[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.''
____________________