[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 19, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1591-H1597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENSES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF 
                 REPRESENTATIVES IN THE 113TH CONGRESS

  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
122, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 115) providing for the expenses 
of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One 
Hundred Thirteenth Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in 
the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the 
resolution is considered as read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. COMMITTEE EXPENSES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH 
                   CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--With respect to the One Hundred Thirteenth 
     Congress, there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts 
     of the House of Representatives, in accordance with this 
     primary expense resolution, not more than the amount 
     specified in subsection (b) for the expenses (including the 
     expenses of all staff salaries) of each committee named in 
     such subsection.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $10,072,374; Committee on Armed Services, $13,127,070; 
     Committee on the Budget, $10,277,648; Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce, $13,905,526; Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce, $19,041,032; Committee on Ethics, $6,040,918; 
     Committee on Financial Services, $14,788,964; Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, $14,776,224; Committee on Homeland Security, 
     $14,067,176; Committee on House Administration, $9,201,120; 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $8,779,516; 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $14,154,032; Committee on Natural 
     Resources, $13,111,658; Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform, $17,880,874; Committee on Rules, $5,714,816; 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, $10,565,510; 
     Committee on Small Business, $5,985,376; Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, $16,364,614; Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs, $6,097,092; and Committee on Ways and 
     Means, $16,846,822.

     SEC. 2. FIRST SESSION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 
     for each committee named in subsection (b), not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection shall be available for 
     expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
     January 3, 2013, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2014.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $5,036,187; Committee on Armed Services, $6,563,535; 
     Committee on the Budget, $5,138,824; Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce, $6,952,763; Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce, $9,520,516; Committee on Ethics, $3,020,459; 
     Committee on Financial Services, $7,394,482; Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, $7,388,112; Committee on Homeland Security, 
     $7,033,588; Committee on House Administration, $4,600,560; 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $4,389,758; 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $7,077,016; Committee on Natural 
     Resources, $6,555,829; Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform, $8,940,437; Committee on Rules, $2,857,408; Committee 
     on Science, Space, and Technology, $5,282,755; Committee on 
     Small Business, $2,992,688; Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $8,182,307; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $3,048,546; and Committee on Ways and Means, $8,423,411.

     SEC. 3. SECOND SESSION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount provided for in section 1 
     for each committee named in subsection (b), not more than the 
     amount specified in such subsection shall be available for 
     expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
     January 3, 2014, and ending immediately before noon on 
     January 3, 2015.
       (b) Committees and Amounts.--The committees and amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) are: Committee on Agriculture, 
     $5,036,187; Committee on Armed Services, $6,563,535; 
     Committee on the Budget, $5,138,824; Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce, $6,952,763; Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce, $9,520,516; Committee on Ethics, $3,020,459; 
     Committee on Financial Services, $7,394,482; Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, $7,388,112; Committee on Homeland Security, 
     $7,033,588; Committee on House Administration, $4,600,560; 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, $4,389,758; 
     Committee on the Judiciary, $7,077,016; Committee on Natural 
     Resources, $6,555,829; Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform, $8,940,437; Committee on Rules, $2,857,408; Committee 
     on Science, Space, and Technology, $5,282,755; Committee on 
     Small Business, $2,992,688; Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, $8,182,307; Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
     $3,048,546; and Committee on Ways and Means, $8,423,411.
       (c) Review of Use of Funds in First Session.--
       (1) Review.--None of the amounts provided for in section 1 
     for a committee named in subsection (b) may be available for 
     expenses of the committee after March 15, 2014, unless the 
     chair or ranking minority member of the committee appears and 
     presents testimony at a hearing of the Committee on House 
     Administration held prior to such date to review the 
     committee's use of the amounts provided for in section 1 
     during the first session of the One Hundred Thirteenth 
     Congress and to determine whether the amount specified in 
     subsection (b) with respect to the committee should be 
     updated on the basis of the review.
       (2) Waiver.--The Committee on House Administration may 
     waive the application of paragraph (1) to any or all of the 
     committees named in subsection (b).

     SEC. 4. VOUCHERS.

       Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
     authorized by the committee involved, signed by the chairman 
     of such committee, and approved in the manner directed by the 
     Committee on House Administration.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

       Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
     expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Committee on House Administration.

     SEC. 6. RESERVE FUND FOR UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a reserve 
     fund for unanticipated expenses of committees for the One 
     Hundred Thirteenth Congress.
       (b) Balance.--The balance of the reserve fund under this 
     section shall be equal to the sum of the following:
       (1) The amount by which the amount made available for 
     ``House of Representatives--Committee Employees, Standing 
     Committees, Special and Select'' for fiscal year 2013 exceeds 
     the amount that would be made available for ``House of 
     Representatives--Committee Employees, Standing Committees, 
     Special and Select'' by division C of the Department of 
     Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and 
     Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (H.R. 933, as 
     passed by the House of Representatives on March 6, 2013), as 
     reduced pursuant to the provisions of division D of such Act.
       (2) The amount by which the amount made available for 
     ``House of Representatives--Committee Employees, Standing 
     Committees, Special and Select'' for fiscal year 2014 exceeds 
     the amount made available for ``House of Representatives--
     Committee Employees, Standing Committees, Special and 
     Select'' for fiscal year 2013.
       (c) Allocation to Committees.--Amounts in the reserve fund 
     under this section shall be paid to a committee pursuant to 
     an allocation approved by the Committee on House 
     Administration.

     SEC. 7. ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY.

       The Committee on House Administration shall have authority 
     to make adjustments in amounts under section 1, if necessary 
     to comply with an order of the President issued under section 
     251A or 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 or to conform to any change in 
     appropriations for the purposes of such section 1.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. 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 
gentlewoman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of House Resolution 
115, which is providing for the expenses of certain committees of the 
House of Representatives for the 113th Congress and which authorizes 
committee budgets for the 113th Congress.
  Earlier this month, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on House 
Administration held two very lengthy and very informative days of 
hearings with our chairmen and with our ranking members from all of the 
19 House committees. Each of them testified about their respective 
budgets, the commitment to uphold the longstanding two-thirds, one-
third allocation between majority and minority offices; and most 
importantly, Mr. Speaker, they talked about doing more with less, which 
is a topic that we are all very, very familiar with.
  This funding process and these discussions significantly impact the 
legislative process as these committees are where, of course, the 
legislation that comprise much of our work begins, where our vital 
oversight functions occur, which is why throughout this process we 
adhered, Mr. Speaker, to two very important principles. First of all, 
we said we need to live within our means, and then prioritizing the 
finite resources that we have provided to us

[[Page H1592]]

in the Congress by hardworking American taxpayers.
  As we all know, sequestration went into effect on March 1, 2013, and 
Congress must live with further cuts, just as every other agency of 
government must live with similar cuts. As a result of the sequester, 
the total committee authorization level must be reduced by 
approximately 11 percent, in the 11 percentile range. And that means if 
we authorize above that amount, then we will have to take the money 
from somewhere else.
  When ensuring that committees have adequate resources, obviously, we 
have to consider their legislative objectives; we have to consider 
their anticipated workload and authorize the finite resources available 
in a way that best suits the needs of the House of Representatives as a 
whole.
  Although the sequestration is not certainly the ideal way to cut 
spending, cuts are imperative. They must happen. Our government is too 
big, too involved, and too costly. As those who are charged with the 
care of taxpayers' dollars, we need to lead by example, and we must 
control our spending. We must live within our own means.
  Now, this may be a far more strict budget than many had hoped or 
anticipated, but like so many Americans, we are coping with our 
circumstances, and we are making cuts to our budgets in a way that any 
American business or American family would have to, as every local unit 
of government, every State around the country has had to do. Certainly 
during these very trying economic times, we also have to make value 
judgments and budget accordingly.
  To match the available post-sequestration funding level, the total 
authorization amount for House committees must be reduced, as I say, by 
about 11 percent from the 2012 level; and, therefore, with very few 
exceptions, each committee authorization has been reduced, again, 
within that 11 percent range or certainly within a percentage point or 
so of the 11 percent.
  Based on the anticipated workload for the 113th Congress, the Budget 
Committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Select Committee on 
Intelligence have been given very much smaller reductions, a very 
slight reduction from the 11 percent. But every committee certainly 
will be faced with important oversight responsibilities for 2013. 
However, given that getting our economy moving again and defending this 
Nation are the foremost priorities that we face, the dire need for tax 
and entitlement reform to help grow our economy, to create good-paying 
private sector jobs and the increasing cyberthreats to our digital 
infrastructure, it was determined by our committee that these three 
committees certainly are the tip of the spear in doing some of the most 
important work for the American people.
  We must remain, as well, committed to leading by example in cutting 
government waste, rooting out inefficiencies, and conducting essential 
and efficient oversight of our vast administrative agencies.
  House Resolution 115, Mr. Speaker, we believe fulfills that mission. 
I would also point out that this House resolution not only reduces 
committee expenditures, but it also authorizes total committee funding 
for the 113th Congress at a level which is lower than 2005. I think 
that bears repeating--a level lower than 2005. By comparison, overall 
nondefense discretionary spending by the executive branch has actually 
increased 16.7 percent since 2008--quite a big difference there.
  As I said before, as chairman of the Committee on House 
Administration, I certainly understand the challenges of stretching 
committee resources, and I have a very deep appreciation for every 
committee's ability to absorb these cuts and their commitment to 
functioning at a high level, even with the reduced resources that they 
have, and that is due certainly in no small measure to the outstanding 
leadership that we have with each committee chairman and each ranking 
member on all of our committees, really, all committed to delivering a 
very high level of service to the American people.
  Some of my colleagues, I know, have voiced their opposition to this 
measure calling for a freeze in committee spending. They say that 
freezing spending for committees at 2012 levels is a more balanced 
approach. But since sequestration, we just don't have the money to 
cover a freeze. We do not have the money.
  So I would simply state that spending beyond our means, in my 
opinion, is not a balanced approach. In fact, I would say it's a bit 
irresponsible. As I said before, every American family, every small 
business, every State and local unit of government must live within 
their means, and so must the U.S. House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. Speaker, again, this resolution has required us to make some very 
difficult but very necessary decisions. And I want to personally thank, 
and certainly all of our committee members thank, each chairman and 
each ranking member who testified before our committee, and our 
committee staffs as well, who are often unrecognized for the vital work 
that they do.
  I would urge, Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues to support House 
Resolution 115, living within our means and prioritizing our finite 
resources like the rest of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 115 
and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 115 represents the next step in a slow 
march towards making House committees incapable of conducting the 
oversight with which they are charged and further limiting the power of 
this equal branch of government.
  Mr. Speaker, with these cuts, we are not talking about the loss of 
new equipment, the next computer, or printer. No. With these cuts, we 
are talking about gutting our capacity to do the jobs we were sent here 
to do by the American people. The work product of our committees is 
only as good as the talented men and women that we are able to employ. 
And they are very able.
  The House is lucky to have such a well-seasoned and skilled group of 
individuals carrying out the people's business. In fact, this is one of 
the things we always agree on--the quality of the people that work in 
these committees. It is at the highest level. But for how long?
  If this resolution passes, there will be a 21.3 percent reduction in 
funding for committees since the 111th Congress. More appalling is the 
26 percent cut the Judiciary Committee will sustain during the same 
time, particularly as they move forward to address comprehensive 
immigration reform that we all seem to agree on now and the initiatives 
to reduce gun violence.
  As the chairman of the Rules Committee stated last week when he 
testified before our committee, ``We do not have something we can cut 
or manage on a moving forward basis. We have by and large taken 
ourselves down to the bare bones.'' Now we're down to the bare bones. 
Repeatedly, we heard from committee chairs that the only thing they 
have left to cut are personnel expenses.
  The Veterans' Affairs chairman stated, ``We have no choice but to 
find these savings in our personnel budget.''
  And the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs said:

       We want to make certain that those individuals who will 
     make a sacrifice and come up here and work for a reduced wage 
     will stay with us. There is a question of how long, deeply, 
     we can cut.

  Of course there is a question, and I think the question is before us.
  The chairs and ranking members of the House have been responsible 
stewards--we have heard that already--and they have been. And they have 
achieved incredible savings. But this resolution's lack of funding also 
hurts our ability to find governmentwide cost savings.
  In fact, it does just the opposite. The committees conduct oversight 
over billions and billions of dollars of Federal spending and have 
found savings within their respective agencies. However, without high 
quality people that have the institutional knowledge and expertise, 
they will sacrifice the ability to perform strong, responsible 
oversight.
  The chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
illustrated this best when testifying about the savings his auditors 
were able to provide the government. He stated:

       Cutting back for us is, in fact, an opportunity to lose the 
     very auditors that will

[[Page H1593]]

     guarantee you multiple savings. We would like to work with 
     the committee to allow us and other committees to find 
     similar savings. But we must ask that you not allow the audit 
     committee to be reduced when, in fact, we can return you more 
     than 1,000 times our budget.

  One thousand times. In Mark, it is only 100 times. Fourfold in other 
parts of the Bible. Here is 1,000 times.
  Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of the aisle have embraced the 
idea of doing more with less. We have all grappled with the idea of not 
filling empty positions, denying requests for travel and forgoing 
necessary technology upgrades in our offices. But there is a point 
where additional cuts undermine our ability to do our jobs effectively.
  Based upon the testimony that we have received during our committee 
funding hearings, I believe that there is a bipartisan agreement that 
this funding resolution could represent that breaking point. In the 
end, the American people will be the ultimate victims.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution. I urge a ``no'' vote, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at this time 
to yield as much time as he may consume to an outstanding member of the 
House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chair for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 115, but I 
appreciate, quite honestly, the concerns just raised. And let me try to 
address some of them, if not all of them.
  There are victims in this country, for sure. But the real 
victimization will occur if this House, if this Congress, if this 
President does not get ahold of the deficit and debt situation that we 
are incurring. Right now, we are in the middle of debating different 
budgets, the priorities that we have as parties, as Americans, et 
cetera.
  On the one hand, we have a budget that balances in 10 years--radical 
for this town. On the other side, we have budgets that never, ever 
balance. If we don't get ahold of these deficits so we can finally 
start attacking the debt, and if we continue to leave to future 
generations our bills--to me, Mr. Speaker, the most immoral thing I can 
think of, really, that we can do in civic life is to leave our bills 
for future generations to pay. There will be the victimization.
  Yes, we are going to have a hard time at the committee level, and 
certainly even with our MRAs that have been cut in the past, to try to 
do our work. But what I heard in these committee hearings from our 
chairman and our ranking members each is that they pledge to continue 
their legislative and oversight activities despite these budget cuts. 
So there is not going to be any victimization here with this House 
resolution.
  The other thing this House resolution does is finally lets us lead by 
example, Mr. Speaker. How can we have a national family discussion? How 
can we have a discussion about the morality of leaving our bills for 
future generations to pay if we are not willing to suck some of it up 
ourselves? And, yes, we are doing it. Do you know who else is doing it? 
The military.
  I would like to say here on the floor of the House that those excuses 
should now be taken off the table. We are leading by example in what we 
have cut through our MRAs already and this House resolution. And guess 
what? So has the military.
  Let's finally get to a discussion and action, more importantly, 
regarding the real drivers of our debt--the social entitlement programs 
of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And, yes, many of our 
constituents will say, Hey, wait a minute. Don't call those social 
entitlement programs. We paid into those, therefore, we should get out. 
And that is true. But what is also true is that on average--let's take 
Medicare, for example, Mr. Speaker--we are paying in about 40 percent, 
again, on average, of what we are taking out. It is immoral, wrong, to 
let that 60 percent get paid for by people who don't even yet exist 
and, therefore, don't have a say in the matter.
  House Resolution 115 lets us lead by example so that we can finally 
get to the rest of the conversation about the drivers of our debt. 
Guess what else? The interest we owe ourselves as private citizens--
and, more increasingly, other countries like China, countries that 
don't necessarily have our best interest at heart, nor should they have 
to have our best interest at heart--we are paying more to them in 
interest because of this debt than we are spending on homeland 
security, education, and roads combined.
  That breeds weakness, that fosters instability, that creates 
victimization. House Resolution 115 will give us the moral authority 
and the real authority to continue having this discussion, to lead by 
example, which is so well needed in this country right now at this 
time. The fact of the matter is, we shouldn't have to have oversight of 
the budgets of the executive branch if the executive branch and this 
President were to lead and recognize the debt that we are in, the 
deficits that we run, and rein in his own people, rein in his own 
organizations, create a culture of doing more with less.

                              {time}  1520

  As it has been famously stated by a former Governor in Indiana: 
people will never miss the government that has been cut.
  It goes without saying, with regard to individualism, people can do 
more for themselves and people can do more for each other than any 
faraway Federal Government program can. Let's continue leading by 
example. Let's continue this fiscal fight that we are engaged in. Let's 
pass--let's strongly support--House Resolution 115.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his work on the committee. I am pleased he is managing this bill today. 
It's good for the next generation of Members to learn the procedures of 
the floor this way--putting them right in the line of fire.
  I would also like to thank the chairman for how she handled our 
marathon hearings. I've had her job and know how difficult it is to be 
juggling the schedules of all our fellow Members and of our fellow 
chairmen and ranking members.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, though, in opposition to this resolution. We 
have cut committee funding for the last 3 years. We are past the point 
of cutting what we want, and we are now into cutting what we need--our 
ability to attract and retain expert staff.
  I asked the same question to every ranking member and every chairman 
who came in front of us. I asked them, if they're into cutting their 
personnel, whether or not they've thought in their own minds if it 
would hurt them in the jobs that they could do and in the jobs they do 
for the American people on those committees. Every man and woman said 
it would be an issue for them, that they would have a problem. Again, 
we cut in 2012 and gave people positions at lower salaries. These 
people, without question, make double, triple, four times the amount of 
money they can in the public sector. They're dedicated--they're 
dedicated people--but sometimes dedication doesn't pay the bills that 
they do acquire and that they do have.
  Their main concern was keeping people on their staffs who had 
institutional knowledge, people who had the knowledge of how this House 
works. As you all know, when you first get here, it can be a quagmire--
you don't understand what's happening; it moves too fast--but these men 
and women who are here for many years, they do know that, and they keep 
this train running. To hurt them and not be able to retain them would 
be a major, major disservice with just the institutional knowledge that 
they have.
  Again, I get it. I understand the cutting. I understand we've got to 
cut some other people, but if we cut these staff members--the people 
who have been here--and try to attract other people who can do the jobs 
that our committee staffs do, I think that it would be hurting the 
American people.
  We need to defeat this resolution and give the committees the 
appropriate resources that they need to do their basic work and to do 
what the people sent us here to do.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The fact of the matter is that this is all the money that we have to 
spend.

[[Page H1594]]

Believe me, I am sympathetic to the arguments that it would be nice if 
our committees didn't have to make any cuts. Again, if we don't make 
some cuts because of the sequestration, this money has to come from 
somewhere else. I guess we're sort of looking for other ideas of 
offsets for those who are saying that we should not pass this 
resolution.
  What kinds of things would they offset?
  We've certainly watched the White House close tours to groups because 
they said the sequester impacted the Secret Service's ability to 
protect the President when the American people came into the White 
House. I don't know if they're suggesting we should close the Capitol 
Building or what have you. I don't think that kind of suggestion would 
go very far.
  But, again, where do you offset if you're not going to cut any 
spending here?
  I will also say this: I come from southeast Michigan, which arguably 
was ground zero during the most painful economic transition, certainly 
in my lifetime, that happened in our Nation here recently, and we're 
trying to get ourselves out of that. We were number one in all of the 
categories you didn't want to be number one in. If I'd have told our 
local county or our local units of government that they'd have to cut 
11 percent, they would say thank you, because they've cut anywhere from 
30 to 40 percent. There were just incredible amounts of cuts that 
happened. Furloughs have happened with employees. That has been going 
on for years, actually. That's my neighborhood.
  When we think about the amount of borrowing that we're doing as a 
Nation--as everybody knows, we are now to the point of $16 trillion in 
national debt with no end in sight, and we've been running deficits 
for, certainly, the last 5 years of well over $1 trillion and, in many 
cases, $1.5 trillion annually, and we're borrowing 42 cents on every 
dollar that we spend--if we do not have the political will to make any 
kind of cuts ourselves to where we can't even cut our own committee 
budgets here in the House while these kinds of cuts are being absorbed 
by other areas, I just think that this resolution will be a very vivid 
demonstration of the differences of what we think ``leading by 
example'' actually means.
  I will tell you as well, as a grandmother, I do not want to look at 
my two little grandchildren and say, Hey, do you mind paying the bill, 
because I don't have the political will. I just can't do it. Too hard 
for me. I don't want to break a sweat here. Would you mind paying?
  I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I just cannot get to that place. I 
think this resolution is very, very important. I recognize the painful 
cuts that are happening. It's not easy. That's why the American people 
sent us here--to have the political will and to make the hard 
decisions. I would hope that my colleagues would support this 
resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the Democratic whip and 
the former ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I heard the gentlelady 
from Michigan's comments. I have three grandchildren of my own and two 
great grandchildren. The gentlelady said we don't want to turn to them 
and say, We don't want to pay our bills. You pay them.
  That's what we did in '01 and '03. We cut revenues. We cut revenues 
deeply. We didn't cut spending--we increased spending--on the theory 
that the people who were going to get the benefit were voting and that 
the people who were going to get paid and who were going to have to pay 
the bill weren't voting. It worked to some degree; but we didn't pay, 
as the gentlelady suggested we ought to, our bills. As the gentlelady 
probably knows, we had a provision in place which said we ought to pay 
as we go. If we buy a war, we ought to pay for it. If we buy a tax cut, 
we ought to pay for it. If we buy a prescription drug, we ought to pay 
for it and not ask my children or my grandchildren or your children or 
your grandchildren to pay for it. I agree with the lady, but that's 
what we've done.
  Now we are about the process of undermining the people's government 
by slashing its funding so it cannot provide the services that the 
people want and need and vote for, and now we will slash the ability of 
this House to do what the people expect us to do. I'm sorry the former 
Secretary of State left the Chamber. He's the Secretary of State. He 
says we ought to lead by example. By golly, I'll tell you: the people 
in my constituency, they hope we're not the example of how to work. 
They hope we're not the example of the dysfunction that they ought to 
follow, that we're not the example of ``do it my way or no way,'' which 
is what we've been doing.
  The people of the United States of America send us here, and they 
want us to make sure that we adopt policies that will help them and 
their families, that will create jobs and grow our economy. That's what 
they want. What the people of the United States also want is to make 
sure we can conduct the oversight of their government. That's our 
responsibility. The previous gentleman said, Well, the executive ought 
to lead, and then we wouldn't need to do oversight. I didn't get that, 
frankly, at all. The executive is a separate and equal branch of 
government, but we are the first branch of government. We are article 
I. We are the people's House. We represent the people, and they expect 
us to make sure their government is operating properly. To the extent 
that year after year we reduce our ability to conduct the oversight 
necessary to ensure that the people's government is operating 
consistent with law and on behalf of the people of the United States--
to the extent that we undermine that ability--we undermine free 
government, a free people, a free country.

                              {time}  1530

  We undermine the ability of this government to make sure that the 
executive is doing the right thing. And to the extent that the 
population of this country keeps growing, as it does every year, it 
needs us to be on the job. And what we're saying, of course, is: Well, 
we have a sequester. Sequester starts with ``S''; it stands for stupid. 
It is an irrational policy that we've adopted. And we've adopted it. It 
just didn't happen. It didn't come out of the air. It didn't fall from 
the trees. We adopted sequester. It's an irrational, ineffective, 
inefficient, negative policy that we've not only allowed to go into 
place, but in the budget we passed, we adopted it one more time, not by 
mistake but by policy. It was a bad policy. I didn't vote for it. It's 
irrational.
  I tell people around the country, you know, it's like the family has 
a budget. You have a food budget and you have a movie budget. Somebody 
loses their job and so your income goes down. So what you do is you sit 
around the table and say: We'll cut food by 10 percent and movies by 10 
percent. What rational human being would do that? Nobody. They'd say 
we're not going to go to the movies this month so we can put food on 
the table and make sure that our family is well fed.
  But that's not what we're doing. The sequester that we're now 
pursuing, somewhat mindlessly, in my opinion, with respect to our 
ability to do the job that the people expect us to do, is to cut food 
by 10 percent and movies by 10 percent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VARGAS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. My friends, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I 
want the American people to know we've cut committee funding for 2 
years in a row because we understand that we're asking everybody to 
notch in their belt by one or two notches, and we ought to do the same. 
And we have. But if you undermine the people's ability to do their job, 
you're going to be in trouble.
  Woodrow Wilson once wrote: ``Congress in session is Congress on 
public exhibition.''
  That's what we are here, we're on public exhibition. The TV is on, 
people are watching us, and people are seeing us.
  But what Woodrow Wilson also said was: ``Whilst Congress in committee 
rooms is Congress at work.''

[[Page H1595]]

  That's where we really do our work. We vote on it here, but 
committees are critically important creatures of oversight and of 
action.
  I think the gentlelady is a good Member of this House, and she's been 
given a tough responsibility. She laments the fact that we have no 
money. We have no money because we said we didn't need it; we have no 
money because we can operate government without it.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear your gavel, and I will close, but I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this resolution. Let's make sure that the 
Congress of the United States can do the job that the people expect.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this committee funding bill, 
which would hurt the ability of Congress to do its work effectively.
  This bill would cut the funding for House Committees by an additional 
11% in order to meet the irrational demands of sequestration--on top of 
huge cuts imposed last Congress.
  Committees have lost around a quarter of their funding in the past 
few years, and this has meant fewer staff positions and the possibility 
of furloughs.
  Most, I think, do not realize just how important committees are to 
the work we perform on the American people's behalf.
  Woodrow Wilson once wrote:

       Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, 
     whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work.

  Eroding the ability of committees to do their work seriously limits 
the ability of Congress to engage in the people's work.
  The Speaker and majority leader have said many times that this House 
ought to follow regular order.
  To do so, we must have strong and fully functioning committees.
  I urge my colleagues in both parties to oppose this bill.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minority 
whip's comments. I have great regard for him as well. I thought it was 
interesting, Mr. Speaker, listening to him talk about the President's 
sequester as an irrational kind of a thing. Of course, it was the 
President's idea. I don't dispute that it is not the best way to cut 
spending. Many may say it's an irrational approach. Again, the 
President's sequester, the President's idea.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Just so we're pretty accurate, as the gentlelady knows, 
your side offered a bill which was called Cut, Cap, and Balance. The 
alternative in Cut, Cap, and Balance was sequester. I didn't vote for 
that. I'm not sure how the gentlelady voted on it. It passed this House 
overwhelmingly with Republican support and with opposition on our side 
before Jack Lew suggested to Harry Reid that that might be one way to 
get off the lack of action in making sure that America paid its bills. 
The only reason I interrupt the gentlelady is because I think it is 
important to understand that your Cut, Cap, and Balance, passed before 
that suggestion was made, included sequester as the fallback if we 
didn't reach the numbers. If it's the President's, it's the President's 
via Cut, Cap, and Balance which your side of the aisle passed and sent 
to the Senate as presumably good policy.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding. She was very kind to do that.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the 
sequencing of the sequester, the President's sequester, the President's 
idea of the sequester, and I appreciate that. I still say with the 
President's sequester that what's going to happen with this vote is a 
very vivid demonstration, again, of who is actually committed to doing 
more with less. My colleague, the gentleman, the minority whip, also 
has given us sort of a historical lesson of various things in his 
observation of the way things had gone earlier on, and I would point 
something out as well since we are talking about committee budget cuts.
  In 2007 when the other party, the Democrats, took control of this 
House, they immediately increased the amount of spending on committees 
by 8.9 percent, almost 9 percent; immediate increase. Then in 2009 as 
they kept control of the Congress, again they increased committee 
spending, that time by 8.9 percent. Now keep in mind, this was at a 
time--which I had mentioned previously, being from southeast Michigan--
everybody else, it seemed like, certainly every State government, every 
local unit of government, every school district, many, many businesses, 
certainly American families, were making cuts. That was not happening 
here with committee spending.
  In 2010, this House shifted control. The Republicans took control. 
And what did we do with committee spending as a way to show that we 
wanted to do more with less, that we understood that we needed to get a 
handle on this out-of-control Federal spending, we actually cut 
committee budgets by 9.5 percent for the 112th Congress, and as we are 
debating now, another 11 percent cut that we're looking at.
  This is at the same time that the House, under Republican control, 
has also cut what we call our Members' representational allowances, our 
MRAs, which has been very painful for all of us as well. We cut 5 
percent, then in the 6 percentile. Now just a couple of weeks ago, 
effective immediately with the sequester, another in the 8 percentile 
cuts for all of us. All of us are doing more with less. And believe me, 
I understand there's no sympathy for Members of Congress, but I 
certainly point that out.
  At the same time if you look at non-defense discretionary for the 
executive branch, almost a 17 percent increase during that same time. 
So I just think when we look at this resolution, we see how important 
it is. Again, I am not minimizing how painful it will be for the 
committees, but it's really the new reality, I think, and it's 
important for those of us here in the people's House to do the people's 
work with the amount of money that we have available, and to do it to 
the very best of our ability. And I know certainly Republicans and 
Democrats are committed to doing that.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, you and I were in Rules last night when I made the 
statement that I'm going to make here today. When I was a child, I 
learned that you can be penny-wise and pound foolish.
  What winds up happening here is for a protracted period of time, we 
have not been able to retain the kind of staff, the hardworking people 
that really do the grinding work in committees, as Mr. Hoyer pointed 
out, and we leave them without the ability to get a raise. And I don't 
know about you all, but what's going to wind up happening with my staff 
is some of them are going to get better jobs because they are better 
served by going into the private sector.
  If we want to retain good people, we have to pay good people. And at 
a time when the public is more aware of what we are doing and making 
more demands, as rightly they should upon us, we decide to put 
ourselves in a position to not be able to serve the public.
  In the final analysis, some of what we are doing is trying to save 
our Republican colleagues. They get two-thirds of whatever it is that 
we're talking about. But we should not be ashamed of what we do here. 
We deserve the honesty that we would want the American public to expect 
of us as we conduct our work.

                              {time}  1540

  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I'd like to thank the chairwoman from the committee. 
She was very gracious during the committee hearing, and I learned quite 
a bit from her. I want to thank her for that.
  And I, in particular, want to thank the ranking member. The ranking 
member gave me the opportunity to speak here. That normally doesn't 
happen to freshmen, and I really appreciate that. He has a reputation 
of being very gracious and kind, and I appreciate it. It was certainly 
demonstrated here today.
  I do have to respond, however. There was the issue of immorality that 
was brought up before, and as a former Jesuit, I'm very comfortable 
with that type of language. And I believe it was said that leaving 
bills for other generations, future generations, was the most

[[Page H1596]]

immoral thing we can do. I certainly would challenge that premise. I 
think there's a lot more immoral things that we can do. However, when 
you do take a look at the issue of immorality and saying that we're 
going to leave this huge deficit, this huge debt to future generations, 
I think that that is immoral.
  However, it's interesting, the argument on the other side is just 
simply the argument of cuts and not revenue. So, for example, corporate 
jets, there are loopholes for them now. We could close them. It 
wouldn't hurt the millionaires and the billionaires to pay taxes on 
them. It wouldn't hurt them one bit. And that, of course, would cut--it 
would cut the debt, the deficit that we leave to these future 
generations, reducing the immorality. We could have the wealthy, 
instead of paying 12, 13 percent on average, pay what middle class 
people pay. That certainly would cut the debt and deficit 
significantly, reducing, once again, the immorality.
  But it's interesting, talking about immorality. The Bible certainly 
speaks to that. In Amos, the prophet Amos, if you look it up, you'll 
see that Amos speaks about the anawim, and the anawim are God's little 
ones. The little ones, then, were the orphans and the widows. Because 
of the condition that they were in, it was very difficult for them to 
survive. And we then, or at that time, the Israelites, were going to be 
judged on how they treated the anawim.
  That carries forward into the New Testament. If you look in Matthew, 
Matthew 25, they say: How are we going to be judged? How are we going 
to be judged?
  Jesus makes it easy. He says: whatever you do to the least of my 
brothers, you did to me. Then he goes through a litany of things. He 
says: when I was hungry, you gave me to eat; when I was thirsty, you 
gave me to drink; when I was a stranger--interestingly, when I was a 
stranger, we're certainly having that conversation with immigrants 
today--when I was a stranger, you welcomed me; when I was ill, you 
cured me. Interestingly, too, when I was a prisoner, you came and 
visited me. It didn't say if you were innocent, by the way. It didn't 
say that. It said: when I was a prisoner, you came and you visited me. 
That's how we're going to be judged.
  And these budgets, these budgets should go towards those values. 
That's what's moral, taking care of those that are thirsty and hungry, 
those that are strangers. And these committees work hard to make sure 
that happens, and they do a very good job. In fact, no one's argued 
that they don't; just the opposite. What we have heard from the 
committee chairs is: don't cut us because we can do even a better job. 
And not only that, you're loading the work on us.
  So I would conclude, and again thank the ranking member and certainly 
thank the chair for the opportunity. And I would urge my colleagues to 
defeat this resolution. I appreciate the opportunity, again.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure, at this time, 
to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
  Mr. COTTON. I've listened to this debate. It's primarily about the 
amount of money we spend on our committees here in the House. Taxes 
have just been inserted into it, and I have to respond to the comment 
about corporate taxes or tax breaks for corporate jets. It's an easy 
target. It's something the Democrats have repeatedly targeted in their 
budget resolution, something the President proposed to offset 
sequestration. And of course, the wealthy, with their big fancy 
corporate jets or corporate executives with their jets are easy 
targets.
  But there is a lot of collateral damage any time this issue comes up. 
We forget about the people who fly those planes, the people who clean 
the planes, the people who fuel the planes, the people who run the 
facilities where those planes are hangared, the people who manage the 
flight operations, the people who manufacture those planes, which is, I 
would point out, the number one export industry in the State of 
Arkansas.
  Much like in 1990 when the budget deal targeted the yacht industry in 
New England for a special luxury tax, it didn't raise the revenue that 
was projected. It did devastate that industry, leading to catastrophic 
layoffs, and resulted in the repeal of that measure within just a 
matter of months after it passed.
  So while I appreciate the Democrats' desire to raise taxes every few 
months, I think that our spending crisis, or our debt crisis, is driven 
by spending, and we should be careful about singling out specific 
industries that provide good, high-paying jobs to hardworking 
Americans.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, I certainly want to thank Mr. Vargas for controlling 
his time. Mr. Speaker, he did a very good job. We certainly welcome him 
to the committee and look forward to working with him, as we also thank 
the ranking member, Mr. Brady, for his extraordinary work on behalf of 
the committee, and we look forward to continuing to work with him.
  Obviously, we have a bit of a disagreement, Mr. Speaker, on the 
committee budget cuts here; but I certainly would also applaud the work 
of all of our chairmen of our committees, as well as all of the ranking 
members, who very diligently went through their budgets trying to make 
the appropriate cuts and will continue to do that now, when this 
resolution is certainly passed, as we go forward, I think, for all of 
us, really, trying to create a fiscally responsible level of funding 
here and, again, something that allocates resources in the very best 
way that we can, that allows this House to complete its work on behalf 
of the American people.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I would say, I believe that we are leading by 
example with this resolution today, and we need to show that the 
important work of government can certainly be done, and we can do it 
well with less. Doing more with less, that's a very well-used term, but 
it is certainly appropriate for this, during times of tight budgets.
  So I would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. 
Res. 115, a resolution to fund the House standing and select Committees 
for the 113th Congress. As a member of the House Administration 
Committee, I have first-hand knowledge of the work that went into this 
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  As you know, with the implementation of the sequester on March 1st, 
across-the-board spending cuts took effect. In the wake of this, the 
House Administration Committee had a chance to hear from our 
colleagues--the Chairman and Ranking Member of each House Committee--
about how they would handle the impact of the sequester.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Committee acted in a deliberative and 
fair manner when determining Committee budgets for the 113th Congress. 
Each Committee serves an important function, and while all will have to 
continue to produce good work with less, I am confident that they will 
succeed.
  In the 112th Congress, the House recognized that economic 
difficulties were forcing the nation to tighten its belt. Rather than 
continuing runaway spending, this body chose to demonstrate that we 
were serious about getting our fiscal house in order by enacting an 
11.4 percent cut in Committee funding. Today's vote gives us an 
important chance to show that, while families across the country are 
struggling to make ends meet, the House plans to continue leading by 
example.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that this resolution includes cuts that will 
force Committees to make tough decisions. However, when the government 
faces across the board cuts, this institution should not be exempt. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 115.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the 
previous question is ordered on the resolution.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 272, 
nays 136, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 82]

                               YEAS--272

     Alexander
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton

[[Page H1597]]


     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--136

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Farr
     Forbes
     Fudge
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Collins (GA)
     DeLauro
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fortenberry
     Gohmert
     Graves (MO)
     Harper
     Hinojosa
     Langevin
     Lipinski
     Lynch
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Pelosi
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (NJ)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1630

  Mrs. BEATTY and Mr. CONYERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. ROE of Tennessee, PASTOR of Arizona, QUIGLEY, Ms. SLAUGHTER, 
Messrs. COLE and LOEBSACK changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote 82, on consideration of H. Res. 115, a resolution 
providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of 
Representatives for the 113th Congress, because I was questioning the 
Director the Federal Bureau of Investigation in my capacity as chairman 
of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and 
Science. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I missed a rollcall vote today. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on No. 82.

                          ____________________