[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 66 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2573-H2583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5652, SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT
RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2012
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 648 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 648
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
5652) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201
of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2013. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112 21 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) two hours of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you coming in early to be with
us early this morning. This is a big day. This is the reconciliation
bill.
I serve on both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, Mr.
Speaker. As you know, we've had some tremendous successes in the
appropriations process. This week, we've been working through the
Commerce-Justice-Science bill. It's a bill that's reduced spending to
those levels that we had in 2008, doing those things that the voters
sent us here to do.
We're going to vote on that bill today in final passage. But that
appropriations process that we have control over here in the House,
that process where we reduced spending from 2010 levels down to 2011
levels, down to 2012 levels, and are going to go down again to 2013
levels to be responsible stewards of taxpayers' dollars, those are only
one-third of the taxpayer dollars.
Two-thirds of the taxpayer dollars that are spent in this town--and
by spent I really mean borrowed and then spent--come on what they call
mandatory spending programs. Mr. Speaker, as you know, mandatory
spending programs are dollars that go out the door whether Congress
acts or not. Appropriation bills require Congress to act affirmatively,
but mandatory spending goes right out the door without any oversight
from this body until you get to reconciliation.
Reconciliation is that process that Democrats put in place wisely
years and years ago to allow the House and the Senate to come together
and begin to reduce, restrain, do oversight on those mandatory spending
dollars. This is a rule that brings that bill to the floor.
That bill is going to be coming under a closed rule, Mr. Speaker.
We're talking about a bill that has been put together by almost every
committee of jurisdiction here in this House and then assembled by the
Budget Committee and brought here to the floor. It's been the subject
of countless hearings already. We looked at whether we'd be able to
bring a Democratic substitute to the floor. None was submitted that
complied with the rules of the House.
So we have one bill on the floor today, an up-and-down vote, on
whether or not we're willing to engage in the first serious
reconciliation process on this floor--I would argue--since 1997. Some
folks might say 2003. I say 1997. Why, Mr. Speaker?
{time} 0920
I'll tell you, it's the right thing to do anyway. It's the right
thing to do anyway as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. But in
this case, these aren't reductions for the sake of reductions. These
are reductions for the sake of complying with what I would argue is a
very good deficit-reduction agreement between the President and the
Senate and the House last August. And as a part of that agreement, we
put in some blanket cuts to national security, some blanket cuts to
national defense. And some commentators have described these cuts, Mr.
Speaker, as being intentionally so crazy that they would never happen
but would be used only as a tool to get the Joint Select Committee to
act.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Joint Select Committee did not succeed
last fall. It's a source of great frustration for me and is also a
source of great frustration for the Members who served on that
committee. They had an opportunity to bring an up-or-down vote to both
the House and the Senate floor on anything they came up with, Mr.
Speaker. They didn't have to get the whole $1.2 trillion. They didn't
have to get $1.5 trillion. They could have gotten $1 trillion. They
could have gotten $500 billion. They could have gotten $250 billion,
and we would have brought that to the floor for an up-or-down vote. But
they got nothing.
So where are we? Well, in the words of Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta, he says:
We are at a place where, if these cuts were allowed to go,
the impact of these cuts would be devastating to the Defense
Department.
I happen to share his concerns. Again, these were across-the-board
cuts put in place to be so intentionally crazy that Congress would
never allow them to occur, and it would spur the Joint Committee to
action.
I happen to have supported an amendment offered by Chris Van Hollen
of Maryland, the ranking member on the Budget Committee. When we were
going through the Budget Committee process last year, he offered an
amendment that said, dadgummit, everything's got to be on the table,
and that includes the Defense Department. I agree with him. The Defense
Department does need to be on the table. And in fact, the Defense
Department is undergoing $300 billion worth of reductions today.
This bill does nothing to change that. There is $300 billion being
reduced from the Defense Department, as well it should. It's not easy,
but it should happen, and it is happening. This isn't dealing with
that. This is dealing with even additional cuts. Again, in the words of
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, a former Democratic Member of this
House:
[[Page H2574]]
The impact of these cuts would be devastating for the
Department.
So we have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to do what, I would argue,
you and I came here to do--and not just you and I, but my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle--to do those things not just that happened
year after year after year, those things that have 12 months of
efficacy and then go away, but the things that can be set in permanent
law to change the direction of spending and borrowing in this country.
And, candidly, Mr. Speaker, it's more about the borrowing than it is
about the spending.
There are priorities in this country that we need to focus on, and I
would argue that we've done a great job of focusing on those
priorities. But when you are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar from
your children and your grandchildren, we have to redefine what
responsibility is because, I will tell you, that is irresponsible.
And this bill then takes a step in two directions: one, turning back
this second round of Defense Department cuts--not the first round but
the second round, the round that Leon Panetta describes as devastating
to the Defense Department--and then setting us on a path to bend that
cost curve going forward by tackling mandatory spending programs for
the first time in almost a decade.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly support
this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Georgia, my friend, Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this
rule. It is totally closed, and it denies Democrats, led by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the substitute.
We're not asking for dozens of amendments or something that hasn't
been done in the past with regards to reconciliation bills. All we are
asking for is one vote on our substitute, one vote on what we believe
is a better alternative to the Republican bill. Last night in the Rules
Committee, every single Republican--every single one of them--voted to
deny Democrats that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, as one who does not believe in arbitrary and thoughtless
across-the-board cuts as a way to balance our budget, I want to support
Mr. Van Hollen's substitute in order to avoid the implementation of the
Budget Control Act's sequester. In my opinion, to allow this sequester
to go into full effect would be bad for the country.
We are here in this awful mess because a so-called supercommittee
failed to reach agreement last fall on a comprehensive and balanced
deficit-reduction plan due in very large part to the absolute refusal
of Republicans to put revenues on the table. Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin-
Domenici, and the Gang of Six all had deficit-reduction proposals that
sought to be balanced with both spending cuts and revenues. They sought
to be fair. They realized that you cannot solve our long-term fiscal
problems by slashing and burning the last century of social progress in
America.
But, today, my Republican friends have brought to the floor a
reconciliation bill that actually makes sequestration look good. What's
going on here is very simple--very troubling, but very simple. They are
protecting the massive Pentagon budget and demanding no accountability
by exempting it from sequestration and finding even deeper cuts in
programs that benefit the people of this country.
The bill before us would create a government where there is no
conscience, where the wealthy and well connected are protected and
enriched, and where the middle class, the poor, and the vulnerable are
essentially forgotten. I have never seen anything like this. It is
outrageous. It takes my breath away.
My friends won't cut billions in subsidies for Big Oil at a time when
oil companies are making record profits and gauging Americans at the
pump. They won't address the inequities of the Tax Code, which allows
billionaire Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.
The revenues from fixing these two unjust policies alone would result
in billions and billions and billions of dollars in deficit reduction.
But the Republicans have protected Big Oil, and they've protected the
billionaires. However, my Republican friends take a meat-ax to SNAP,
formerly known as food stamps. This is a program to help poor people
afford food.
My friends on the other side of the aisle should heed the words of
President John F. Kennedy:
If a free society will not help the many who are poor, they
cannot save the few who are rich.
Mr. Speaker, we are one country. We should care about one another,
especially those who are most vulnerable. That's not a weakness or
something we should be ashamed of. Rather, it's something that makes us
strong and great.
As my friends know, I have spent a lot of time and effort in Congress
on the issues of hunger, food insecurity, and nutrition. Tens of
millions of our fellow citizens don't have enough to eat, and every
single one of us--Democrats and Republicans alike--should be ashamed.
And that's why I am so outraged by the $36 billion in SNAP cuts.
This notion that SNAP promotes a culture of dependency, that SNAP is
a golden ticket to prosperity is just wrong. Some on the Republican
side have even claimed that SNAP enslaves Americans. Give me a break.
In fact, even in 2010, when unemployment was close to 10 percent and
jobs were scarce, the majority of SNAP households with a nondisabled
working-age adult were working households--working households.
Working families are trying to earn more. No one wakes up in the
morning dreaming to be on SNAP, but these are tough economic times.
Some people have no choice. But we know that SNAP enrollment and
spending on SNAP will go down as the economy improves, as families see
their incomes rise and no longer need SNAP to feed their families.
Don't take my word for it. This is directly from the Congressional
Budget Office.
Of course, last night in the Rules Committee, we heard the tired line
that there's a lot of abuse in the SNAP program. We heard that there
are countless numbers of people receiving benefits who do not deserve
them. That, Mr. Speaker, is simply not true.
It's a common and unfortunate misconception that SNAP is rife with
fraud, waste, and abuse. Many have decried SNAP as a handout that can
be sold or traded for alcohol and other items that shouldn't be
purchased with taxpayer funds. It cannot. And to the extent that there
is abuse, the USDA is cracking down on it.
SNAP is both effective and efficient. In fact, the error rate for
SNAP is not only at an all-time low, but it has among the lowest--if
not the lowest--error rate of any Federal program. If only we could
find a program at the Pentagon that had such a low error rate.
Last night we also heard about categorical eligibility, a process in
which a low-income person is automatically eligible for food stamps if
they are already enrolled in another low-income assistance program.
{time} 0920
Categorical eligibility--and I think it's important to state this
because there's such misconception here. Categorical eligibility makes
it easier for poor people, those people who are already approved for
low-income assistance programs, to receive SNAP benefits. But it also
makes it easier on the States that have to administer these programs.
This saves time and money and paperwork, because the people who are
already eligible for similarly administered benefits do not have to
reapply for SNAP, and States do not have to waste workers' hours
processing paperwork for people who are already eligible based on their
incomes.
Categorical eligibility does not mean that people who don't qualify
for SNAP get those benefits. To the contrary, people still have to
qualify for the program to receive food. Any claim that this is a
fraudulent practice or that it is rife with abuse is just another
falsehood and smear against one of the most efficient Federal programs.
The demonization of SNAP and other food and nutrition programs by my
Republican friends must come to an end.
[[Page H2575]]
We have an obligation in this country to provide a circle of protection
for the most vulnerable.
Cutting $36 billion means that more than 22 million households will
see a cut in their benefit. This means 22 million families will have
less food tomorrow than they do today. In fact, 2 million people would
be cut from the SNAP program altogether. Another 280,000 kids will lose
access to free school meals.
My friends on the other side of the aisle don't like to hear this,
but sometimes the truth hurts. If this bill before us becomes law, it
will take food out of the mouths of children in America, all in the
name of protecting tax cuts for the wealthy and increased Pentagon
spending. The Republican reconciliation bill threatens Medicare, it
threatens children's programs, it threatens educational programs, as
well as programs that support our infrastructure. In short, if this
were to be adopted as law, it would threaten our economy as a whole.
And the bill not only protects the Pentagon budget, it increases it
by billions of dollars. Does anyone here honestly believe there's not a
single dollar to be saved anywhere in the Pentagon? If you do, you're
not reading the newspapers. It's there in front of us every single day,
the abuse that goes on. No-bid defense contractors. I can go on and on
and on.
We have, and will continue to have, the strongest military on the
face of the Earth. But at some point national security must mean more
than throwing billions of dollars at unnecessary nuclear weapons or at
pie-in-the sky Star Wars programs that will never actually materialize.
But national security has to mean taking care of our own people. It
means educating our children. It means an infrastructure that isn't
crumbling around us. It means clean air and clean water and a health
care system that works. Those should be our priorities. But sadly,
those are not the priorities in the bill before us today.
Of course, Senator Reid says the bill is dead in the water in the
Senate. At a press conference yesterday, the Senate Majority Leader
said:
As long as Republicans refuse to consider a more reasonable
approach, one that asks every American to pay his fair share
while making difficult choices to reduce spending, the
sequester is the only path forward.
That's a pretty clear statement that the Senate will not consider
this bill. Quite frankly, it's the right thing to do.
A reasonable approach is what the American people want. Yes, they
want us to get our fiscal house in order. They want us to reduce the
deficit in a fair way so that the wealthiest among us pay their fair
share. But mostly the American people want jobs, something the House
Republican leadership continues to ignore.
The American people know that the best way to bring this deficit down
is through job creation. They want the economy to improve. They want
their lives to get better. This bill does not do that.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by quoting President Dwight Eisenhower
in a speech he made in 1953:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every
rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those
who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not
clothed.
I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that President Eisenhower wouldn't recognize
today's Republican Party.
We should reject this closed rule and the underlying bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I say to my friend, as the Republican Budget chairman said to him
yesterday, I appreciate his passion on this issue. What brings us to
the very best decisions that we can make in this body, Mr. Speaker, is
having folks who work hard day in and day out educating themselves on
the issues. They can bring the very best case for the American people
to the floor.
And that's why I would ask my friend whether or not he believes it
actually helps that debate to get involved in some of those rhetorical
feats of mind, I guess we would call them, because he knows as well as
I know that under the law of the land, in 2002, food stamp benefits,
SNAP benefits, would have gone up by about 40 percent over the last 10
years, and Republicans and Democrats came together over the last decade
and increased those benefits 270 percent, Mr. Speaker.
Now, this proposal suggests that instead of going up 270 percent, we
allow those benefits to go up 260 percent. That's the draconian cut.
We see that in the same rhetoric in the student loan program, Mr.
Speaker. Everyone in this body knows the law of the land was that
student loan rates were at 6.8 percent--a below-market rate of 6.8
percent. They were lowered for a very small fraction of the student
population for a very temporary period of time to 3.4 percent, and the
law now hasn't gone back to 6.8 percent, to standard levels. But folks
want to talk about that as a doubling instead of a returning to common
law.
And more importantly, Mr. Speaker, to continue to suggest, as he
knows is not the case, that Republicans are unwilling to focus on the
Defense Department, let me say it plainly. I believe there is waste and
fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I stand here willing to
work with you to eradicate it all. I supported Ranking Member Van
Hollen's amendment to put Defense on the table. The budget that this
House passed--the only budget that's passed in all of Washington,
D.C.--reduced defense spending by $300 billion in recognition of
exactly that.
And, Mr. Speaker, again, the rhetoric just gets a little overheated
from time to time, and, candidly, I think it gets in the way of us
doing the people's business. When I say to you that Secretary of
Defense Leon Panetta, on August 4, 2011, said:
If these defense cuts happen--and God willing that will not be the
case, but if it did happen--it would result in a further round--because
we've already cut once; in fact, already cut twice--a further round of
very dangerous across-the-board defense cuts that I believe, says Leon
Panetta, Secretary of Defense, would do real damage to our security,
our troops, and their families.
I would say to my friend: How does it advantage us to make this a
Republican-Democratic issue when the Democratic chairman of the House
Budget Committee, Leon Panetta, says allowing these cuts to go forward
would be dangerous to our defense, to our national security, to our
troops, and to our families? How does it advantage us to make this a
Republican-Democratic issue when President Clinton's OMB Director, Leon
Panetta, says this would be dangerous across-the-board defense cuts
that would do real damage to our security, our troops, and our
families? How does it advantage us to make this a partisan issue when
President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, former OMB Director,
former Democratic Budget Committee chairman, says: I believe allowing
these cuts to go forward would do real damage to our security, to our
troops, and to our families?
Do we have real choices to make? We do.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you.
The Democrats have a substitute amendment that would replace the
sequester in a different way. It would prevent the across-the-board
cuts from happening to defense and the non-defense programs. So there's
an agreement that that meat-ax approach is the wrong way. We have an
alternative.
The gentleman just talked about how we have this great debate of
ideas on the floor of the House. I have a very simple question: Why are
we not going to get an up-or-down vote on our idea on how we would
replace the sequester in a balanced way?
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman both for his
comments and for his offering of that substitute.
The reason is threefold:
Number one, that substitute doesn't comply with the rules of the
House. We made a decision in this body that we were going to not
continue to ask for more and more and more out of taxpayers' pockets
but that we were going to try to do our own business here in terms of
oversight on all the money that's already being borrowed and spent and
sent out the door.
{time} 0940
Number two, that happened to be the rules that we adopted in this
Congress,
[[Page H2576]]
Mr. Speaker, but under the rules adopted in the last Congress in which
you were the Budget chairman, you know your substitute would also not
have been in order under the PAYGO rules that you instituted. Again,
not a Republican or Democratic issue. Under a Republican House, the
substitute is not in order. And under a Democratic House, the
substitute is not in order.
But, number 3, and, I would argue, most importantly, I say to my
friend, we've got a trust deficit with the American people, and it
doesn't surprise me. When we talk about the 5-year impact of the
reconciliation plan that we passed out of our Budget Committee and I
hope that this House will pass today, we're talking about a net effect
on debt reduction, the process for which reconciliation was created, of
$65 billion over 5 years. Over the next 5 years, $65 billion is not
going to have to be borrowed from our children and our grandchildren.
Under the gentleman's substitute, over that same period of time,
spending is actually going to go up by almost $37 billion. This is a
process that is designed to reduce borrowing and spending, to reduce
the burden we are placing on our children, and the gentleman's
substitute increases the burden that we place on our children.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I don't want to take up all your time, but I would
like to make the point that what our substitute does is, dollar for
dollar, replace the sequester, which is what our Republican colleagues
have said is the object of this effort, which is to make sure that we
don't have the meat-ax approach.
I would just note that the gentleman said that one of the reasons
that we're not going to have an opportunity to vote on ours is because
it doesn't comply exactly with the rules. In bringing the Republican
bill to the floor today, I'm reading right here on the report, the
committee report, you waived three rules. You waived three rules, and
yet you can't allow an up-or-down vote on a substitute amendment. You
know that you have it within the power to allow our substitute, just as
you waived these three rules.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend, what we
have within our power is the power to stop the borrowing and the
spending. I'm reading here from today's Congressional Quarterly,
because folks sometimes get confused, Mr. Speaker. We talked about the
Reading Clerk and the tough work they had yesterday, reading today from
Congressional Quarterly, it says here that Democrats left open the
possibility that they would offer an alternative proposal through a
motion to recommit, which is allowed under the rule. My friend on the
Rules Committee knows that to be true. My friend on the Budget
Committee knows that to be true.
I look forward to your using that opportunity to bring your
substitute to the floor for a vote. I think that is the right of the
minority. I'm glad we preserved the right of the minority, Mr. Speaker.
And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to reemphasize the point that Mr. Van Hollen made.
You know, the Rules Committee has the right to be able to waive the
rules to bring any piece of legislation to the floor. And as Mr. Van
Hollen rightly pointed out, in the report on this rule, the Republicans
waive, implement waivers because their proposal, without these waivers,
would violate the rules.
And so, you know, my friend talks about that this shouldn't be a
partisan discussion. I would just say to my friend, the reason that
this is a partisan discussion is because the Republicans have made it
such by denying us the right to come to the floor and offer our
substitute, not as a procedural matter, but as a real substitute. You
have politicized this debate. You have shut us out, and that is why
there is frustration.
And I just want to say one other thing again because I am so sick and
tired of the demonization of programs that benefit poor people in this
country, especially the SNAP program.
My friend was talking about all of this money that we invested in
SNAP as if somehow we were giving these very generous benefits out.
Just for the record, in 2002, the average SNAP benefit was $1 per meal
per day per person--$1. With all of the improvements we have made,
today it is about $1.50 per meal per day; and it is going to go down
next year because of cutbacks we've already made in this program,
unfortunately, to offset other things over the past few years. That
means in a 10-year period that we have increased this benefit by 50
cents per meal. Now, I don't know about my friend, but $1.50 doesn't go
very far today.
So when we're talking about trying to help people get through this
economic crisis, that's what we're talking about. So this is not some
extravagant, overly generous benefit. That's what it is. That's what it
is. And rather than cutting waste in the Pentagon budget, which we all
know exists, you protect the Pentagon budget. Rather than going after
subsidies for oil companies and going after billionaire tax breaks, you
protect all of that. And where do you go to find the savings? From
programs that help the poorest of the poor. I mean, it's outrageous.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the
Budget Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts,
and thank him for his leadership on efforts to ensure that those
families who are struggling most in our country continue to have access
to food and nutrition, and that children in our country continue to
have access to health care. And that's what this debate is all about,
because we do have an alternative.
There is no disagreement on two things: Number one, we need to reduce
our deficit in this country in a credible way; number two, the meat-ax
approach of the sequester is not a smart way to do it.
So how should we go about reducing our deficit? Well, we propose to
do it in the same balanced way that every bipartisan commission that
has looked at this issue has recommended--through a combination of
difficult cuts. And I would remind everybody that just last August we
cut a trillion dollars through a combination of cuts as well as cuts to
tax breaks for special interests and by asking the wealthiest people in
this country, people who are making $1 million a year, to contribute a
little bit more toward deficit reduction.
Mr. WOODALL. Will my friend yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will yield very briefly, yes.
Mr. WOODALL. I have a very brief question.
My understanding of your substitute is that it raises $3 in taxes for
every $1 in spending cuts. Could you tell me which bipartisan
commissions have represented that, have also agreed that $3 to $1 is
the right combination?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Absolutely. I'm glad the gentleman asked the
question.
Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, they proposed an approach which was
about $3 in cuts to $1 in revenue, depending on the accounting rules.
We've already enacted $1 trillion in cuts, 100 percent in cuts. You
voted for that; I voted for that, 100 percent cuts.
What this does is, for the next 1 year, we do another $30 billion in
cuts--a little over that, actually--and then we get about $80 billion
through closing loopholes.
For example, we say that the big oil companies don't need taxpayer
subsidies to encourage them to go drill. They've already testified,
their chief executives, they don't need that. They're making plenty
right now. We also say that millionaires should pay the same effective
tax rate as the people who work for them.
And if you take that approach, frankly, with the trillion dollars in
cuts we've already made, we are still cutting a lot more than the
bipartisan groups recommended compared to the revenue. So our ratio of
cuts to revenue is much higher because those bipartisan groups, they
recommended that trillion dollars in cuts, and we adopted that on a
bipartisan basis.
What they are not doing, what you're not doing, is taking the other
part of their recommendation, frankly, which is to say let's close some
of these outrageous tax loopholes for the purpose
[[Page H2577]]
of deficit reduction. And because 98 percent of our House Republican
colleagues have signed this pledge saying that they won't take one
penny of--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You won't ask one penny more for people making over
$1 million a year to help reduce our deficit, not one penny. And the
math is pretty simple after that; because you ask nothing of them, your
budget whacks everyone else. That's why your budget ends the Medicare
guarantee; that's why you cut $800 billion out of Medicaid; and that's
why, in your sequester proposal here, you whack programs that help the
most vulnerable, struggling families.
Let's talk about what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
said your proposal would do: 22 million households with children would
see their food and nutrition support cut under the SNAP reductions;
300,000 kids will no longer get the school lunch program; 300,000 kids
will lose their health coverage under the children's health insurance
program. Those are the decisions you have to make because you don't
want to ask the oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidy.
We say the American people would make a different choice. We have
that different choice in the substitute amendment. That substitute
amendment would prevent those cuts to the Defense Department. It would
prevent cuts to NIH and biomedical research. But it would prevent those
cuts without whacking seniors and children's health programs. It would
do it in a balanced way.
We say we don't need the direct payments to agricultural businesses.
These are payments that go to ag businesses whether they're making
money or not. The spigot is on. We cut those; you don't in your
proposal that's before us today. Why not? Instead, you cut the food and
nutrition programs.
So we think the right approach is the balanced approach that every
bipartisan group that has gotten together has recommended.
{time} 0950
Because 98 percent of our Republican colleagues have signed this
pledge saying they're not going to ask the folks at the very top to put
in one penny, one dime more, you're smacking everybody else. We don't
think that's the right way to go. We agree we should reduce the
deficit. And we eliminate the sequester, but just in a different way.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say we just
disagree on what balance is. When our proposal for budget reduction is
to reduce spending by $65 billion over 5 years and your proposal for
budget reduction is to spend an additional $35 billion over those same
5 years, we disagree on what balance is. We are moving in the wrong
direction under your proposal, right direction under our proposal. I'm
very proud of our proposal, proud to serve on the committee with my
friend.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise to support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent Selfridge Air National
Guard Base, which is home to the Michigan Red Devils, the 107th Fighter
Squadron.
The 107th, Mr. Speaker, flies A 10s, and they recently returned from
a redeployment to Afghanistan where they performed so bravely and made
us all proud. The 107th was one of the Air Guard units scheduled to be
eliminated under the President's budget proposal, but fortunately the
House Armed Services Committee will present a Defense reauthorization
bill next week which reverses that and saves the 107th, along with
protecting the Air National Guard actually across the entire country.
This House is going to do the right thing for the great American
patriots of the Air National Guard by prioritizing spending within our
budget, not by spending more money. So I would certainly urge our
colleagues in the Senate to join us.
Mr. Speaker, we need to remember that the cuts that caused the Obama
administration to target the Air Guard were before the sequester. If
the sequester is allowed to go into effect, the impact on the community
that I represent, for example, would be immense, and the defense
corridor we are building as a part of our economic revitalization would
be stopped, really, dead in its tracks. Not only would the National
Guard again be put at risk of massive new cuts, but military
contracting across the board would be faced with additional cuts. In
Macomb County alone--the county that I'm proud to represent as part of
my congressional district--this would mean $200 million in additional
cuts, Mr. Speaker, and obviously would cost countless jobs in the
defense-related corridor.
This House has taken steps to stop the devastation of our Air
National Guard and now is taking steps to stop the devastation of our
defense base and needless loss of jobs with commonsense reforms. So I
would urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting reconciliation
today, and the Defense reauthorization bill that's coming to the floor
next week.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm proud to yield 5 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill,
which chooses to slash programs that help struggling families get back
on their feet without closing a single tax loophole or eliminating a
single special interest subsidy.
Our budget should reflect our values and, as many in the faith
community have argued, it should advance the moral responsibilities of
the Nation to provide for the common good. I note that the Catholic
Bishops just sent a letter concluding that ``the proposed cuts to
programs in the Republican budget reconciliation fail this basic moral
test.'' I'm pleased that the bishops are speaking out, as they should.
Forty percent of the total cuts here come from cutting assistance to
low- and moderate-income families, including food stamps, Medicaid, the
Children's Health Insurance Program, and social services for vulnerable
children and elderly and disabled people. But instead of eliminating
big agricultural subsidies where people don't have to plant a seed and
they get paid, this budget would cause more than 200,000 children to
lose their school lunch and would cut the food stamp program by $36
billion. That means 46 million Americans, one-half of whom are
children, would see their benefits cut, and 2 million Americans would
lose them entirely. This, at a time when one in seven seniors faces the
threat of hunger and one in five children right here in America--a land
of plenty--face a similar risk. They are going to bed hungry in the
United States of America. We know the impact of hunger and
malnutrition: lower performances at school, poor growth, and an immune
system less able to fend off illness.
Instead of ending subsidies to big oil companies, this budget
eliminates the Social Services Block Grant, which provides childcare
assistance to low-income working mothers, addresses child abuse, and
provides care for the elderly and disabled. About 23 million people,
half of them children, would lose services.
Instead of ending tax breaks that allow corporations to ship jobs
overseas, this budget cuts Medicaid, slashes the Children's Health
Insurance Program, and forces 350,000 Americans to forego health care
coverage provided by the health care reform.
Instead of asking millionaires to pay the same tax rates as middle
class families, this budget makes children who are U.S. citizens but
have immigrant parents ineligible for the child tax credit, harming 2
million families and 4.5 million children who are United States
citizens. They end the Medicare guarantee for seniors in this Nation.
These cuts have a catastrophic effect on the most vulnerable in our
Nation, and for what? All to protect special interest subsidies and tax
breaks for the richest members of our society. My friends, it's
$150,000 for the average millionaire in a tax cut. That's what we're
talking about in this piece of legislation. It is wrong. Budgets are
about choices, about values. And this bill exposes exactly what this
majority is all about.
We need to pass legislation that strengthens and rebuilds the middle
[[Page H2578]]
class of this country, creates jobs, invests in rebuilding our
infrastructure, supports manufacturers, and restores fairness to our
Tax Code. This reverse Robin Hood agenda of the House majority fails in
every single regard, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, you know, when I hear my colleagues talk,
it sounds as if we have a choice about doing one thing or another
thing. I will say to my colleagues, when you're borrowing $1.4 trillion
a year from your children----
Ms. DeLAURO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. Just a moment. I'd be happy to yield to my friend.
When you're borrowing $1.4 trillion a year from your children, when
you're mortgaging the future of this country, it's not a choice of
either spending cuts or revenue changes; we've got to have both. We've
got to have both. And to describe it to the American people as if we
can do one or the other and get ourselves out of this mess, we cannot.
We absolutely cannot. It takes both.
I would ask my friends--and with this, I'd be happy to yield to my
colleague--when this House brought to the floor a tax cut bill that
gave every Member of Congress a tax cut at the end of 2011 that said we
only have to pay 4 percent of payroll taxes that we owe, instead of 6
percent of payroll taxes that we owe, I voted ``no.'' I said there's
not a Member in this body that needs a tax cut. I said we have too big
a problem in this Nation to give tax cuts to Members of Congress. I
voted ``no.'' Did anybody else vote ``no'' with me? Did anybody else
vote ``no'' with me?
I will not be lectured about how it is that tax cuts are distributed
in this country when we have opportunities to cut them on this floor,
to eliminate them on this floor, and my colleagues continue to vote
``yes.'' We could have added a provision that eliminated those tax cuts
for the rich. We did not, and we should have.
With that, I'd be happy to yield to my friend.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The fact of the matter is that there are choices, and the majority
refuses to make those choices.
Let's not provide the tax cuts for people who are making over
$250,000 in this Nation. Let us pull back from Afghanistan in an
orderly way and save the money. Let us cut the subsidies for those who
are sending the jobs overseas.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time from my colleague, and I very much
appreciate her passion--if I can get regular order, please, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut will
suspend.
The gentleman from Georgia has the time.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the Speaker for his help there. I'm sorry that I
needed it, but I appreciate him offering it.
You know, we passed a budget in this House, a comprehensive budget in
this House. And to hear my colleagues talk, you'd think this is the
only bill we're going to pass for the rest of the year. To hear my
colleagues talk, you'd think we're not going to bring the farm bill to
the floor and go after ag subsidies. To hear my colleagues talk, you'd
think we're not going to bring a tax bill to the floor and try to raise
revenues in this country. To hear my colleagues talk, this is it.
This isn't it. This is the bill that responds to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who said in February of
this year about the cuts that we're trying to prevent today:
I will tell you that I am prepared to say that
sequestration will pose an unacceptable risk.
{time} 1000
That's what we're here to talk about today: How do we mitigate the
unacceptable risk? How do we mitigate against the challenges that
former Democratic Budget Committee chairman, former Clinton OMB
Director, former Clinton Chief of Staff, current Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta says threaten our national security?
And, again, we're going to have a choice, Mr. Speaker. We've brought
a very powerful program, a very powerful proposal to the floor today, a
very powerful proposal. For the first time in over a decade, we're
trying to get a handle on that out-of-control portion of spending in
this budget. Just a little bit, Mr. Speaker. Just a little bit.
And, again, we just have a different idea of what balance is. We have
a different idea of what deficit reduction is. My idea of deficit
reduction is over the next 5 years we reduce the deficit.
My colleagues' idea of deficit reduction is over the next 5 years we
spend an additional $40 billion above and beyond what we were going to
borrow and spend anyway. It's a legitimate difference of opinion. I'm
glad we're bringing this rule to the floor, Mr. Speaker, so that we can
have a vote on that opinion. I look forward to the debate on the
underlying bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
the gentleman.
First of all, no one here on our side is arguing that sequestration
should go into effect. We don't think that's good for our country, but
we think that the Republican reconciliation bill is even worse for our
country because of the cuts in so many programs that actually help our
people.
There's no balance in there. The gentleman can say I'm all for
balance. There's none in your reconciliation bill. It's all cuts to
programs that actually help the people of this country.
And, finally, I'd just say we have an alternative to sequestration.
Mr. Van Hollen brought that before the Rules Committee last night. The
Rules Committee Republicans, every single one of them, voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. I think I'll let this thing cool down a little bit.
But the gentleman on the other side of this debate is quite wrong.
There's no balance in this particular bill at all. There is no balance.
The cuts are devastating. Meals on Wheels for seniors, Medicare
programs, Medicaid programs for seniors. And if you take a look at the
rest of the issues, school lunch programs, kids are going to go hungry.
There's no balance.
There is no tax proposal in this. There's no balance at all.
But the reason I rise today is to add one more problem that's not
being solved by this reconciliation. The National Flood Insurance bill
was folded in to this reconciliation, and it has a gaping hole. The
Corps of Engineers has gone through the Nation's levees and downgraded
those levees, creating an enormous problem for agriculture throughout
this Nation, and certainly in California, where many of the levees have
been downgraded. It's now impossible for farmers and the agricultural
community to obtain loans to continue to produce and to enhance their
agricultural production.
This amendment, which I had hoped could be put into the bill but was
not allowed by the Rules Committee, would simply require an immediate
study by the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to undertake a study on the impact of the downgrading
of the levees and the resultant inability to get national flood
insurance, and the impact that that has on the agricultural
communities, keeping in mind that agriculture, in a flood zone, is one
of the very best ways to reduce the risk.
I would hope that the majority would consider, as this thing moves
along, to fold into the National Flood Insurance Program an opportunity
for the Farm Flood Program that I've introduced, which would allow
farmers to obtain national flood insurance, and then the lending that
the banks could make available so they can continue to build the
necessary facilities for their agricultural production.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, there are no tough choices here. I talked
to the gentleman whose seat I took the other day. I said, John, you
know, when you were up here as a Congressman, you made it look fun.
Folks were always saying thank you, thank you, thank you for all the
spending that was going on here. I said, I don't get to make any fun
decisions.
When you've increased the public debt in this country by 50 percent
over the last 4 years, you're all out of giveaway decisions. All we
have now are tough decisions. That's all we have.
And, again, I know that my friend from Massachusetts speaks with
passion and conviction. His advocacy for
[[Page H2579]]
the neediest among us is an inspiration on the floor and in committee
and on and on, and I don't fault him for that a bit.
But I would say to my friend, had we not given that payroll tax cut
to Members of Congress, we could have provided that food stamp increase
that you discussed earlier to an additional 2 million individuals in
this country, an additional 2 million individuals in this country had
we foregone that tax increase right here. But we didn't. We chose just
to go along with the program and cut away, spend away. We can't do
that. We've got to stop that.
And I would say to my friend, because it's hard, I have the same
families struggling in my district that you do. In fact, our
foreclosure rate in my district is higher than it is in your district.
Our number of folks who are going homeless in Georgia as a result of
foreclosures, higher than it is in Massachusetts.
But when you talk about the additional 1.8 million folks, 1.8 million
folks, Mr. Speaker, according to the CBO, who are going to lose their
food stamp benefits under this bill, there's no question about that.
But here's the thing, Mr. Speaker, and this is important. This bill
doesn't cut anybody from food stamps. This bill says the only people
who can get food stamps are people who apply and qualify for food
stamps. Hear that, Mr. Speaker.
The CBO tells us, and my friend from Massachusetts quotes, that 1.8
million people are going to lose food stamp benefits. But the only
change this bill makes is that you actually have to apply for the
benefits to get the benefits. So that means 1.8 million people in this
country are receiving food stamp benefits who would not qualify for
food stamp benefits if they had to go and apply.
Mr. Speaker, that is not mean-spirited. If you want to change the
food stamp rules, if you want to make it a laxer process, whatever you
want to do, let's do that. But let's not demonize each other. Let's not
say we're trying to throw poor children out in the streets, when all
we're saying is we have a successful food stamp program, and why don't
we just limit it to those people who qualify for it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to yield to my friend from California.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you for the courtesy of yielding.
The fact of the matter is that 1.8 million people will not be able to
get the supplemental food that they get from food stamps. They're going
to be hungry. That's a fact.
Now, the rest of the fact is the application process has been
supported by the Federal Government and by the legislation so that the
States can reach out to those people that are hungry and that are able
to qualify for food stamps. That's gone in this bill. So the ability to
reach out and to bring into those programs----
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time from my friend, I would say reaching
out and bringing folks into the program who do not qualify for the
program. The rules for the program are clear, Mr. Speaker. If you
qualify for food stamps, I am the first one who wants you to have it.
If you qualify for the SNAP program, under SNAP program rules, you
should get food stamps.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I'll be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. McGOVERN. Just so the gentleman understands, the General
Accountability Office says the error rate in the SNAP program is less
than 3 percent. What is he talking about when people are getting
benefits that they don't deserve? I'd like to know the numbers of that.
How much?
Mr. WOODALL. This is important, Mr. Speaker, and I hope folks are
paying attention back in their offices. The gentleman is talking about
the error rate, the error rate, folks who have mistakenly gotten food
stamps because in the application process they got the application
process wrong. They shouldn't have qualified but they have given them
away anyway.
What the CBO says is something entirely different. What the CBO says
is that 1.8 million American families, if they walked into the office
today and applied for food stamps today, would not qualify for food
stamps. It's not an error. It's not a mistake. It's that the rules of
the game have been changed to say we just want everybody, we just want
everybody to have a part in the program.
When the gentleman says it's a paperwork nightmare for States, I
happen to agree with the gentleman. There's a tremendous paperwork
challenge for States. But this does not solve that. All we're saying is
go through the application process. To suggest that we're trying to
take benefits away from people who need those benefits is disingenuous.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to let the gentleman have his own time,
Mr. Speaker, because I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Just by way of time update, the gentleman
from Georgia has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts
has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
The gentleman is wrong. He's just wrong when he talks about the abuse
of the SNAP program, that people are somehow getting benefits that
they're not entitled to. And the demagoguery that's going on with
regard to categorical eligibility is just inexcusable. That actually
cuts paperwork and bureaucracy at a State level, and it helps people
who are eligible to get the benefits.
I'd also say to the gentleman, he gets up on the floor and talks
about this payroll tax cut for Members of Congress. That was a payroll
tax cut for everybody.
{time} 1010
Now, if you wanted to exempt Members of Congress, that would be
minuscule. That would do nothing to provide any benefit to anyone.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend that I wish he
would show me the code sections here that go into the SNAP program, the
codes that say, under the SNAP program, the income criteria that we had
yesterday is changing, and so folks aren't going to get those benefits
tomorrow. That's not here. All this bill does is to say you need to
apply, and you need to earn those benefits on your own merits.
When the gentleman talks about paperwork, he knows good and well the
CBO took that into consideration. When the CBO says 1.8 million
families are no longer going to qualify, it means some folks are going
to get thrown off of categorical eligibility because that is the gaming
of the system. They're going to go back in, and they're going to apply
for benefits, and they're going to get them, but 1.8 million are going
to go back in and apply and get denied because they don't qualify for
benefits.
Mr. Speaker, if we need to change the eligibility criteria, if we
have folks in need who can't qualify, let's change the eligibility
criteria. But in the name of good government, when we're going into
programs and saying we have rules of the game--we just want people to
have to follow them--to somehow define that as being mean-spirited, it
galls me.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
What galls me is that the Republican majority is balancing the budget
on the backs of the most vulnerable in this country, on the poorest of
the poor.
The gentleman talks about the CBO. The CBO says that cutting $36
billion from the SNAP program means that more than 22 million
households will see a cut in their benefits. It means that 22 million
families will have less food tomorrow than they do today. In fact, 2
million people would be cut from SNAP altogether. That is not my making
up numbers. That's the CBO. That's where I get that from. I think
that's cruel and inhumane during one of the worst economic crises that
we've faced.
Yes, we have to balance the budget, and we have to make tough
choices, but why does it have to be on the backs of the most
vulnerable? Why can't Donald Trump pay a couple of more dollars in
taxes? Why can't we end the subsidies to Big Oil? Why can't we make it
so that Warren Buffett pays the same tax rate as his secretary? That's
all we're saying here.
[[Page H2580]]
Your reconciliation bill represents your priorities. What we're
arguing is that your priorities are wrong and bad for the country. We
have an alternative. You won't even let us have the opportunity to
debate that alternative on the floor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts
that I am prepared to close if he has anymore speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. I'm it.
Mr. WOODALL. Then I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to this closed rule to let the House work its will and to
give Mr. Van Hollen's substitute an up-or-down vote in the House. It
deserves more than a procedural vote.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think what we're talking about here
today are two different visions for this country. The Republicans have
their vision that is outlined in their reconciliation package. Mr. Van
Hollen, I think, has adequately summarized what the Democratic
priorities are.
The main difference is that, in their proposal, there is no balance.
It's a meat-ax approach to everything--cut, cut, cut, cut--regardless
of what it means to the people of this country. What we're trying to do
and, quite frankly, what other bipartisan commissions have recommended,
is a more balanced approach: we cut spending, but there are also some
revenues to be raised.
At a time in our country when we have a Tax Code that allows Warren
Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, it seems that it's
time for a little fairness, and that's all we're asking for here.
That's all we're asking for--a balanced, fair approach. We are prepared
to make the tough choices. Yes, some of those tough choices mean cuts.
But I'd say to the Republicans that some of those tough choices may
mean you'll have to go back on the pledge that you signed with Grover
Norquist, that you'll have to support closing tax loopholes and raising
taxes on the wealthiest individuals in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I would at this time like to insert in the Record a
letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and I want to read
one paragraph from that letter, which is to the Members of Congress:
The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the
serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that
Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate
burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs.
However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts
must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and
vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the
budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test. The
catechism of the Catholic Church states it is the proper role
of government to ``make accessible to each what is needed to
lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work,
education and culture, suitable information, the right to
establish a family, and so on.'' Poor and vulnerable people
do not have powerful lobbyists to advocate their interests,
but they have the most compelling needs.
Mr. Speaker, that paragraph sums up what I feel and what so many of
us feel about what my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing.
Yes, we have to make tough choices, but why are always the tough
choices on the backs of middle-income families and on the backs of the
poor?
There are people in this country who are hungry. We are the richest
country on the planet, and we have hungry people here. Yet what is our
response? It's not to figure out a way to help deal with this terrible
scourge. Our response--their response--is to take a meat-ax approach to
SNAP, which will cut benefits. That's what the CBO says, that it will
cut benefits and that people will have less food tomorrow than they
have today if this is to become law.
I think that's a horrible choice. That's not a choice we should be
discussing on the floor. Yes, let's make these programs more efficient.
But I'm going to tell you the SNAP Program is a hell of a lot more
efficient than the Pentagon--the waste, the fraud, and the abuse in the
Pentagon, the wasteful weapons systems in the Pentagon. I want to tell
you that I don't care what Leon Panetta says. There are savings to be
found in the Pentagon's budget, and we ought to go after that. We ought
to make sure that Donald Trump pays his fair share in taxes, and we
ought to close these corporate tax loopholes that allow corporations to
get away with paying no taxes. Middle-income families can't do that.
This is about fairness. That's what we're looking for--fairness and
balance. This is a tough time. But rather than following the European
model--which my friends seem to love, a model of austerity and of cut,
cut, cut, cut, which is not very popular, as they're seeing--what we're
trying to do here is to make responsible cutbacks and responsible
investments: investing in a robust highway bill to put people back to
work, investing in education to make sure our young people are prepared
to compete in the 21st century economy, and, yes, investing in the
social safety net and investing in programs that provide a circle of
protection to the poor and the most vulnerable.
There is nothing wrong with that. We should be proud of the fact that
we are a country that cares. Let's not give that up. That's a strength.
It's not a weakness. It's a strength. I say to my colleagues that my
biggest problem with what the Republicans are doing is that it fails
that test. What it does is it goes after the most vulnerable in a way
that, I think, is cruel and wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Committee on Domestic Justice
and Human Development,
Washington, DC, May 8, 2012.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: As you vote on a reconciliation
package for the fiscal year 2013 budget, I would like to
affirm the principle contained in the Committee Report that
the ``budget starts with the proposition that first, Congress
must do no harm.'' In this light, I urge you to ensure all
policies meet the moral criteria established by the Catholic
bishops of the United States to create a circle of protection
around programs that serve poor and vulnerable people and
communities:
1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it
protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it
affects the lives and dignity of ``the least of these''
(Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless,
without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared
responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially
ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity
in difficult economic times.
A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on
disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons;
it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising
adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other
spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health
insurance and retirement programs fairly.
I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal
that would alter the Child Tax Credit to exclude children of
hard-working, immigrant families. The bishops' conference has
long supported the Child Tax Credit because it is pro-work,
pro-family, and one of the most effective antipoverty
programs in our nation. Denying the credit to children of
working poor immigrant families--the large majority of whom
are American citizens--would hurt vulnerable kids, increase
poverty, and would not advance the common good.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
formerly known as food stamps), provides vital food security
to families during tough economic times. It is estimated that
cuts proposed in this bill would deny assistance to two
million families, and cut the benefit for everyone else. No
poor family that receives food assistance would be
unaffected, constituting a direct threat to their human
dignity. If savings in agricultural programs need to be
achieved, subsidies and direct payments can be reduced and
targeted to small and moderate-sized farms.
The Social Services Block Grant is an important source of
funding for programs throughout the country that serve
vulnerable members of our communities--the homeless, the
elderly, people with disabilities, children living in
poverty, and abuse victims. We should prioritize programs
that serve ``the least of these,'' not eliminate them.
The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the
serious deficits our country
[[Page H2581]]
faces, and we acknowledge that Congress must make difficult
decisions about how to allocate burdens and sacrifices and
balance resources and needs. However, deficit reduction and
fiscal responsibility efforts must protect and not undermine
the needs of poor and vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to
programs in the budget reconciliation fail this basic moral
test. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states it is the
proper role of government to ``make accessible to each what
is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health,
work, education and culture, suitable information, the right
to establish a family, and so on'' (no. 1908). Poor and
vulnerable people do not have powerful lobbyists to advocate
their interests, but they have the most compelling needs.
As you pursue responsible deficit reduction, the Catholic
bishops join other faith leaders and people of good will
urging you to protect the lives and dignity of poor and
vulnerable families by putting a circle of protection around
these essential programs and to refrain from cutting programs
that serve them.
Sincerely,
Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire,
Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice
and Human Development.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
joining me on the floor today.
I will say I think he chose exactly the right words when he was
trying to make his points: describe your opposition as hating women and
children, and that's your best chance of winning your argument. If only
it were true.
And that's what I hope the American people take home from debates
like these, Mr. Speaker--that there are serious challenges here and
that there are serious people who are here who are trying to solve
these challenges. But we get wrapped around the axle in the name-
calling I hear, that I would argue does nothing to feed a child and
that does nothing to take care of a family.
The gentleman says that we're the richest Nation in the world. I
would tell the gentleman there is no poorer nation on the planet. There
is not a nation on the planet that has borrowed more money than this
Nation has--not one, not one. What do they say about socialism, Mr.
Speaker? It's a great plan until you run out of other people's money.
Guess what? We've run out of other people's money.
I just want to show you a chart, Mr. Speaker. This is a chart--and
I'll show it so that other Members can see it. The green line
represents tax revenues in this country. It goes back to 1947. What
you'll see is that tax revenues are fairly flat as a percent of the
economy. In fact, because this chart goes all the way back to 1947, it
reflects the New Deal with FDR. It reflects all of that growth in
government. The red line is the government spending. It goes all the
way back through 1965. It reflects Lyndon Johnson and all the Great
Society spending that goes on.
I just want to make sure all of my colleagues can see it there. The
red line represents where spending is going in this Nation, and the
green line represents where taxes are historically in this Nation. Mr.
Speaker, does this look like we have a tax problem here? Does it look
like we have a spending problem in this Nation?
{time} 1020
Taxes have remained the same as a percentage of GDP, as has spending,
until now. Until now, we have a spending-driven crisis in this Nation.
I say to my friend that, again, he chose all the right talking points:
they want to protect the rich; they want to protect the oil companies.
There is one bill in this Congress that you know well, Mr. Speaker,
that eliminates every single corporate loophole exemption deduction and
break. There's one. That same bill, Mr. Speaker, eliminates every
loophole the wealthy use to avoid paying their fair share. Mr. Speaker,
it is the single most popularly cosponsored tax bill, fundamental
reform bill in the House and in the Senate. It has almost 70 Members in
the House; it has nine Members in the Senate, and there is one Democrat
on it.
Mr. Speaker, giving the right speech down here about what folks ought
to do doesn't move us in the right direction. Putting your name behind
some legislation and moving something forward gets us in the right
direction. This Budget Committee chairman sitting here beside me, I'm
so proud of him. Chairman Paul Ryan, that's a man known around this
country as a man who is trying.
There are a lot of folks here who are known for blaming. There aren't
many folks who are known for trying, who say, I don't care about the
slings and the arrows. America is facing crisis. And if not me, then
who?
We got that in the House-passed budget, Mr. Speaker, folks who said,
If not me, then who? And they made tough choices. Here we have the
first reconciliation bill. My colleagues on the other side are going to
offer a motion to recommit to this deficit-reduction bill that actually
increases spending and call that balance.
Mr. Speaker, the food stamp program spending has increased 270
percent over the last decade. The mean-spirited folks that my
colleagues talk about want to increase it by 260 percent instead. These
aren't easy decisions, Mr. Speaker, but they're not going to put one
family out that qualifies for food stamps.
We're going to move beyond the demagoguery, Mr. Speaker. We're going
to move into the real business that governing this Nation takes. I hope
we'll get a strong bipartisan vote on this rule. I hope we'll get a
strong bipartisan vote on the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of both the rule and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 648 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Strike ``and (2)'' and insert ``(2) a further amendment in
the nature of a substitute submitted for printing in the
Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, if
offered by Representative Van Hollen of Maryland or his
designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''.
____
(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
[[Page H2582]]
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 I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 177, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 244]
YEAS--237
Adams
Aderholt
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
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
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
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
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
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 (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
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 (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
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
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Burgess
Dicks
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Granger
Hinchey
Hurt
Johnson (GA)
Lynch
Mack
McCaul
Noem
Paul
Slaughter
Stutzman
Waters
Young (AK)
{time} 1046
Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. KISSELL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HURT. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 244,
on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 648. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 244, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 183, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 245]
AYES--233
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
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
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
[[Page H2583]]
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
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 (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
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
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
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
Austria
Bachus
Berman
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Hinchey
Johnson (GA)
Mack
Noem
Paul
Slaughter
Stutzman
Young (AK)
{time} 1053
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 245, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
____________________