[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 32 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H987-H997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 933, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND FULL-YEAR CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 99 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 99
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
933) making appropriations for the Department of Defense, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and other departments and
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
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
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Oklahoma is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Worcester,
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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for the consideration of H.R. 933, the Department of
Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013.
The rule is a closed rule, which provides for the consideration of
fully conferenced Department of Defense and Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs bills and a continuing resolution for other government
programs at the FY 2012 levels. This rule provides for 1 hour of
debate, equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of
the Committee on Appropriations. In addition, the rule incorporates a
purely technical amendment to the bill by Chairman Rogers.
{time} 1020
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 933 accomplishes several key objectives.
First, it preserves military readiness and national security
capability, while maintaining core commitments to our troops and our
veterans.
Second, it ends the current uncertainty of the fiscal year 2013
budget. It seems that over the past year, we have moved from fiscal
crisis to fiscal crisis. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Rogers
and Chairman Sessions, we are able to consider funding the Federal
Government through the end of the fiscal year at this point, avoiding
the threat of a government shutdown.
Additionally, by considering full-year DOD and MilCon-VA bills, we
are able to establish a stable baseline for the Department to act upon,
as opposed to having them rely on fiscal year 2012 priorities. This
bill realigns the appropriation accounts for Department of Defense and
MilCon-VA to better reflect the fiscal year 2013 execution, rather than
the fiscal year 2012 levels carried forward in a CR.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation operates under the caps of the Budget
Control Act of 2011 as modified by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of
2012. There are across-the-board reductions in security and nonsecurity
spending to reach the caps of $1.043 trillion. Additionally, there is a
provision which ensures that the funding will be reduced to the post-
sequester level of $982 billion in total spending, a reduction of $85
billion in overall Federal spending for fiscal year 2013.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a moment discussing the
anomalies in this bill. Let me assure my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle that none of the anomalies in this legislation, on net, do
anything that raise the cost of the bill above the statutory Budget
Control Act caps.
Some of the anomalies in the bill are things like turning off the
$100 million in convention funding for Charlotte and Tampa, and turning
off $31 million in funding for the Eisenhower Commission, where funding
has been delayed indefinitely and no funds have yet been expended.
These anomalies are limited. There are only approximately 80 in the
entire bill. For reference, in the last full-year continuing
resolution, there were over 600 anomalies. The Appropriations Committee
has been judicious in its use of anomalies, only providing them in
cases where mission-critical operations might be impacted.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge support for the rule and the
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma, my friend, Mr. Cole, 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, we are here to consider the rule for H.R.
933, the continuing resolution for the rest of fiscal year 2013. This
is a disappointing bill, Mr. Speaker, and this is a disappointing
process.
This continuing resolution, quite frankly, is inadequate. It does not
meet the needs of our people. And because it does not address
sequestration, it actually will hurt many millions of our people. The
Department of Defense and the VA are given some flexibility to deal
with the devastating sequestration cuts, but no other agency is given
that tool.
This is clearly, in my opinion, a tacit statement by the majority
that they are going to keep this harmful sequester, one of the
stupidest things ever to come out of Congress.
And that, Mr. Speaker, is the disappointing part of this entire
process. The majority has had plenty of opportunity to address the
sequester. Time after time after time after time, Democrats, through
the efforts of the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, Mr. Van
Hollen, have offered a sequester alternative. And time after time after
time after time, the Republican majority has blocked this amendment
from being debated and voted on the House floor.
[[Page H988]]
Yet the Republicans in Congress have yet to put forth a sequester
alternative. Of course they will say that they have passed two
different proposals, but that was last Congress. As many of my friends
on the other side of the aisle know so well, legislation dies at the
end of each Congress. Every 2 years, Congress repopulates and every
bill must start over. There is no carryover from one Congress to the
next. We all learned that in the most basic political science class,
Politics 101. So this claim that we did something last Congress is
irrelevant to addressing the sequester that the Republicans let take
effect last week.
And let's remember the context of those two bills the House
Republicans are so proud of. They were the result of, once again, the
Republican leadership walking away from difficult bipartisan
negotiations just at the moment when a deal seemed to be within reach.
They both are completely partisan bills, and they both were dead on
arrival in the Senate. So they were not genuine efforts to solve
problems. They were all for show. They were simply political theater.
On the other hand, at the end of the last Congress, the House
Republican leadership had a bipartisan, bicameral negotiated omnibus
appropriations bill that would have taken us through fiscal year 2013,
the result of hundreds of hours of careful bipartisan negotiation. But
the House Republicans would not let that bill come to the floor for
approval, a bill that would have passed the Senate and gone straight to
the President's desk for signature.
Instead, they chose to waste the House's time on its two highly
touted, highly partisan budget bills that went nowhere. But as I said,
Mr. Speaker, that was the last Congress, and we must now start all over
to address the sequester and provide funding for the remainder of this
fiscal year.
Frankly, I don't know what the Republicans in the House are scared
of. Speaker Boehner seems to have moved past the Hastert rule, which is
a silly notion that the bill must only pass if it has the majority of
the majority, and he has replaced it with selective bipartisanship.
That's right, Speaker Boehner clearly believes that the House should
operate under a process of selective bipartisanship.
This means he turns to Democrats when he needs the votes to pass
important bills, like he did for VAWA, the fiscal cliff, and Hurricane
Sandy relief, when only 49 Republicans, only 49 Republicans out of 232
voted to help our fellow citizens on the east coast who were devastated
by that storm. The Speaker should do the same thing with the sequester
and allow the House to debate and to vote on the Van Hollen amendment.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is part of a broader Republican economic
plan that is, to put it mildly, extremely disappointing.
First, Republicans brought us to the brink of economic mayhem with
the fiscal cliff. At the last minute, the Senate swooped in to save the
day with leadership and help from the administration. Then House
Republicans allowed the sequester to take effect, once again playing
Russian roulette with our economy. Now we are going to consider this
hybrid CR that just doesn't pass muster, despite the best efforts of
the appropriators.
No one--no one--wants a government shutdown, and we all know that
some kind of bill funding the Federal Government through the end of the
fiscal year will pass before March 27. The real fights are going to
come in the next few weeks and months when the Republicans outline
their budget priorities with the new Ryan budget and when the debt
limit, once again, needs to be raised.
What is clear is that the Republicans are hell-bent on cutting
spending just for its own sake, no matter how mindless or senseless. We
know that the economy is slowly rebounding, and we also know that these
cuts in government spending--Federal, State, and local--are taking
their toll on the economy. Fourth-quarter growth last year was reduced
only because of reduced government spending--the cuts to cops, the cuts
to firefighters, the cuts to teachers, and other workers--when that
showed up in that economic report.
Now we are going to see a Republican budget that supposedly
eliminates the deficit in 10 years. Call it the Ryan budget on
steroids. It is going to cut Medicare, food stamps, and nearly every
nondefense discretionary program funded by the Federal Government; and
during the debt ceiling debate, we will see another attempt to
arbitrarily cut these programs.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a responsible way to govern. The continuing
resolution before us today is just one more example of how the House
Republicans are leading with their heads in the sand. Instead of
working to jump-start our economy, instead of engaging in true
bipartisan negotiations, House Republicans continue to push on with
misguided and ill-conceived budget cuts that do harm, but no good.
Like I said, this is a disappointing bill and a disappointing effort.
We should be considering an omnibus appropriations bill. We should work
to replace the sequester. We should be thinking long-term about
economic recovery. We should be putting country ahead of political
party. Instead, once again, we are playing games with our economy. This
is no way to run a government.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1030
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
just want to make a few quick comments in reference to my good friend's
remarks. You referred to an interesting phrase, ``selective
bipartisanship.'' I would suggest to my friend that we've probably
practiced that more in 2 months than they did in 2 years when they were
in the majority.
These were major pieces of legislation that we did move in a
bipartisan fashion. As my good friend knows, I helped on all three of
those occasions, was happy to do so, and I'm sure the Speaker will
continue to try and work across the aisle whenever he can.
My friend also referred to the nature of the cuts. Let me assure him
of this: these are cuts, and they are going to occur; but we've
repeatedly told our friends and the President and the Senate that we
would be more than happy to redistribute where the cuts are going to
occur. We did that twice: in May of last year and in December of last
year, after the election, in good faith. In neither case did the Senate
pick that up or the White House respond with a serious offer. Now my
friend is asking us to do it for a third time in the hopes it will be
different.
Perhaps this time you should go first. Perhaps the Senate should
actually pass a plan or the President actually lay one out. I don't
think we've really seen that. But again, if we see that, we'll be
willing to work with our friends and try and redistribute the cuts.
But don't have any illusion that we're going to eliminate them. We're
not, any more than our friends eliminated the idea of tax cuts when the
Bush tax cuts ran out. This is something we feel is a first step in
getting our fiscal house in order.
And let me remind my friend, as I know he knows, this bill, in
itself, is an effort to work with the President and the administration.
The President has said, and I think quite correctly, that we need to
avoid a government shutdown. Mr. Rogers and the Appropriations
Committee are acting early and acting, I think, in a very responsible
manner to put a vehicle out there and begin to move it through the
process.
We are more than willing for the Senate to do the same thing, would
expect that they will. They may well add other departments. Frankly,
speaking only for myself, I would hope that they do. I would like to
recapture a lot of the appropriations work that was done for the fiscal
year 2013 and lost during the CR process, and we can have, I think, a
good negotiation going back and forth between the two parties.
So this is the beginning of a process. It's the beginning of a return
to regular order, and it's an opportunity to work, I think, in a
bipartisan fashion.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
And I have great respect for my colleague from Oklahoma, and I
appreciate the efforts that he has made toward bipartisanship on a
number of bills; but, quite frankly, the leadership of this House has
not adhered to regular order. We haven't seen regular in order a long
time.
[[Page H989]]
And when he talks about trying to find an alternative to
sequestration, I would remind my colleague that Mr. Van Hollen, who is
about to speak, has tried on four occasions--on four occasions--to be
able to come to the floor and offer his alternative to sequestration
that the Democrats support--I think some Republicans would support it
as well--to have a debate and to have an up-or-down vote to avoid these
mindless, senseless, across-the-board, indiscriminate cuts that have
now gone into place. He's been denied all four times.
Now, by contrast, the Republicans have had zero alternatives. That's
right, zero. They have brought nothing to the floor in this Congress to
avoid sequestration. We're in March--January, February, March. We're in
March, so we've had time to come up with alternatives. We've had an
alternative that we have not allowed to be brought to the floor.
And let me just say, the United States Senate did actually pass an
alternative with 51 votes. That's a majority. Unfortunately, I think,
partly due to the influence of some of the House leadership here, the
Republicans said, no, you need 60 votes to get that thing through.
So we have been trying. The White House has been trying. So the fact
that we are here and that my Republican friends have allowed
sequestration to go into effect, I think, is, quite frankly,
unconscionable. We should not be in this mess.
And sequestration took effect last week. We should have stayed in
session all week and tried to figure this out. And my friends adjourned
the House, recessed the House on Thursday--no urgency, no nothing.
And research to education funding to funding for roads and bridges. It
will impact, in a negative way, jobs. People will lose their jobs.
This is not a good deal. This is not a good deal. And, quite frankly,
we should be here today trying to find an alternative.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. McGovern, and thank my
colleague, Mr. Cole, for his efforts, but this bill falls short in a
number of areas. But most of all, it falls short because it does
nothing to prevent the loss of 750,000 American jobs that will result
because of the sequester.
``Sequester'' is just a fancy Washington name for hundreds of
thousands of American jobs lost. That's going to squeeze middle class
families; it's going to squeeze small businesses.
And that 750,000 jobs lost number, that's not the President's number,
Mr. Speaker. That's not my number. That's the number from the
nonpartisan, independent Congressional Budget Office, who have told us
that if the sequester stays in place till the end of this calendar
year, you'll have 750,000 less Americans working at a time when we have
a very fragile recovery going on.
Just last week, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said that it
would reduce economic growth this year by one-third. Why would we want
to do that when we have an alternative?
And, as Mr. McGovern said, we have now tried four times to have an
up-or-down vote on the floor of this House on a plan that would replace
the sequester in a balanced way. So it would achieve the same amount of
deficit reduction as the across-the-board sequester, but without the
massive job loss that comes with the sequester because we do it in a
targeted way over a period of time.
We reduce overpayments and subsidies to the agriculture area, which
there's consensus on, but we also close some big tax loopholes. We say
big oil companies no longer need big taxpayer subsidies, something that
President Bush proposed. And yet our colleagues are so insistent on
protecting those special interest tax breaks and not allowing those
funds to be used to reduce the deficit, that they haven't even allowed
a vote up or down here on the floor of the House.
As my colleague, Mr. McGovern said, we have now tried four times. How
many times have our Republican colleagues put forward a solution to
replace the sequester this year? Zero. Zero when it counts.
So this is a very simple question. As part of this bill, we should
have an up-or-down vote in the people's House on a choice. We're not
asking our colleagues to vote for it, but I think if you look at
surveys from the American people, the overwhelming majority of the
American people support this replacement approach, this balanced
approach to avoiding the sequester, than the huge job losses that
result as a result of the sequester.
And people should not be misled when they look at the numbers in
different funding categories in this bill, because it's not what it
seems. They will be cut dramatically. That will mean fewer researchers
looking for cures and treatments to diseases, fewer nurses taking care
of veterans at our hospitals.
So, Mr. Speaker, we just ask, in the interest of openness and
transparency, give us a vote. Give the American people a vote on an
alternative to the sequester so we don't lose hundreds of thousands of
jobs.
Mr. COLE. Just for the purpose of response, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I appreciate my good friend's offer on staying in session last week.
It would have been nice if we'd have dealt with this 18 months ago.
We've known it's been coming. We tried to do that twice.
I'm not sure the President would have been around last week. Frankly,
he spent the last 6 weeks crisscrossing the country, campaigning and
bludgeoning people, as opposed to having a dialogue. He did not bother
to invite the Speaker, the Majority Leader, or the leader of the Senate
or the minority leader of this House to a meeting until the very last
day--the very last day. Now, that suggests to us there wasn't a great
deal of interest in serious negotiations.
So, again, this process is going to allow that to occur. We're going
to advance our bill through this Chamber. It's going to have
incorporated some of the work in the appropriations process. It's going
to help the Defense Department a great deal.
We're waiting for our friends in the Senate to do the same thing.
They're going to, undoubtedly, add some things. I think there will be a
negotiation. I think we will end up in a good place. But we will
preserve the spending reductions of the sequester in the final product
of the bill.
With all due respect to my friend, revenue's off the table. You had
revenue about 6, 8 weeks ago with no cuts. This time I suspect you're
going to get cuts and no revenue.
With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of
Texas (Mr. Burgess), my distinguished colleague, classmate, and a
distinguished physician.
{time} 1040
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is an important bill that we are considering today. It's not a
perfect bill. It's not the bill that I would write if I had the power
to write the bill. But it's an important bill. And as a conservative,
I'm going to support the rule and I'm going to support the bill.
Mr. Cole already referenced that the most important thing that's
happening this morning is the savings that began last Friday are locked
in in the continuing resolution. These are savings that have been
anticipated for years, delayed for months, and finally arrived last
Friday. The market responded yesterday with an all-time high. It's time
to let those savings work their magic on the American economy.
It does allow the Department of Defense the flexibility that they
asked for to be able to manage their business with the reduced level of
funding. And I think protecting our soldiers and protecting the pay of
our soldiers is one of the highest constitutional functions of this
body and one that we should take seriously. I believe this bill does
that.
This bill also protects funding for our veterans, which is also
important.
I know a lot of people on my side are concerned because the
President's Affordable Care Act, the President's government takeover of
health care, is not damaged in this exchange. In truth, some of the
funding for implementation is reduced because it's kept at last year's
levels and it is affected by the savings in the sequester. But to those
on my side who would say it doesn't go far enough in restricting the
Affordable Care Act, I would say that we are going
[[Page H990]]
to get opportunities to fight that fight--multiple opportunities--in
the few short weeks ahead. Where will they come? They will come in our
budget. They will come in the appropriations bill. The appropriations
bills, in the House, at least, will be run in an open fashion. There
will be open appropriations bills. And in Labor-HHS there will be ample
opportunity to demand of the Federal agencies involved with
implementation that they share with us the data about how this thing is
supposed to start October 1, when they have really been very reticent
to share anything.
Speaking of reticent to share anything, how about the administration,
which hid the ball before election day on all these rules that have now
come forward since November 6? No wonder the Governors were reluctant
to accept the exchanges. No wonder the Governors have held off in some
States from accepting the Medicaid expansion. Because they weren't told
what the deal would be until after the President's election was
reassured. That's pretty disingenuous of the administration to run
things that way, and I believe they should be held to account. And more
importantly, in the 6 months between now and October 1, when every
American who wants to buy in the exchange is supposed to be able to go
to their computer and buy on the exchange, I don't believe they can
actually build that system in the time required, regardless of how much
money we give them.
It is important to hold those agencies accountable. Our committee
work will do that. As an oversight committee on the authorization side,
we will continue to do that. And I think that's important work.
So I ask conservatives to join me in that fight as we go forward.
Let's fight this on the budget, let's fight it on our open rules in the
appropriations process. Today, it's an important bill. Not a perfect
bill, but it's an important bill. It protects our soldiers. It protects
our veterans. And it locks in those savings for the long-suffering
American taxpayer that they have waited for for so long.
I urge support of the rule and support of the underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just so there is no confusion, I think it's important that I point
out to my colleagues that we have had three rounds of cuts to one round
of revenue increases. The cuts have overwhelmed the revenue increases.
So the notion that somehow we've engaged in a balanced process I don't
think is the case. And the notion that somehow closing these tax
loopholes and corporate tax loopholes that even Mitt Romney and George
Bush at one time supported in order that we don't cut medical research,
research aimed at trying to find cures to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
and diabetes--if we found cures for those diseases, not only would we
prevent a lot of human suffering, we'd save a lot of money.
But we're cutting medical research and we're pushing farther off the
date that we're going to find breakthroughs in order to protect
taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that are making zillions of
dollars? They really need a handout from the United States taxpayer?
And you're cutting medical research, you're cutting Head Start, you're
cutting programs that help people get an education, that protect our
communities, our law enforcement officials, environmental protection.
We're cutting all those things mindlessly in order to protect these
corporate tax loopholes.
This is crazy. I really believe that outside of this little bubble
here in Washington there is a bipartisan consensus that what we're
doing here is crazy. This doesn't make any sense. This does not make
any sense. Mindless, senseless, across-the-board cuts.
No urgency. We're going to go home today. There's a little snow on
the ground. National Airport is closed. We can't really go anywhere
until it reopens. We ought to stay here and figure out an alternative
to sequestration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill. This is a disgraceful bill.
And this process is not on the level.
Yesterday, Wall Street celebrated its highest close in history. And
today it's going higher. A few years ago, they came here, hat in hand,
insisting on a bailout. They got a bailout. And it was paid for by Main
Street, who didn't cause the problem but suffered the consequences, and
it was paid for by the middle class, who didn't cause the problem but
suffered the consequences. And now we have a budget that is doubling
down, grinding down on the middle class.
What economic philosophy is at work here? America has always been at
its best when it has had budgets that promote economic growth and
middle class opportunity. This budget has adopted a notion that
austerity is a goal in and of itself. And how will we get to fiscal
balance without economic growth and an expanding middle class? Our
colleagues say in this budget it will be by putting the heel of
austerity on the throat of middle class opportunity. That is wrong.
Forty-four percent of the cuts are focused on 14 percent of the
budget. That's kids going to college; it's little kids showing up in
school hungry who can get a meal; it's TSA workers who are going to get
furloughed and who pay their bills month to month. This is disgraceful,
and it is also a repudiation of what has made America great--a
confidence that we are all in it together. And if we have a budget
where we share the pain and we share the opportunity, we'll be the
better for it.
Wall Street has a second reason to celebrate today because this
budget is absolutely doubling down on promoting the well-being of the
haves at the expense of the middle class in the great American
tradition of middle class opportunity. Profits in this country are the
highest they've been since 1950. Wages are the lowest they've been
since 1966. We need to stand up for the middle class.
Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Listening to my colleagues, I'm reminded of that old saying that
Washington, D.C., is 10 square miles surrounded by reality.
Let's talk a little bit about the definitions we use for cuts. First
of all, the Government will spend more money this year than it did last
year, just as last year it spent more money than it did the year
before. We're not cutting anything. We're slowing down the rate of
growth. In parts of the budget there are real cuts. But in terms of
overall spending, it's ever and ever higher.
According to the much quoted, much loved Congressional Budget Office,
this year we will have the highest level of income for the Federal
Government in history. In the history of the United States, we will
have more money to spend than we have ever spent before. And yet that
same CBO estimates it will run a budget deficit if we keep sequester,
if we allow the revenue that occurred in January of over $850 billion.
Now at some point you have to reconcile the highest level of income
and an $850 billion deficit. We don't have a revenue problem here; we
have a spending problem of historic and massive proportions. This is
one small step in the right direction to try and get that under
control.
We look forward to what our friends in the Senate do. We look forward
to what the administration does. And we look forward to having a
conversation over not just this bill but in the next several months
we're going to have that opportunity when the Senate finally presents a
budget. We'll present a budget. The administration for the fourth time
in 5 years will be late but surely will at some point present a budget.
{time} 1050
The American people can look at all of those.
We're going to have an opportunity for a great debate, and I suspect
we'll continue to try and adjust things as we move forward to get
ourselves more in balance. But let's recognize the reality. We've had
four trillion-dollar deficits in a row. We have, with these cuts and
with additional revenue, an $850 billion deficit, at the minimum, in
front of us. Maybe that ought to be the focus.
I can assure my friends--we all talk a lot about polling and what the
American people think. I can assure you, I've done a lot of polling in
my lifetime. They think the Federal Government is too big; they think
it spends too much; and they would like to see
[[Page H991]]
us take less of their money, not more. So if we get into a real debate
here, I suspect the American people will say: Figure out a way to live
within the highest level of income in American history as opposed to
coming to us and asking us for more.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night, the FAA announced that 173 air
traffic control towers will be closed by April 7. So I would say to my
colleague, tell the communities whose economies will be devastated by
the fact that they will no longer have air service that this is not a
cut. I mean, they will be losing an essential service that is vital for
businesses to thrive all across this country. That is a cut.
At this point, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding time this
morning.
Let me associate myself with the last comments made by Mr. McGovern.
He is absolutely correct; the American people are beginning to feel the
impacts of sequestration.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are always talking about:
We don't have a revenue problem; we don't have a revenue problem; we
have a spending problem in this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a
deficit problem in this country.
There are two ways, at least, where we can address the deficit. We
can address it with more revenue, which is what I strongly recommend,
and we can also address it with very important cuts. We have got to
have a balanced approach to deficit reduction. So I've come to the
floor today to strongly oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I don't like the way H.R. 933 evolved. We read about it
in the news media this weekend. We returned to Washington on Monday
afternoon and there it was, posted. We were told that the rule would be
taken up today and we would be voting on it tomorrow. But then a
snowstorm came into this Capital City, and now we are voting on the
rule and the CR today and we are leaving town. That is not the way to
do it.
The Republican majority has instead elected to move with a bill that
provides new funding levels and flexibility to just the Department of
Defense and military construction and veterans, while keeping the
antiquated funding levels for the remaining 10 appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we got serious about this and rolled up
our sleeves, we could make it happen.
I cannot help but to remember the days when I was a trial judge back
in North Carolina. From time to time, Mr. Speaker, we would have
difficult cases. But we would send the jury in the room, we would lock
the door, and we would make them deliberate; and more times than not,
they would come out with a verdict. That's the way we need to engage in
this business.
This is too serious, Mr. Speaker, to have a political dimension to
this debate. We've got to have common sense. We've got to make it
happen.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I urge its defeat.
We must get to the real work of governing in this country and stop the
political theater.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just, again, to get back to the big picture for a moment, as my
friends know, we're going to spend about $3.5 trillion this year in the
Federal budget. These dreaded cuts, in terms of the total budget,
amount to 2.4 percent of all spending--2.4 percent of $3.5 trillion. I
suspect the American people think: You could find a better way to
distribute those cuts than closing our towers.
I agree, actually, with my friend, Mr. McGovern. One of those towers,
by the way, is in my district, so I certainly understand it. I have
20,000 Federal defense employees in my district, so I'm quite aware of
the problems with the distribution of the cuts.
Now, I'll leave it to my friends on the other side of the aisle and
Mr. Woodward to argue whose idea this was and what purpose and how it
was constructed, but it's hardly as if the President of the United
States or our friends in the Senate were innocent bystanders in all of
this.
We tried twice last year to sit down and renegotiate. We moved
something through. We've said repeatedly this year we're willing to sit
down and renegotiate the cuts. To me, that's compromise.
The President talks a lot about a balanced approach. Two months ago,
he got a lot of revenue. That's his side of the equation. This time it
should be cuts. That's an appropriate balance. We'll sit down and
renegotiate where they should come from--we think we've got some great
ideas on that--but they are going to occur. They're the first and
appropriate step toward getting our fiscal house back in order.
So when my friends want to work with us about the distribution, I
know they'll find a willing negotiating partner in the Speaker. Until
such time, we will follow the course that the President laid out,
advocated for, and signed into law. If he wants to revisit that, we
agree with him, let's revisit it and redistribute it, but the cuts are
going to occur.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his words. I
associate myself with Mr. McGovern. But also, I do acknowledge Mr.
Cole, my good friend. You have certainly joined us on bipartisan
issues, as has already been stated, and I thank you for that. But I do
want to, in essence, gently correct the gentleman on whether or not the
President got his, it's now time for us to get ours.
I think what we have missed is that this is an ongoing process, an
ongoing process to find the right balance of revenue and the right
balance of cuts. Let it also be on the record that we've cut over $1
trillion already, and I can tell you that it has come out of the backs
of poor people.
Now, let me give you some resounding, exciting breaking news: the Dow
hit the highest amount yesterday, 14,253.77, the highest in history.
Wall Street is celebrating while the backs of poor people are being
broken.
This is not a rule that should pass today. We should remain snowed
out. We shouldn't even be here. Snow us out until we can get the right
kind of balance.
This is the bill that we received in less than 24 hours, and they're
asking us to vote on it. And while we're asked to vote on it, let me
suggest to you that the long-term unemployed will be particularly
impacted:
$130 a month will come out of their unemployment. It will be brutal
to government workers and job training programs, those that we slash
and burn, but these are the men and women that work and do the business
of government;
For women who are caretakers, they will find that 50 percent of them
are more likely to hold government jobs, they're going to be impacted;
$725 million is going to come out of poor people's children's
education;
Those of us who support community health clinics, $120 million of
Federal support for community health centers will just drop, and
900,000 patients will not be served. 540,000 doses of vaccine will not
be there.
The point is that when it comes to the backs of those who will bear
the brunt, it will be those who need clean energy, education, and
research and development.
I introduced H.R. 900, a simple bill to get rid of the sequester. My
point would be that we need to go back to work and vote ``no'' on the
rule. It is on the backs of poor people.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for
the purpose of response.
First, I appreciate my good friend, whom I have worked with on a
number of things, most recently the Violence Against Women Act, where
she certainly ably represented the bill in the Rules Committee and on
the floor, and I appreciate that very much. I'm going to gently correct
in return.
When we talk about cuts that were previously agreed to, with all due
respect to my friends, most of those cuts still haven't even taken
place. If you look at them, they are far in the future, in the 10-year
window.
These were not cuts, by the way, that the two sides found
contentious. This was the easy stuff that they all agreed
[[Page H992]]
to right up front. It wasn't as if there was some concession.
The real discussion was in the next round of cuts, where the
supercommittee wasn't able to come to an agreement. Even there, there
were $600 or $700 million in agreed-upon ``cuts'' that both sides
acknowledge. There just wasn't agreement about revenue, and so the cuts
didn't occur.
Well, we're here today, and just as the tax increases were written
into law effectively when the Bush tax cuts sunsetted in January, these
cuts are also written into law.
{time} 1100
Again, since they're written into law, they're going to occur. Now,
we're willing, again, to sit down with our friends and redistribute
where they come from. We think that would be the prudent thing to do.
We tried to do it twice last year. It didn't work out. Nobody was
interested in talking to us last year. The President wasn't interested
in putting a proposal on until, if anything, recent days, and I really
couldn't still tell you what it truly is.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE. I will finish my point, and I will be happy to yield to my
friend briefly.
I think that the reality is we ought to recognize--just as I urge my
friends on my side of the aisle to recognize--as we approach the end of
the Bush tax cuts, that they're going to end. We ought to sit down and
negotiate with our friends some better and more proper distribution,
whether we like it or not. That's just the case. It's going to be that
way. That's what's going to happen here.
Now, we would rather renegotiate, minimize the harm and spread that
2.4 percent over the entire $3.5 trillion budget. I suspect our friends
would like to do that, too, over time, and hopefully we can arrive at
that. So I look forward to continuing the dialogue, but the cuts are
going to be secured. This legislation will move through the House, and
then I'm sure something will move through the Senate and we'll sit down
and negotiate in a bipartisan, bicameral manner.
With that, I yield to my good friend from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman's tone, and let it be
known that all of us want to engage in that kind of civil discussion. I
assume, if we all got locked up in a room, we'd be able to find the
compromise.
Let me just indicate that the revenues and cuts that you just spoke
about are over a 10-year period, but they're still cuts. This bill not
only adds to that, but then the sequester adds to that, as well.
Our suggestion in my remarks is that this will have a heavy, heavy,
heavy, heavy impact on vulnerable and innocent persons.
The cuts are going forward, and so my question is: Why can't we
continue the discussion on how we balance cuts and revenues? We must
operate the government.
Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, if I may, I think the gentlelady asked
a good question, and I look forward to working with my friends on the
other side of the aisle. I actually think today is the beginning of a
process where that will happen. It's one of the reasons I really
commend Chairman Rogers for moving early.
We're not in a last-minute crisis atmosphere here, and we're not
trying to jam our friends in the Senate. We want them to move as
quickly and expeditiously as they can. We would like to move toward the
discussion and talks with them, and I'm sure the administration will be
involved in that.
To me, that's a step back toward what I would like and what we all
talk about around here, which is regular order. While that's going on,
we can engage in the normal appropriations process for fiscal year
2014.
So, as difficult as this is--and we've been through a difficult time,
I think, in recent months and over the last year plus, honestly--this
may be the first step back in the right direction.
Again, I respect that my friends have a different point of view on
this, but I'm talking what I would view as political reality to them,
just as I did to my friends on my own side of the aisle a few weeks
ago. This is going to occur, so let's just be reasonable and rational
about how it is. We're going to have a lower deficit because of that. I
think that's one of the reasons that Wall Street is doing well. But who
knows? It's always hard to predict what's going on there.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
It's really a shame we've come to this point where the dysfunction of
this Congress is going to inflict harm on families, on the military,
and on communities throughout America.
I have great respect for my friend from Oklahoma. He has reached
across the aisle, and he has tried to work with us to find common
solutions, but he knows the truth. The truth is that discretionary
domestic spending as a percentage of our GDP is at the lowest it's been
since the Eisenhower administration. He knows that the Federal tax
burden, the revenue side of the ledger, is the lowest since Harry
Truman was in the White House. He knows that the gap between spending
and revenue has grown since the last time we balanced the budget under
Bill Clinton, when it was much closer.
We have to get our arms around spending, but not in a mindless, meat-
ax way. It is going to hurt America. And to bake it into this
continuing resolution, in my view, is a terrible mistake. If the
Republican side of the aisle wants to embrace sequestration as its own
with this fairy tale that ``it's just a haircut; it's not much,
especially when you look at the overall size of Federal spending,''
that will come as news to communities, to travelers, to consumers, and
to the American public who, in fact, will feel the brunt of the
sequestration in this continuing resolution.
The other aspect of this continuing resolution, and why I oppose this
rule, Mr. Speaker, is that, once again, we treat the Federal employee
like a punching bag. For the 3rd year in a row, we freeze their salary.
They have already contributed, and they were the only group singled out
to contribute to the Federal debt reduction to the tune of $100 billion
in lost wages and benefit cutbacks. We use the freeze on Congress as a
subterfuge to get at Federal employees.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and support my bill to
freeze congressional salaries, H.R. 636. Seventy-three cosponsors have
already decided to do so.
It is a shame that House Republicans cannot find a way to put aside
ideology to work with us to avert the devastating cuts of
sequestration. The Continuing Resolution presents the perfect
opportunity to stop this self-inflicted wound on our economy, our
military, and our families.
The consequences of Republican inaction will be particularly hard
felt in my community, which is home to so many people who work for or
partner with the federal government. That pain will spread across
Virginia and the rest of the nation as no community will be spared from
these meat-axe cuts as they ripple through the economy. Every community
that receives direct federal assistance, has residents who work for the
federal government or is home to an employer who does work with the
federal government will be affected.
The slowdon in government spending has been a drag on local and state
economies across the entire country and the unemployment rate for the
past two years. GDP growth in the 4th Quarter of 2012 slowed to 0.1%
after growing at 3.1% in the 3rd Quarter based largely on a 22%
reduction in defense spending.
Now the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects economic
growth for this year will be half of what it otherwise might be as a
result of these new cuts. In addition, a study by George Mason
University estimates sequestration will lead to loss of more than 2
million jobs.
Since last August, I have joined members of the regional delegation,
as well as industry leaders and federal employee groups, in calling on
Congress to find a balanced alternative to sequestration. I agree that
we must take reasonable steps to address our debt. However, I cannot
accept the House Republican philosophy that the only way to do this is
through cuts alone.
We cannot cut our way to prosperity. We must have a balanced approach
that finds strategic cuts and savings while maintaining critical
investments that ensure our competitiveness in the global economy.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so that we can bring
up a balanced approach to replace sequestration along with my
[[Page H993]]
bill to protect federal employees from yet another pay freeze.
My bill, H.R. 636, would freeze Member salaries for the duration of
the 113th Congress. If anyone's salary should be frozen as a result of
our nation's fiscal situation it is Members of Congress.
Our dedicated Federal employees are on the front lines protecting and
serving the public every day in our communities. Yet House Republicans
have routinely used them as a punching bag. The men and women who have
dedicated their careers to public service are still weathering a pay
freeze that will have lasted more than two years, and they have made
sacrifices in pay and benefits totaling more than $100 billion to help
reduce our nation's debt.
Now, because House Republicans refuse to work with us to avert
sequestration, they are facing furloughs and the loss of up to 20% of
their pay in some cases on top of having their pay frozen for a third
consecutive year as part of this CR.
Mr. Speaker, sequestration was put in place to force Congress to act,
not to become law. I remain committed to preventing these harmful cuts,
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this rule so we
can bring up a balanced approach that will do just that.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with my good friend from Virginia on his
point about discretionary spending. It's probably an area that he and I
would find a considerable amount of common ground on. I certainly do
think that far too much of this is coming out of the discretionary side
of the budget, particularly in defense, but I would say across the
board.
I have Indian health facilities in my district that will be hit, and
I have the National Severe Storms Laboratory in my district that will
be hit. I understand my friend makes those points. He's making a very
important point.
Now, we've been willing to go where no man has gone before, the
nondiscretionary side of the budget. The Ryan budget, which you may
like or not like, or the Ryan plan on Medicare is a real attempt to
deal with where we all in the room know the real problem is, and that's
on the nondiscretionary side of the budget.
I hope that our friends put their ideas out there. The President has
put, and sometimes withdrawn, but has put a number of interesting ideas
on the table at various points. We never seem to quite get there,
whether it's change CPI or raising age over time gradually on some of
our programs.
Now, my friends on the other side, at least our distinguished
minority leader, has refused to ever do that. Whether it's Social
Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, it's been: We're going to defend this
ground; we're not going to make any changes. At the end of the day,
that's the kind of thing that we're going to have to deal with.
As an appropriator, as somebody who, like my friend from Virginia,
sees the impacts of these discretionary reductions and this squeezing
down, I think that is the solution. I think that's at least a big part
of the solution.
I have no illusions we're going to settle all our deficit problems
with this bill, but we are taking a step in the right direction.
Hopefully our friends, and our side as well, will expand the dialogue
to include the nondiscretionary side of the budget in the weeks and
months ahead, and we can begin to arrive at common ground. But we can't
simply allow Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and farm
programs--I'll put some of our sacred cows on the table as well--to
expand by a matter of law without any effort to look at them.
We've offered to do that. We've actually written a budget that has
done that. We've gone through the political fires. I can assure my
friends you can do that and still survive as a majority. And we're
anxious to do that going forward. If we can find willing partners in
that, both on the other side of the aisle, the other side of the
rotunda, and the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I think we'll
actually be on the road to doing something.
So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. At least, over time, 750,000 people will lose their jobs
as a result of the sequester.
Who are these Americans? They're Federal employees who inspect our
food or who inspect toxic waste dumps or who work in the Federal court
system or for the FBI. But they're also people in small businesses
around the country and big businesses. It's the woman who owns a
software company who has a contract with NOAA, the National Weather
Service, that gets canceled or cut back. It is the caterer who serves
an Air Force base or an Army base or a Coast Guard facility. It is the
small businessperson who is a utility contractor on a transportation
project to be funded by Federal dollars. These are real people who,
over time, will be very badly affected by this.
We have a plan that would save these jobs but continue to reduce the
deficit. It's Mr. Van Hollen's plan. That plan says that we should save
an equal amount the sequester would save by cutting back on corporate
welfare to huge oil companies, by cutting back on corporate welfare for
huge agribusinesses that own land and get payments from the Federal
taxpayers through the Ag Department, and that anyone who makes more
than $2 million a year should have to pay at least 30 percent of their
income under the Tax Code and not exploit loopholes and deductions.
{time} 1110
Today would be the right day to take a vote on that plan. My friends
on the other side would probably oppose the plan. That's obviously
within their right. But the House has not yet taken up any proposals to
save these 750,000 jobs. That is wrong. You can disagree with our
proposal, you can try to amend our proposal, you can try to do better
than our proposal, but for the House not to take one vote on saving
these 750,000 jobs is wrong.
We will have an opportunity on the previous question vote to remedy
that wrong.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. ANDREWS. A ``no'' vote on the previous question would mean that
this body could take an up-or-down vote on whether or not to save these
750,000 jobs while still reducing the deficit in the ways that I just
talked about.
Look, the basic job that we have around here is to make decisions and
take votes. If you vote with us, that's fine; if you vote against us,
that's fine. That's democracy. We should celebrate it. But to fail to
take a vote is to avoid that responsibility.
Let's accept our responsibility to turn off this sequester, save
those 750,000 jobs and vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, just very quickly I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I want to thank my friend. I can assure you that we take this very
serious, as well. I have lots of Federal employees, and the real job
loss won't be theirs. They will certainly be hard-hit, they'll be
furloughed, but the real job loss, as my friend suggests, really is in
the private sector, and that's why we should sit down and have a
serious discussion about entitlement costs.
With all due respect to my friend, Mr. Van Hollen, my friends on the
other side of the aisle, I don't think that proposal would pass. I
certainly wouldn't vote for it. I want that very much in the Record.
If our friends want to do something, they do have control of the
United States Senate. That's a body that can do whatever it wants to
do, and we'll see what happens going forward.
Again, what I'm pleased with is, I think this is the beginning of a
real discussion and the beginning of a real dialogue. We're going to do
some good things in terms of giving flexibility to the Defense
Department and our friends that deal with military construction and the
VA. We're anxious to hear ideas on the other side. But we are going to
reduce spending, and we're going to reduce it not by an extraordinary
amount, but by 2.4 percent of the entire $3.5 trillion Federal budget,
and we're willing to renegotiate where those cuts come from. I think
that's a pretty reasonable position to have.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
[[Page H994]]
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for his graciousness and fairness in
all respects.
I'm not sure anyone has control over the United States Senate. But I
am sure of this: last week a proposal very similar to the one that I
just talked about that would save those three-quarters of a million
jobs got 51 votes on the floor of the United States Senate, a majority.
Of course, under their peculiar rules, it required 60 votes to go
forward.
So understand this: a majority of the United States Senate, in fact,
adopted the plan that I talked about. We should be given the chance to
do the same thing.
Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, I'd be happy if the United States
Senate decided to operate collectively instead of individually, but I
didn't write their rules and neither did my friends. I'm sure if we got
to write them--although we've both sent a lot of our friends over
there, neither of them seem to be willing to sit down and change the
rules to make them a more functional body.
But I'm glad you've moved the discussion to where we both agree away
from our adversarial discussion toward the real enemy, the United
States Senate, which has a hard time acting.
In this case, honestly I think they are going to act, and I say that
with a great deal of respect to Senator Reid and to Senator McConnell.
I think that they will produce a product to make sure that something
doesn't happen that we all agree shouldn't happen. The President
doesn't think the government should shut down. We don't think the
government should shut down. I don't believe our friends in the Senate
think it should shut down.
This is actually a pretty good day. It may not be the perfect bill
from my friends's standpoint. I certainly respect that. It's probably
not the perfect bill from all of our Members' standpoint.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE. I will in a moment. Let me just finish my point.
But we will move in the right direction. We will actually move to
avoid a government shutdown. We'll leave open an avenue of negotiation
with our friends in the Senate. I'm sure the President will be involved
in discussion at some point too. So I take some heart from that.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, my friend reflected on some criticism of
the Senate, which I would generally agree with.
I would say this, though: the Senate did something we've not done.
They put a Republican plan on the Senate floor to end the sequester and
save those 750,000 jobs and a Democratic plan on the floor to save
those 750,000 jobs. I think we owe it to our constituents, to our
country to do the same thing. This is the opportunity to do that.
Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, we'll have an opportunity in the sense
of the previous question. We'll see how the majority shakes out on that
issue. I'm sure my friends will regard that as effectively a vote on
their proposal.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman whether he
has any additional requests for speakers?
Mr. COLE. I'm certainly prepared to close whenever my friend is.
Mr. McGOVERN. We are prepared to close as well, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would
say to my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, that the time to act has
long since passed. We are now in sequester.
Budgets across the board and in a mindless and senseless way are
being slashed. Air traffic control towers are being shut down. That
will result in an adverse impact on local economies. We will lose jobs.
You've heard over and over that we're told that we should expect a job
loss of 750,000 people.
What do they do? They lose their job, and they go on unemployment.
Where is the future? Where is the savings that my friends are talking
about when you throw people out of work?
My friends talk about tough choices. Well, we ought to assume tough
choices. You're going to have health clinics that are going to be
reduced in their funding. You're going to have transportation projects
reduced in their funding. You're going to have cuts in WIC; you're
going to have cuts in Head Start; you're going to have cuts in programs
that benefit the most vulnerable people in our communities.
None of us in this Chamber has to absorb a tough choice. It's the
people we represent. It's the people in this country who are getting
shafted as a result of this sequestration.
The time to act has long since passed. Mr. Van Hollen has time and
time and time again--not once, not twice, not three times, but four
times tried to bring an alternative to the House floor. All he's asked
for is that we have an up-or-down vote on his proposal, and four times
he has been rejected. By contrast, this year, my friends have brought
up not a single alternative to avoid sequestration.
All we're asking for is a little democracy here on the floor of the
House of Representatives, a chance for us to debate and have an up-or-
down vote not on a procedural motion, but on the actual legislation, up
or down. We've been denied that.
My friends, if they have an alternative they want to bring, fine.
Bring that up there too. We'll have two votes, and we can debate our
priorities so the American people know where we stand.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer
an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House votes on Mr. Van
Hollen's bill to replace the sequester and on Mr. Connolly's bill to
freeze pay for Members of Congress for the next 2 years.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. I just want to again say to my friends that it is
important for them to appreciate the devastation of these cuts.
Head Start: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $400 million,
resulting in a potential loss of 70,000 Head Start slots for
comprehensive early learning and development services.
Job training programs: the CR will allow sequester to cut $282
million, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unemployed adults,
dislocated workers, veterans, young adults and students losing access
to employment services.
Title I grants, education of the disadvantaged: the CR will allow
sequestration to cut $730 million, which is the equivalent of cutting
the extra instructional services for more than 2,500 schools serving
more than 1 million disadvantaged children who are struggling
academically.
Special education grants: the CR will allow sequestration to cut more
than $580 million, which is the rough equivalent of shifting the cost
of educating nearly 300,000 students with special needs to State and
local education agencies. This also may result in more than 700,000
layoffs of teachers, aides and other staff serving students with
disabilities.
{time} 1120
Child care: the CR will allow sequestration to cut $115 million,
which would cause, roughly, 30,000 children to lose access to child
care, further exacerbating the fact that only one in six children
eligible for Federal child care assistance receives it.
Cancer screenings: the CR will allow sequestration to cut funding for
cancer screenings, resulting in 25,000 fewer breast and cervical cancer
screenings for low-income women.
I can go on and on and on, but here is the choice: the choice is
either this process, which my Republican colleagues have embraced, or
the one that Mr. Van Hollen has outlined--one that would say we're not
going to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable, on the
backs of the needy, on the backs of the middle class but that--do you
know what?--we're going to get rid of some of these corporate loopholes
that my friends on the other side used to be in favor of closing. We're
not going to continue to have taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies.
We're going to have some balance in our approach to dealing with our
deficit. The problem with the approach my friends have outlined--the
problem with the sequestration--is that it is
[[Page H995]]
not balanced. It is wrong-headed; it is mindless; it is senseless; and
it is cruel.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous
question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to begin by, frankly, agreeing with my friend. The time to act
has long since passed. We tried to act a long time ago. We tried to act
in May, but nobody in the Senate chose to pick up our bill. They sent
us back something different, which was their right, but it didn't do
anything at all. We tried to act in December, but nobody did anything
in the Senate then.
We offered to negotiate with the President for weeks. Instead, we saw
a 6-week, an 8-week campaign all over the country. There was no time,
evidently, in the President's busy schedule in city after city, at
photo op after photo op to simply get on the phone, call the Speaker
and say--How would you like to come down and talk?--until the very last
day before the sequester, when it had become evident that this type of
political bullying wouldn't work.
So we believe the time has passed to act. That's why we're acting
today. We are actually going to secure the cuts that are in the
legislation that the President advocated for. He originated the idea--I
accept the Woodward version of that, I suppose--and he signed it into
law. He had 18 months to do something about it. We offered two
opportunities in that timeframe to do something, and the Speaker has
always been available to sit down with the President and do something.
We are going to take a small step in the right direction. Now, let's
not overestimate what we're doing. We could probably take more pride in
this than is warranted. Our friends, I think, are shouting more alarm
than is necessary. This is $85 billion in a $3.5 trillion deficit--2.4
percent. We ought to be able to do that in our sleep. Quite frankly, we
are willing to sit down and renegotiate with our friends from where
they come. We are not willing to renegotiate the total amount of the
money involved. Over time, it does add up to $1.2 trillion. That's a
lot of money, but it's not anywhere near what it's going to take to get
our budget in balance.
I look forward to the debates we're going to have on that in the
budget discussions ahead; but let's right now, while we have that
debate and while we go through that process, take the responsible step
that the President urges us to take and that we all agree on, which is
simply to make sure that the government doesn't shut down while we have
our discussion and sort out our differences.
I applaud Chairman Rogers and Chairman Sessions for making that
possible, particularly for bringing this bill in a timely fashion,
giving us enough time when we're not going to be jammed. I know our
friends in the Senate are going to try and do the same thing. They're
going to produce, I have no doubt, a different product than we have.
That's fine. We'll negotiate it out, and we'll avoid a government
shutdown, but we will secure these savings for the taxpayers of the
United States, and we will then take the next step in a longer
discussion.
I believe we've had a good debate on the rule. I believe the
underlying bill provides the American people with the hope that we can
do the basic functions that we were sent here to accomplish--funding
the government. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to commend
the Chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, and the
Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Young of Florida, for their
determination and perseverance in bringing the completed Defense and
Military Construction/VA bills to the floor for our consideration.
Since before the end of the last fiscal year, they have been committed
to completing our FY '13 bills and move them onto the President's desk
for his signature.
Why? Because they understood the damage that would be done to our
national security if DoD was forced to operate under the funding levels
and restrictions placed on them by our FY '12 bill.
By passing this package today, we will be giving our military
leadership additional flexibility to protect their mission and
capabilities in this constrained fiscal environment.
I would also add that passage of these measures today reinforces
Congress' authority to set policy for the Department of Defense in
important areas such as Air Force force structure, the retirement of
Navy ships, increasing the pace of Navy shipbuilding, etc. and not cede
it to the Executive Branch solely.
I am also pleased that the package also allows additional funding for
nuclear weapons modernization, to ensure the safety, security, and
reliability of the nation's nuclear stockpile.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 99 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. 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.
699) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 to repeal and replace the 2013
sequestration. 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 Ways and Means, the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget, and the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 699 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.
636) to prohibit Members of Congress from receiving any
automatic pay adjustments through the end of the One Hundred
Thirteenth Congress. 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 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 bills specified in sections 2 or 3 of
this resolution.
____
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 Democratic minority 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
[[Page H996]]
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may 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. COLE. 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 227,
nays 188, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 59]
YEAS--227
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--188
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Capuano
Cardenas
Coble
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Lynch
McIntyre
Meeks
Miller, George
Polis
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanchez, Loretta
Sires
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)
{time} 1148
Mr. BARBER, Ms. KUSTER, and Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GINGREY of Georgia and SOUTHERLAND changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 59, 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 is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 197, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 60]
AYES--212
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
[[Page H997]]
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--197
Amash
Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Fattah
Fleming
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kingston
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Yarmuth
Yoho
NOT VOTING--22
Capuano
Coble
Dingell
Farr
Griffith (VA)
Larsen (WA)
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lynch
McIntyre
Meeks
Miller, George
Peters (CA)
Polis
Rangel
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Sanchez, Loretta
Shea-Porter
Sires
Vargas
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)
{time} 1157
Ms. KUSTER changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 60 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall
No. 60 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 60, had I been present,
I would have voted ``no.''
____________________