to be up front about 
which programs Republicans want to eliminate. The celebrated 
conservative Grover Norquist made it very clear. H.R. 3578 says that, 
every year, every program and agency should be assumed to get smaller 
and smaller automatically. I refer to Mr. Norquist as an ideologue.
  He said, ``I'm not in favor of abolishing government. I just want to 
shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.''
  I somehow or another am at odds with that kind of thinking when we're 
about the business of helping more people, as I explained to the 
children, who are in the category of the neediest, and here we are 
protecting the greediest in our society.
  This technical change then is actually a backdoor effort to slowly 
starve necessary government programs rather than to be up front about 
which programs Republicans want to eliminate. They would rather put 
sneaky rules into place to guarantee the outcome they want without 
having to have an open debate. That's the kind of budget process that 
only Igor, the Frankenstein monster, could love.
  Through the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, Mr. Speaker, Republicans want 
to introduce dynamic scoring into the CBO's projection process. Once 
again, this seems like a minor technical change; but when you look 
closely, you see that this is an effort to zap electricity into Igor-
the-monster-budget, which in the final analysis is tax cuts for those 
of us in society who are better off and for the wealthier even among 
that class.
  Under this bill, the CBO's analyses are tweaked so that tax cuts for 
the wealthy seem like they grow the economy while actual investments in 
the needs of everyday Americans do not. Republicans make it easier to 
cut taxes for those of us who are well off and for those of us who are 
rich than to build bridges and schools for the rest of us.
  This bill specifically instructs the CBO to ignore the positive 
economic effects that would come about from investments in things like 
infrastructure and education, as if spending on things that Americans 
want and need won't boost the economy. They would have us pretend. The 
CBO has already projected that extending the Bush tax cuts for the 
wealthiest among us would actually reduce growth in the long run; but 
rather than face the facts, Republicans simply want to change the rules 
so that this analysis is turned upside down.
  My friends on the Republican side have been so concerned about 
building actual bridges to nowhere that they've turned the budget 
process into its own kind of bridge to nowhere. Rather than using the 
budget process to lead this country into a new era of economic growth, 
my friends on the other side of the aisle want to cut taxes for very 
wealthy people, cut programs for everyone else, and then feel like 
they've set this country on the right track. This is no way to run an 
economy, no way to run a budget process, and no way to stick up for 
millions of struggling Americans who need us to focus on improving the 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to just really take a moment to think about the doublespeak here in 
Washington, D.C. That's been the biggest adjustment since having the 
great privilege of being a Member in this U.S. House of 
Representatives. What my friend from Florida I know very genuinely 
calls sneaky, I call common sense.
  You know, today in the budget, Mr. Speaker, today in the budget, the 
CBO doesn't have to follow the law for about a quarter of all Federal 
Government spending. When they are scoring Medicare and Medicaid, they 
follow the law to say what's Medicare and Medicaid going to do over the 
next 10 years. When they're scoring discretionary spending, however, 
they just guess. They just guess. That's what the process is today: 
Just guess at what future Congresses are going to be. What are those 
future Congresses going to do?
  Now, I tell you that's an exercise in folly, and you couldn't 
possibly get it right. That's what the CBO Director told us yesterday, 
that it's a challenge to put these numbers together. And the more they 
have to guess, the more inaccurate their result becomes.
  So what are these two bills?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Well, now guessing, then why are we 
mandating 40 years? How in the world are we going to guess and have 
them predict what 40 years are going to look like?
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend for asking.
  Reclaiming my time, what those 40 years are are 40 years of 
congressionally mandated action.
  But that's what's so different here, Mr. Speaker. There are things 
that Congress speaks to and things about which Congress is silent. And 
for reasons unbeknownst to me or the families back home in my district, 
what this Congress has said, this body that's been instilled with the 
power of all of our voters back home, we've said we advocate it, CBO 
just guess.

[[Page H390]]

  You know, when you and I were working together last summer on the 
Budget Control Act, we went exactly the opposite route. As you know, 
Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Control Act, we said don't guess about 
what's going to happen next year. We're putting a number in statute for 
spending. Don't guess about what's going to happen 2 years down the 
road for that. We're putting a number in statute. And don't guess about 
another year down the road for that, because we are putting a number in 
statute.
  Look at that, Mr. Speaker. What we've chosen to do, instead of just 
guessing about the country's future, is to do what the American people 
sent us here to do, and that's legislate on the country's future. Only 
here can you spend $10 this year, $12 next year and call that a cut. I 
don't get it. I don't get it, and folks back home don't get it.
  Far from being gimmickry, this is unifying the Federal budget process 
with what that budget process is for millions of families back home 
around the dinner table. And to be clear about the Pro-Growth Budgeting 
Act, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make sure that my friend from 
Florida and I are working on the same information, the Pro-Growth 
Budgeting Act does not change the CBO baseline process at all, not at 
all. The same score that CBO would have done for legislation yesterday, 
they're going to do that same score for legislation tomorrow if the 
Pro-Growth Budgeting Act becomes law. What will be different is--and I 
love this about the direction of this Congress, Mr. Speaker. The 
difference will be the American people will have a new piece of 
information to add to the old baseline, a new piece of information.
  During the discussion yesterday with the Congressional Budget Office, 
we got the CBO baseline, but we also got additional information--what 
would happen if you extended tax cuts, what would happen if you did 
alternative things called the alternative baseline. The Pro-Growth 
Budgeting Act says let's build on that. Because, in these times, we 
can't afford to have any stone unturned for economic growth for this 
country; and we certainly can't afford to continue, as this town has 
done far too long if we're candid with ourselves, far too long, keeping 
the American people in the dark about Federal budgeting issues.
  These two bills, again, these are just the first of 10 bills that 
will be coming to this floor, Mr. Speaker. But these two bills shine a 
spotlight on the Federal budget process in ways that we can all be 
proud, and I can discuss that even further later on.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  For a long time, Americans have believed if you work hard every day 
and play by the rules, you'll be able to earn enough to own a home and 
educate your children and retire with some dignity. It's the American 
Dream.
  Precious numbers, or large numbers of people, rather, are now 
disbelieving in that because it's not really happening in their lives. 
They're working as hard as they can, but they seem to go backwards, not 
forward, and they work so hard.
  You can't reignite the American Dream unless you reignite the middle 
class, and you can't reignite the middle class unless you reignite 
small business. Small businesses in this country create about two out 
of every three jobs created in the country. In the last 20 years, 80 
percent of the new jobs have been created by businesses that are 
younger than a year old. So new small businesses are the key to getting 
things done.
  Now, if you talk to small business people around the country, as we 
have in our districts, here's what they'll tell you: Their number one 
concern these days is they don't have enough customers. There's not 
enough people eating in their restaurants or buying goods in their 
stores or buying the manufactured goods that they do or buying the 
software code that they write. They need more customers.
  So 147 days ago, 147 days ago, the President of the United States 
came to this Chamber and said we ought to do four things to stimulate 
customers for those small businesses and grow the middle class:
  First, he said, we should repair our Nation's aging bridges and 
railroads and highways and put construction workers back to work, and 
building schools in the process. The Congress has never voted on that 
proposal.
  The second thing the President said is, when a small business hires 
people, their taxes should be cut, so a tax cut for small businesses 
that hire Americans. The Congress has never voted on that proposal.
  The third thing that he said is, because of the economic distress of 
our country, cities, counties, and States are laying off police 
officers, firefighters, teachers, which hurts public safety and hurts 
education. But it also hurts businesses, because police officers and 
firefighters and teachers, without a paycheck, aren't going to be 
buying things in the stores or eating in the restaurants or spending 
their money. The President said let's take some money and help States 
and localities rehire and put those teachers back in the classroom and 
put those firefighters back on the apparatus and put those cops back on 
the beat. We've never voted on that proposal.
  And finally, the President said, look, we cut Social Security taxes, 
we cut the payroll tax for really all working Americans in 2010, at the 
end of 2010, and that tax cut is about to expire; and if we let it 
expire, it will be about a $1,000 tax increase for middle class 
Americans, which will not only hurt those families, but it will hurt 
the economy by draining their purchasing power from the economy, so 
let's extend that Tax Code. We did manage to do that for 2 months, and 
that's about to expire, now, in 27 days. We'll be back at that by the 
end of the month.
  Now, if that's the urgent agenda for the country, what are we doing 
today? What we're doing today is passing a change in budget rules that 
essentially says the following: If you're really optimistic about what 
a tax cut might do to the economy, you can assume that optimism for the 
purposes of keeping score in the budget. This is like a family sitting 
down and planning its budget at the beginning of the year and saying, I 
think we're both going to get a raise this year. You're a teacher. I'm 
a truck driver. I think we're both going to get about a 5 or 10 percent 
raise, so let's plan the family budget based on that. I think scarcely 
any of the constituents who send us here would ever draft their family 
budget in that way. If this rule goes through, that's the way we'll 
draft the Federal budget.
  It has become an article of faith, religious orthodoxy on the 
Republican side that tax cuts produce higher revenues. At best, the 
evidence is ambiguous. Most the time it doesn't. Maybe sometimes it 
does, but I don't think--I think we should respect the establishment 
clause of the Constitution and separate church and State. If the 
Republican religion is the tax cuts always produce more revenue, I 
don't think we should write that religion into the law of the country 
because it's not always right.

                              {time}  1300

  Now, beyond that, if we go home to our constituents, our middle class 
families, our businesses, and they ask: What did you do this week?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. They ask: What did you do this week? Did you get any 
bills that would bring more customers in? Did you help me grow more 
jobs?
  Now, here's what we did: We adjusted the CBO baseline for the 
consideration of future revenue policies of the United States.
  This is a very interesting graduate school debate. Maybe some day if 
we're flush with cash again it would be a good policy debate. It is the 
wrong bill at the wrong time, and it shouldn't be on the House floor.
  Let's at least put up for a vote the four specific ideas brought to 
this Chamber by the President of the United States to regrow the middle 
class and put Americans back to work. And when we've done the real job 
that we're sent here to do, then we can get to the graduate school 
seminar on congressional budgeting.

[[Page H391]]

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I always enjoy listening to my friend from New Jersey because 
inevitably I agree with about the first six things he says. All of the 
facts on which he bases his conclusions, I agree on. And I just reach a 
completely different set of conclusions.
  My friend said that one of the challenges we have in America is that 
folks think that they're working as hard as they can but they're going 
backwards instead of forwards. I get that in my district, too. I think 
the gentleman is absolutely right. Hope is so powerful in this country, 
when we lose that hope, we really get ourselves in a world of hurt. I 
think the gentleman is absolutely right.
  The gentleman says we can't get the economy back on track unless we 
get our small businesses moving again. The gentleman is absolutely 
right. I know it to be true. I see it in my Chambers of Commerce, Mr. 
Speaker.
  But what then? Agreeing that the American people are working as hard 
as they can, and they feel like they're going backwards. Agreeing that 
the small business community is working as hard as it can, but it can't 
find enough consumers. What's the answer?
  My friend from New Jersey laid out, as my President did, four giant 
spending initiatives with borrowed money that he believes if only the 
Federal Government would get involved in, we could regenerate those two 
needy areas. And my constituents tell me exactly the opposite, Mr. 
Speaker.
  My constituents say: Rob, if only the Federal Government were not 
involved in my life, if only the Federal Government were not borrowing 
all of this money, if only the Federal Government would leave us alone 
and let us succeed. The government is not the solution, they tell me; 
the government is the problem.
  These two bills today, sadly, I again agree with my friend, do 
nothing to stop the government from being a problem. And in fairness, 
the Budget Committee is not in that business. The Budget Committee is 
in the planning of the financial future business. We need the 
authorizing committees to actually shrink the size and scope of 
government.
  But what these two bills do, and it troubles me, candidly, it 
troubles me that it's even an area of debate. What these two bills do 
is one thing and one thing only, and that's provide additional arrows 
in the quiver of information that we provide to the American people 
about the American fiscal situation.
  And on days like today, Mr. Speaker, with challenges like we have 
today, the American people deserve the truth. It's not always easy to 
say it, but we owe it to them to say it, and these two bills move us in 
that direction.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman for his friendship and his 
compliment, and it's a pleasure to serve with him. I would just ask him 
on the specifics: Do you favor a tax cut for small businesses that hire 
people?
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I absolutely believe that our small 
businesses are overtaxed today. As the gentleman knows, I've introduced 
the most cosponsored piece of fundamental tax reform legislation in 
this House, another version of which has been introduced in the Senate, 
and has more cosponsors than any other fundamental reform bill in the 
Senate. And what does that bill do--called the FAIR Tax, H.R. 25, Mr. 
Speaker, in the House--it abolishes small business taxes entirely. It 
recognizes the economic truth that businesses don't pay taxes, 
consumers pay taxes.
  I absolutely agree, I don't want to just do a cut, I would say to my 
friend. I want to abolish those taxes altogether.
  And what Congressman Price's Pro-Growth Budgeting Act would do is 
share with the American people, because we know that's going to lose 
money in year one because we're cutting taxes. The only way the 
government gets money is from taxes. You reduce taxes, that's a loss in 
year one. What that bill would do, Mr. Speaker, is provide the 
secondary impact, the tertiary impact, share with the American people.
  Well, what happens in year two? It's like going to college, Mr. 
Speaker. When you go to college, you lose money. It's a drain on your 
bank account. And if you equate the drain on your bank account of going 
to college the same as the drain on your bank account of going to 
McDonald's, you're going to make some bad decisions. You've got to know 
the impact of those down the road.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I'm familiar with his FAIR Tax. I respectfully disagree 
because I think it imposes a national sales tax, which I don't support. 
But let me ask two further questions, and I thank him for his time.
  Do you think that we should put up for a vote the idea of cutting 
taxes for small businesses that hire people, and if so, how would you 
vote on it?
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, and seeing the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee sitting there to my friend's right, I look forward--
and speaking candidly to the gentleman, if we bring a budget to this 
floor that doesn't allow us a vote on cutting exactly the kind of taxes 
you're talking about, not only will I be disappointed, I'll be voting 
``no.'' We're absolutely going to bring a budget to the floor that is 
going to cut those taxes, that is going to lower the burden on the 
American taxpayer so that we can get this economy going again.
  Again, these are issues that we agree on across the aisle, Mr. 
Speaker. It's important that we look at the same facts. When we look at 
the same facts, even as we are today, we can sometimes come to 
different conclusions. What these two bills do today is just make sure 
that we're looking at the same set of facts--not just us, but all of 
the American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of 
having our next speaker be the ranking member of the Budget Committee 
to discuss these budgetary matters that have been discussed by my 
friend on the other side of the aisle.
  But, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on H.R. 3558, Mr. 
Van Hollen's proposal to make sure that Members of Congress do not 
receive a cost-of-living adjustment to our pay in 2013.
  At this time, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and more time, if needed.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Hastings. 
Before I say a word about the legislation which Members of Congress 
would have an opportunity to vote on if we defeat the previous 
question, I just want to say a word about the bills that are the 
subject of the rule here today.
  Mr. HOYER. Would my friend yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would be very happy to yield to Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank Mr. Van Hollen for yielding.
  If Members in fact, not for political gamesmanship, want to vote to 
restrain and eliminate their COLA this year, they have an opportunity 
to do that segregated from any other issue on the previous question. I 
would urge Members, if they want to cap congressional salaries next 
year at current levels, they vote against the previous question when it 
is called.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank Mr. Hoyer.
  Reclaiming my time, with respect to the two bills that are the 
subject of this rule, we are going to have more time to debate them 
later. I would just say to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) that 
the American people would love to be able to wish away inflation. I 
just came from a hearing in the Budget Committee. I'm sure the Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve would love to be able to wish away inflation.
  What the gentleman is proposing is that we put together a budget 
that, unfortunately, would get more and more misleading over time, a 
baseline for our budget, because it would simply wish away inflation.
  With respect to the other bill, as some of my colleagues, including 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), have pointed out, what it 
does is create this mirage that somehow by providing tax breaks for 
folks at the

[[Page H392]]

very top, you're going to get the economy moving when in fact the most 
recent Congressional Budget Office analysis shows that at the end of 
the 10-year period, if you do that, because you add more to the 
deficit, you actually slow down economic growth. Unfortunately, the way 
they've got this framed, we don't get that analysis.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, there's one thing that we can do to show families 
across the country that we get it, that we realize that they're 
struggling, and that is, every Member of Congress should set an example 
by voting for legislation that says in these tough times, we are not 
going to take for ourselves a cost-of-living increase. If Members vote 
to defeat the previous question, they'll have an opportunity to vote up 
or down on it.
  Now, as Mr. Hoyer said, yesterday there was a piece of legislation on 
the floor that said we're only going to limit the COLA for Members of 
Congress if we also punish other Federal employees who have been 
serving this country, employees who have already contributed in the 
last 2 years $60 billion to reducing the deficit, folks like people in 
the intelligence community who helped track down Osama bin Laden and 
folks who were helping protect the safety of the food supply.

                              {time}  1310

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman.
  I think we should be willing to stand up in front of the American 
people and just have a clean up-or-down vote, just have a clean up-or-
down vote on making the statement that we Members of Congress 
understand how people are struggling and we're not going to take a 
cost-of-living increase this year. We haven't taken it for the last 
couple of years. The country is still struggling and people are still 
struggling.
  My friend mentioned American families talking around the kitchen 
table looking at the budget. Let's show that we understand the reality 
that many of them are facing. Members of Congress can afford to lead by 
example, and I hope we will. It will be an important statement, I 
think, of where this Congress stands.
  So, again, I thank Mr. Hastings for his leadership. I know at the 
appropriate time he's going to call for the previous question. If you 
want to vote to make sure that we pass legislation to not provide cost-
of-living increase raises to Members of Congress, then you should vote 
to defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The last point I would make is that it's very 
possible the Senate will not take up the piece of legislation that the 
House passed yesterday because many of them may not want to punish 
Federal employees. At the same time, this provision that we're 
offering, being a clean up-or-down vote, the Senate would have to make 
a judgment as to whether or not to vote up or down on the question of 
congressional pay.
  So I hope all of our colleagues will vote to defeat the previous 
question so we can send this important message and make this statement.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to again find areas of agreement with my colleagues.
  I, too, don't know what will happen with the very fine piece of 
legislation we sent to the Senate yesterday. If experience is any 
indicator, it will sit there and do nothing, as have all the other fine 
pieces of job-creation legislation that we've sent to the Senate. I 
take no pleasure in that, but I share the gentleman's frustration with 
fearing that fate.
  I also share the gentleman's belief that we need to show the American 
people sitting around the dinner table that we get it. But when 
Congress sits around the committee table to budget, we say, okay, if 
rent is $1,000 this year, let's just go ahead and plan to pay $1,100 
next year and then $1,200 the year after that and $1,300 the year after 
that. Let's just plan to do it. Let's just guess the money is going to 
be there.
  But that's not what the American families get to do. American 
families have to say, if rent is $1,000 this year and rent goes to 
$1,100 next year, I've got to find something to cut. I'm not getting a 
pay raise. I don't see that increase coming through. The economy is not 
getting better for me. I've got to make those tough choices.
  Mr. Speaker, if we're going to be honest with folks--and we have to 
be honest with folks--we've got to tell them there's no spigot of money 
running on Capitol Hill. If there were, it would be theirs. But there 
is no spigot of money on Capitol Hill.
  And it makes me feel so good to be a freshman Member in this body--
more importantly, while it might have been true for the last 50 years 
that Congress just assumed every year it would spend more than it did 
the last, not this Congress, not my colleagues and I working together, 
Mr. Speaker. What we've said is we know there are not unlimited funds. 
We know the American people don't have more to contribute. We know that 
the time for tough choices was before, but it was put off, it was 
delayed and it was ignored, and the time for tough choices then falls 
to us. And we've been making them. It's not been easy. It's not areas 
that we always find agreement on, but we battle through it. When we get 
to the end of the day, we spent less in 2011 than we did in 2010 in our 
appropriations bills. We spent less in 2012 than we did in 2011, and I 
hope that's something that the American people will be proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I would say to my friend, I don't have any 
other speakers. I am prepared to close if my friend is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I'm prepared to close, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I genuinely enjoy working with my good friend from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall). He not only brings passion to the job, but an 
extraordinary intellect. We serve together there on the Rules 
Committee.
  And I don't mean to make light of the fact of what he just got 
through saying about our telling the American public that we know that 
there are no large amounts of funds available because we--and I like 
the fact that he said ``we''--put things off, but I can't ignore the 
fact that a large part of that putting things off came about by virtue 
of our being in Iraq and Afghanistan and spending $1 trillion with 
borrowed money that we did not have and not going to the American 
people and asking that we sacrifice to pay for them. Seventy-five 
billion of it came from passing a Medicare prescription plan that we 
did not pay for. And there are other measures--and I can cite what the 
Democrats and Republicans are fond of saying and what my mother said to 
me, which was true. When she was alive, she said, well, if Clinton is 
going to blame Bush and Bush is going to blame Carter and Carter is 
going to blame Nixon, why don't you all just blame George Washington 
and get it all over with if you keep pointing back to somebody else.
  But now the rubber has hit the road. With these two bills, Mr. 
Speaker, my friends on the other side want to drastically reduce 
essential government programs and, second, to enshrine tax cuts--and I 
don't like talking about the rich, as it were. My ultimate plan would 
call for all of us that are better off to try and do everything we can 
to help those who are vulnerable in our society and those who are the 
neediest in our society. But there are those who are in the super 
category that have not been paying the kind of taxes that many of us 
pay. You have to put this stuff in real terms.
  Last year, I paid $41,000 in income taxes. If people don't believe 
that, I'll bring my taxes down here and show it to them sometime. Now, 
I don't have investments. I don't have offshore bank accounts. I don't 
have any stock and any bonds, but the simple fact of the matter is a 
lot of Americans are in the same category as myself. But they want to 
give tax cuts to those who are wealthy, who paid less than I did and 
less than people making $50,000 did. And to my way of thinking, that's 
just not fair, and that's all that America is looking for is a level 
playing field, not one that gives the wealthiest more and the poor 
less.
  If they achieve these changes, they'll succeed in creating a budget 
process that overwhelmingly favors tax cuts

[[Page H393]]

for those that are wealthier while creating near impossible hurdles for 
ordinary programs to keep pace with the rate of inflation and, thus, 
stay in business, while Republicans cry that it's still alive. Millions 
of other Americans will still be struggling to find jobs, to pay off 
their students loans, to access affordable health care and decent 
housing, and to survive in an economy that favors those who have the 
most rather than those who have the least, favors those who are the 
greediest rather than those who are the neediest.
  Dr. Frankenstein was eventually repulsed by the monster that he 
created. These technical changes to the budget process are equally 
repulsive, for they add up to a system of government spending that is 
helpful to those who need it the least and harmful to those who need it 
the most.
  Tying our hands in convoluted knots in order to advance a 
conservative ideology is not the way to run an honest, objective, 
transparent, and open budget process. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' against this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
previous question amendment in the Record along with the 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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say I'm a few years younger than my friend from Florida. I didn't 
get the benefit of the ``Let's Pretend'' radio program that he had in 
his day, but I feel like I've had a little dose of ``Let's Pretend'' 
here on the floor today.

                              {time}  1320

  I feel a kinship with my friend and what that must have been like to 
hear that because what we have heard here on the floor is, let's 
pretend that there's not a serious crisis that we have to get our arms 
around. Let's pretend that we do have the money to spend more and more 
and more each and every year. Let's pretend that if we give the 
American taxpayer more information with which to make informed 
decisions, that will somehow do us harm.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills are about common sense. These bills are 
about ending the Washington double-speak that has been a frustration to 
folks back home for far, far too long.
  I'm joined here on the floor by Sheriff Rich Nugent from Florida, one 
of my freshman colleagues here in this body, Mr. Speaker. And as a 
sheriff, he told us in the Rules Committee yesterday he had some pretty 
serious responsibilities. There are no easy parts of being sheriff; it 
is all got-to-happen kind of business. But when he made his budget year 
after year after year, even though lives were literally hanging in the 
balance, he didn't get to assume he could spend more next year than he 
did the year before. He had to justify each and every dollar.
  And that's important because the budget process is convoluted. We're 
doing our best to make it simpler, but folks might not understand 
exactly what's at the heart of these issues. And when it comes to this 
Baseline Reform Act, Mr. Speaker, what it's saying is, if the law of 
the land has a program, let's say we're buying flags to fly over the 
United States Capitol, if that program is slated to last for 10 years, 
the CBO will fund it for 10 years, they will estimate it for 10 years. 
If it's estimated to last for 5 years, CBO will estimate it for 5 
years. And if it's supposed to last for 1 year, they'll do it for 1 
year. What they won't do is say that just because the entire Congress 
is spending $50 million, that next year the Congress will be able to 
spend $60 million because of inflation. What it says is: don't guess.
  If the Congress wants to speak to how much money should be spent, the 
Congress should speak. And in fact we do, day in and day out, mandatory 
spending, appropriation spending. But the CBO should not be asked to 
guess. If you want to know what the challenge is, Mr. Speaker, we heard 
it in the Budget Committee yesterday when the CBO Director came to 
testify. We talk so much about the Bush-Obama tax cuts expiring. If we 
kept them all, if we kept all of the tax cuts--in fact, if we went back 
to the tax cuts that expired in 2011 and we brought those back, too, 
reduced the American taxpayers' burden to the tune of every single tax 
cut that's on the books, America's tax burden would still be higher 
over the next decade than it has been historically over the last 50 
years, if we kept them all.
  What if you let them go away, Mr. Speaker? If you let all those tax 
cuts go away, America's tax burden would rise to the highest level in 
50 years, the single highest level in 50 years. How much debt would we 
pay back if we raise the American tax burden that high, Mr. Speaker? 
Not one penny. Not one penny. How much of our deficit would we get rid 
of? Would we be able to finally have at least 1 year of a balanced 
budget? No. We can raise the American tax burden, Mr. Speaker, to the 
highest level in the last 50 years, and we still wouldn't balance this 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the challenge is not revenue. The challenge is spending. 
And these two bills make sure that both on the revenue side and the 
spending side the American taxpayer has access to absolutely every bit 
of information they need to make good decisions.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I again ask my colleagues for their strong 
support of this rule and their strong support for the two underlying 
pieces of legislation.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the previous question to allow us to bring up H.R. 3858, which would 
freeze salaries for Members of Congress for another year through 2013.
  I have consistently supported and voted for freezing member salaries, 
yet I along with 116 other members--in bipartisan fashion--opposed a 
bill last night that the Republican Leadership mischaracterized as 
doing just that. In fact, that bill was nothing more than a Trojan 
Horse to allow House Republicans to once again use federal employees as 
a punching bag.
  My Republican colleagues thought they were being clever by pairing a 
continued freeze on member pay with a continued freeze on federal 
employees. As one reporter correctly pointed out, it was nothing more 
than a cynical, political dare from House Republicans so they could run 
``gotcha'' ads against those who opposed it.
  Of course, the Republican leadership conveniently ignores the fact 
that our dedicated federal employees already have had their pay frozen 
for two years, contributing $60 billion to our deficit reduction 
efforts.
  Just 14 percent of our 2.3 million federal employees live within the 
National Capital region. The rest provide vital services in communities 
throughout America every day. They guard our borders, protect the 
safety of airline travel, fight forest fires, and track down online 
child predators. So following the cynical approach of House 
Republicans, one might argue that passage of last night's bill could 
aid and abet terrorists, cross-border gun runners, and child 
pornographers, right?
  The public holds us responsible for getting our fiscal house in 
order, and it is appropriate that we continue the pay freeze on member 
salaries given the current situation. Continuing to go after our 
civilian workforce not only damages the public service profession, but 
it also puts at risk those services on which our public relies on a 
daily basis.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:


     An amendment to H. Res. 534 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. 
     3858) to provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a 
     cost of living adjustment in pay during 2013. 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 among and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration and the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 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

[[Page H394]]

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

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 
move the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes 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 adoption of the resolution, if ordered, 
and the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3630.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 177, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 21]

                               YEAS--238

     Adams
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     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
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     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
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (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
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--177

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     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)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     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)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Aderholt
     Braley (IA)
     Carson (IN)
     Clyburn
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Langevin
     Mack

[[Page H395]]


     Olver
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)

                              {time}  1349

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ and Ms. RICHARDSON changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 21, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 21, I put my card in 
the machine and voted ``nay,'' but my vote was not 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 179, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 22]

                               AYES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     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
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (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)

                               NOES--179

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     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
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     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--15

     Akin
     Carson (IN)
     Davis (KY)
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Israel
     Kaptur
     LaTourette
     Mack
     Paul
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)

                              {time}  1357

  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. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 22, I was detained briefly for 
the vote. If I'd been in Chamber I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 22, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 22, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________