Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 55 (Friday, April 4, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 55 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2919-H2927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1874, PRO-GROWTH BUDGETING ACT OF
2013; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1871, BASELINE REFORM ACT OF
2013; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1872, BUDGET AND
ACCOUNTING TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2014

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 539

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1874) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of
legislation. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendments
recommended by the Committee on the Budget now printed in the
bill and the amendment printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as
amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules. Each further amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against such further amendments are waived.
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment
the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to
the House with such further amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and any further amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1871) to amend
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
to reform the budget baseline. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
recommended by the Committee on the Budget now printed in the
bill 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 the Budget; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1872) to amend
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
to increase transparency in Federal budgeting, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Budget now printed in the
bill 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 the Budget; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.

{time} 0915

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). The gentleman from
Georgia is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. WOODALL. 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 Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, this is a big day for me down here on the
House floor. I don't know if you were catching every word of the rule
as it was being read, but what you've got here in a nutshell, Mr.
Speaker, is a rule that makes in order absolutely every germane
amendment that was offered, not to one budget reform bill, not to two
budget reform bills, but to three budget process reform bills.
We talk so much about numbers in this institution, Mr. Speaker. We
talk about baselines. We talk about CBO scores. We also talk a lot
about people. We talk a lot about families. We talk about why what we
do here matters in the lives of folks back home.
Father Conroy prayed this morning, Mr. Speaker, that we could get out
of some of our old habits that the inertia leads us to disagree and
find those things around on which we do agree. There is one thing that
is undisputed in this Chamber--in fact, on Capitol

[[Page H2920]]

Hill; in fact, in this entire town--Mr. Speaker, when it comes to
budget process, and that is that every time we decide we are going to
spend money today, we get a little boost in the economy, and that boost
comes from a mortgaged future. We can get a little today at the expense
of a little tomorrow, or, conversely, we can lose a little bit today in
exchange for gaining a little bit tomorrow.
There is no free lunch when it comes to budgeting, Mr. Speaker. I
only get to spend each dollar once in this institution, and I can
either raise that dollar from today's taxpayers or I can borrow that
dollar from tomorrow's taxpayers. There are arguments on both sides.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying: Everyone is entitled to
their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
What these three budget process bills before us today, Mr. Speaker,
will do is make sure we are working from the same shared set of facts.
Now, again, this rule, Mr. Speaker, provides for these three bills. It
is H. Res. 539. It is a structured rule for H.R. 1874, the Pro-Growth
Budgeting Act. That is going to be on the floor today immediately
following this rule. If we are able to secure passage, and I certainly
hope that we can, we will be debating H.R. 1874.
H.R. 1874 will instruct the Congressional Budget Office to calculate,
when we make these decisions, whether we are going to spend a little
today and mortgage tomorrow or whether we are going to save a little
bit today in exchange for growth tomorrow, to calculate that impact. It
is not enough to spend the dollar, it is not enough to save the dollar.
We have to explain, not just to our colleagues, but to the American
people, what the benefit or the burden of that decision is going to be.
H.R. 1874 brings some clarity to that decision.
One of my personal favorite bills, Mr. Speaker, is H.R. 1871. H.R.
1871 and H.R. 1872 are also made in order by this bill. H.R. 1871
happens to be the Woodall bill, Mr. Speaker. It is the Baseline Reform
bill. Candidly, I can't claim credit for it. I want to, pride of
authorship and all. But, Mr. Speaker, the truth is it is the gentleman
from the great State of Texas. Mr. Louie Gohmert has been fighting for
this bill long before I arrived in this institution. I happened to get
a seat on the Budget Committee; he happens to serve elsewhere; so I am
carrying this language. I couldn't be prouder to do it, but I want to
give credit where credit is due.
The fight that the gentleman from Texas has been making over the
years--and it is not a fight against one another; it is a fight against
inertia, as Father Conroy talked about this morning--is to say that it
is just crazy in today's tight economic environment to assume that if
the government spent X dollars this year, we are going to give them X
plus 3 percent next year, that irrespective of what your mission is,
irrespective of what your productivity is, irrespective of what your
success is, we are just going to assume that your agency is going to
get more money next year than it got this year. That is not the way
anybody operates at home. That is not what we do around the dinner
table. That is not what any business in America does. That is not what
we should be doing.
So H.R. 1871 says we are going to assume you are going to get next
year what you got this year, with absolutely no inflation whatsoever.
Now, this is not an area of wide agreement. I would argue what you
get next year ought to be less than what you get this year, because we
ought to expect some productivity increases from you. It is fair in the
industrious society in which we live that we expect you to do more with
less next year. But we are not trying to achieve all of that today. We
are just saying that what you get next year is going to be what you get
this year. Eliminate those automatic inflaters that bias us towards
less productivity and more cost.
Finally, H.R. 1872, Mr. Speaker, that is a bill from my friend from
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett). That bill says we ought to have accurate
accounting, fair cost accounting, of government loan programs.
We are in the business of guaranteeing a whole lot of loans in this
institution, Mr. Speaker, loans for all sorts of meritorious activities
that we would agree on both sides of the aisle are worthy of being
carried on, but the question is how do we account for that in the
budget process.
Today we assume that those loans will never go bad--that those loans
will never go bad--and that we will only reflect a cost of the American
taxpayer guaranteeing those loans when and if those loans do go bad.
But that is not what happens in the real world. That is not what we ask
of our bankers down on Main Street. That is not what we ask of any
financial institution. We would run you right out of town if you tried
to do your accounting that way in the real world, Mr. Speaker.
So what Mr. Garrett says is: Why can't we apply real world accounting
to this institution? Why can't we hold ourselves to the same high
standard that we hold folks back home? I applaud him for that. I think
that is something, again, that brings us together rather than divides
us.
What I like most about this rule, though, Mr. Speaker, is that when
the amendments were offered--and that is the way the process goes, for
folks who don't watch the Rules Committee as closely as my friend from
Florida and I do. Members of Congress come; they submit their
amendments to the Rules Committee; and the Rules Committee decides what
is made in order. But we do that in consultation with the
Parliamentarians. We need to make sure that amendments are germane. We
want to make sure that the conversation is on the topic that the bill
is on. We don't allow nongermane amendments most of the time, but
sometimes Members submit amendments in good faith that don't comply
with the rules as they were submitted, but they can be worked on to
make them better.

What I am particularly proud of, Mr. Speaker, is that, when we
received some amendments that were not quite within the four corners of
the rules, rather than just rejecting those amendments out of hand,
which would have been a perfectly appropriate response, we didn't do
what was appropriate; we did what was right. And that was to go and
work with those Members to improve those amendments, get them within
the four corners of the parliamentary process, and make those in order
today.
So, again, every single germane amendment that was submitted to the
Rules Committee on each of these three bills was made in order for
debate under the bill. We will do the first of those bills today. If
this rule passes, we will do the remaining two next week, and all done
in the name of transparency and accurate information for the American
people.
It is perfectly legitimate to have your own opinion about what the
Federal budget ought to look like, but you are not entitled to your own
facts about what the impact of those decisions will be.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my
friend, for yielding the customary 30 minutes for debate.
I rise today in opposition to the rule and underlying bills.
In my friend's commentary, I perceived him as being very reasonable,
particularly when he gets to the part of the rule that deals with those
amendments that were made in order that are germane. It is a particular
concern that he has demonstrated in the period that he has been on the
Rules Committee. He also is an advocate for open rules.
That said, one of the down sides to our process, in my judgment, is
that I would imagine that at least a significant portion of this body--
not the majority--don't even know what we are debating today and won't
know until they come here to vote. For that reason, we should make open
rules; whereas, ideas that germinate during the course of the debate
could be put forward by Members under our rules process.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of three bills.
Before getting into it, normally when people leave our offices or when
we complete the process of debating a measure and want to give kudos to
the staff, we do so at the end of the process. But today I want to
recognize the rather extraordinary staff on both sides of the Rules

[[Page H2921]]

Committee, and particularly the young man seated next to me, Ian Wolf,
who labors actively to help me put words together to come here with,
and two young men that are working in the office with me: Tom Carnes,
who recently came to me as a Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Maine, and
Mike Sykes, a wounded warrior. Many of the words that I will speak
henceforth are from those three gentlemen, and I thank them for that.
Normally, like my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), we both are, in
my judgment, good extemporaneous speakers. But today, I am going to
stick to the script because of these two young men. Then, if I am
provoked by my friend from Georgia, I will speak extemporaneously.

{time} 0930

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of three bills,
all of which impose tortuous new rules on an already convoluted budget
process and attempt to embed Republican dogma into what is intended to
be an objective analysis based on reality, not fantasy.
The bouquet of imagery to explain this latest budgetary behavior is
certainly painful: Yogi Berra and deja vu all over again; Groundhog Day
with Bill Murray's character, Phil Connors, doomed to repeat the same
day over and over again; Sisyphus sentenced for his hubris to push a
boulder up a mountain only to see it careen to the bottom and have to
start all over again.
We have seen these proposals before, Mr. Speaker. Yet, once again, my
friends across the aisle try their best to throw up smokescreens right
and further right. Once again, my friends, led by Chairman Paul Ryan,
present reforms that are not common sense but that are actually
nonsense. Once again, Republicans propose budget process changes that
are nothing more than gimmicks to eliminate the spending on essential
government services and to dress up tax cuts for the wealthy. Once
again, we have to waste time considering budgetary gimmicks like
``dynamic scoring'' and whether we should factor in inflation when
accounting for future spending instead of dealing with the important
issues of the day.
The need for immigration reform isn't going anywhere, friends. The
need for investment in our infrastructure isn't going anywhere. The
need to provide health care for our veterans is not going anywhere, and
will I tell you that your budget gimmicks aren't going anywhere either,
and you know it. You can pass these gimmicks all day long. You are in
the majority. You can pass them all day--24 hours a day--and twice and
three times on Sunday, but you know that they are dead on arrival in
the Senate.
So let's turn to serious business, business the American people would
like us to take up, rather than wasting our time and the time of
millions of Americans. The changes envisioned within these bills tie
Congress and the Congressional Budget Office up in knots in an effort
to prove that conservative ideology about taxes and spending is going
to grow our Nation's economy--not create more jobs, not stimulate
demand, not invest in infrastructure or in education or in any of the
many endeavors that are critical to improving the lives of all
Americans.
In H.R. 1871--Mr. Woodall's favorite bill and for good reason as he
is the author of this iteration of it, and he gave attribution to the
person who has struggled to put this measure forward--it is proposed
that the Congressional Budget Office not include annual inflation when
making its budget baselines. This seems like a rather mundane,
technical change, but it isn't.
I would be pleased to support this, Mr. Speaker, because it means
that, in making my own personal budget projections, I can simply ignore
the fact that the costs for everyday items and activities tend to go up
every year. I can just assume that what I am paying today I can keep
paying 10 years from now and still expect the exact same number of
goods and services. But, of course, we all know that isn't true. Simply
wishing away inflation won't make it so. Fuzzy math, as it has been
described by some, does not equal fiscal responsibility.
By eliminating inflation adjustments from discretionary spending
projections, Republicans are actually reducing the funding for a
Federal program. Since the dollar amount would stay the same every
year, the number of services that could be covered would decrease. I
hasten to add that I agree with my friend Mr. Woodall that
accountability ought to be factored in and that these programs should
be able to perform in a way that is accountable to the public. When
they do not, they should be dispensed with, and that is a prerogative
that we can exercise, but it doesn't have to be done the way that it is
put forward. It is our responsibility to have the oversight of these
structures in our government.
Over the long term, this results in a massive decrease in essential
services that millions of Americans rely on. This technical change then
is actually a backdoor effort to slowly starve necessary government
programs. Rather than be up front about which programs my friends on
the other side want to eliminate, they would rather put sneaky rules
into place to guarantee the outcome they want without having to have an
open debate.
Through H.R. 1874, Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to introduce dynamic
scoring into the CBO's projection process. Dynamic scoring? Take a
closer look. It is more like dynamic stealing. By implementing this
fantasy math, the Republicans artificially inflate the costs of
important programs as a way to steal them out from underneath those who
are most in need of them. They tweak the CBO's analysis so that tax
cuts for the wealthy seem like they grow the economy while investments
in programs that help everyday Americans do not. Let me repeat that.
They tweak the CBO's analysis so that tax cuts for the wealthy seem
like they grow the economy while investments in programs that help
everyday Americans do not. I have lived here long enough to see
``trickle down'' fail repeatedly. Republicans make it easier to cut
taxes for the rich rather than to build bridges and schools for the
rest of us.
This bill specifically instructs the CBO to ignore the positive
economic effects that would come about from investments in things like
infrastructure and education. I want to underscore the word
``infrastructure.'' We talk about it all the time around here, and a
decade ago, one of our colleagues spent a portion of his career here
asking us to spend money on bridges. When I came here in 1992, we had
14,000 bridges in this Nation that were in need of repair, and we have
not addressed the circumstances surrounding that, and we need to and we
can. It is as if dealing with infrastructure and education--as if
spending on things that Americans want and need--won't boost the
economy, which is the way their approach suggests.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are at it again with H.R. 1872. This
proposal seeks to significantly change how the Office of Management and
Budget and the Congressional Budget Office calculate the costs of
government loans and loan guarantees. This bill would just add an extra
price tag to programs based on what an individual would pay for a loan
in the private market. Never mind the fact that the United States
Government is not an individual acting in a private credit market.
What this bill really represents is another attempt by the
Republicans to make important programs for the poor and middle class
families appear too expensive to be continued--programs meant to help
young people get an education, programs that help struggling families
afford homes, programs that help the elderly in their need of security
in their failing health, programs that help farmers and small
businesses grow this economy. By artificially inflating the costs of
these programs, the Republicans hope to fool us into thinking that we
can't afford them.
But as far as I know, April Fool's Day started and ended on Tuesday.
I will tell you this: I am not going to be fooled; my constituents
aren't going to be fooled; and the American people aren't going to be
fooled by your gimmicks--and these budget bills are only the
appetizers.
The entree was served up by Chairman Ryan when he recently introduced
his next budget, which he dubbed--and I was reading it last night--the
Path to Prosperity, but it would be more accurately called a path to
poverty. As much as I had hoped for the opportunity to turn down a path
where we consider meaningful legislation, we are again forced to battle
against Chairman Ryan's latest march down his

[[Page H2922]]

path to poverty, and since we have already adopted top-line numbers for
the next two budget cycles, there is no reason for this budget beyond
feeding the political base of my friends on the other side.
We will see the bumper stickers. We will hear the talk. We will hear
the echo chamber recite the mantra of those who would feed their base.
I suppose this budget is a solid start for a 10-minute standup set at
your local yuck-yucks, but that is about the best that I can say for
it.
I mean, you are going to cut spending by $966 billion over the next
10 years by cutting funding for food stamps, by cutting funding for
income assistance to help needy families, by cutting Pell grants for
kids to go to college. You can't be serious. You are going to implement
draconian cuts to programs millions of Americans rely upon, but you
make sure that we increase defense spending. You can't be serious.
Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans are really showing us here is their
blueprint for America's future. You don't even have to look that
closely to see that this blueprint creates nothing but structural
integrity problems for our economy. The Republicans' blueprint lays
bare their full frontal assault on middle class families and the poor.
Their blueprint calls for turning Medicare into a voucher program. They
will describe it differently, but it comes out to nothing more than a
voucher program. Their blueprint calls for non-defense discretionary
spending to be cut to the tune of $791 billion. This will result in
draconian cuts to education, public works, medical research, and the
list continues. It goes on and on.
Do you want to better yourself by obtaining a college degree? Ryan's
road to ruin is going to make sure that there is no money there for you
to do so.
Do you want to help grow our economy by shipping your goods on our
roads and bridges? Good luck, since your goods will undoubtedly be held
up at one of the many Ryan roadblocks to prosperity that will strip the
budget of much-needed infrastructure investments.
Are you or is any member of your family suffering from a disease, the
cure for which would certainly be furthered by Federal medical research
dollars? Sorry, but with this Republican budget proposed by Mr. Ryan,
you have found yourself on Mr. Ryan's fast track to despair.
Rather than using the budget process to lead this country into a new
era of economic growth, Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich, cut
programs for everyone else, and then feel like they have set this
country on the right track. This is no way to run an economy, no way to
run a budget process, and it is no way to stick up for the millions of
struggling Americans, as my friends on the Democratic side are doing
and have done for years, who need us to focus on improving the economy.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I thank Mike and Tim and Ian and the Rules
Committee staff who are working with me.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 0945

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to thank my friend
from Florida for laying out exactly what the case is that needs to be
made today.
It just so happens all of those spending priorities that the
gentleman from Florida mentioned are spending priorities I share--
investments in education; investments in roads and bridges; investments
in cutting-edge research that makes a difference in people's lives, not
just in terms of treatments, but in terms of cures.
In the absence of crystal-clear budgeting, in the absence of the
reforms that we have proposed here today, the $5 trillion that the
Budget Committee passed that proposes to reduce Federal spending over
the next 10 years is exactly the same as the interest that that very
same budget proposes to pay over the next 10 years.
I want you to hear that, Mr. Speaker. Every single reduction in
spending that the gentleman just laid out is necessitated because,
dollar for dollar, we are wasting those same amounts on paying the
debts that previous Congresses have racked up.
That is a Budget Committee-passed budget. The President's budget, Mr.
Speaker, proposes to spend $6 trillion over the next 10 years on
interest alone--interest alone.
Mr. Speaker, by not taking responsibility today, not only are we
mortgaging our children's future by piling these debts on them, we are
trading away opportunities to make a difference in their future.
Because those dollars that we are sending to the Chinese and Germans
who loan us money and the money that we are spending to pay our debts
is money that we could be spending on those shared investment
priorities that the gentleman from Florida and I have in common.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the
State of Florida (Mr. Nugent), one of the great members of the Rules
Committee, a former sheriff.
Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. I certainly do appreciate it; and
to my colleague from Florida on the other side of the aisle, once
again, it is always a pleasure.
Mr. Speaker, only in Washington can politicians pat themselves on the
back for cutting spending while actually increasing spending. That is a
novel idea.
Say, for example, we spent $100 on a program 1 year. The next year,
we automatically assume that we are going to spend $103 on that same
program, due to inflation. If we only end up spending $102 versus the
$103, according to official government accounting, we have cut
spending, but we increased spending by $2.
In the real world--at least back home--you can't simultaneously cut
spending while increasing spending and then say you cut spending. You
can't do both. It is one or the other.
Families don't budget this way. Businesses don't budget this way. It
would have made my life a whole lot easier as sheriff if my budget
automatically increased 3 percent because of inflation that may or may
not exist within the program.
If you change the baseline every year by inflation, no one has to
justify what their increase is; but then, again, we live in this
fantasy world called Washington, D.C. This is where we live today.
The fantasy is that we can spend more money than you take in, and it
will all work out in the end. We can be $17 trillion in debt today, but
don't worry about it because it will get better on its own.
How does it work? It doesn't work that way. Mr. Speaker, our current
budget process is broken. By assuming automatic increases in spending,
our system favors more and more spending without any accountability.
Under this scenario, programs don't receive a real examination as to
whether or not they deserve the increases. They just get it anyway.
Just because they exist, they get more money; not that they need it,
not that they can show folks that they absolutely have to have it, we
just get it.
As Chairman Ryan pointed out last night in the Rules Committee, our
current budget process has not been significantly reformed since the
Budget Control Act of 1974. That is 40 years ago. We haven't done a
thing. Given our fiscal situation, it is about time we do something to
try to get this on the right track.
I appreciate the committee's work, and I particularly appreciate Mr.
Woodall's bill today. These are important steps to refine and reform
the budget process.
You hear folks from the other side of the aisle say that these are
gimmicks. Well, I will tell you that, back home, it is not a gimmick
when I stand there and have to justify why I need more money in my
budget as sheriff.
I had to stand there with the appropriators and say: Here are the
reasons why I need more money; and by the way, here is what we have
done with the money.
So we show that we have actually earned it, and the taxpayers can see
that there was a reward at the end of the day and that they got what
they paid for.
There is none of that up here. I sit in committee meetings, day in
and day out, in regards to seeing money being spent by government.
Nobody is held accountable. We give people five-digit bonuses, Mr.
Speaker, for doing a lousy job, but that is the way government works.
We reward mediocrity.

[[Page H2923]]

This budget idea, if enacted, actually reins that in and makes people
accountable for the dollars they are given from the American public so
they can say: Listen, we are not talking about it; we are doing it.
So to Mr. Woodall and to Mr. Ryan, I do appreciate all their hard
work and what they have done and where they are trying to move this
process forward.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Now, I turn to the extemporaneous side. Mr. Speaker, on Monday
evening of next week, my friend Mr. Woodall and I will be in the Rules
Committee, and we will be taking up the Ryan budget. I might add that
we use the names of individuals.
I have great respect for Paul Ryan. I think he is a brilliant young
man; and clearly, ideologically, he and I have our differences.
I remember being on the floor and hearing the two best speeches in
the 21 years I have been here that were made pertaining to issues of
the moment. One was made by Ron Dellums, chairman of Armed Services at
the time, and the other by John Kasich, who is now the Governor of
Ohio.
I still consider those two speeches to be the best that I have heard
in the time that I am here, mine and Mr. Woodall's notwithstanding.
On that night that Mr. Kasich made his remarks, I listened very
intently to him. I forget the exact numbers that the budget was
proposing, but after he finished his remarks, I went up to him and
congratulated him on his remarks
I then said to him what I will say to Mr. Ryan at some point in the
future: I understand what it is that you want to spend, and I believe
that we would probably spend right at or about the same amount of
money. The difference is what you want to spend it on and what I want
to spend it on.
That is what I said to John that night. I find myself in that
situation repeatedly through the years. I myself, and certainly many
others, am a champion of those who are less fortunate in our society,
and I don't believe that my friends are unmindful of the great need
that our constituents have, be they Republican, Democrat, Independent,
or otherwise situated politically.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are people in this
country who are not as well off as some others in the country. There
should be nothing to decry the fact that there are some in our society
who have done exceedingly well, even during recessions.
I have a friend that is a billionaire. He told me he made money
during the Depression, he made money before the Second World War, after
the Second World War, and made money after every recession, largely for
the reason that he knows how to make money; and I don't begrudge him
that.
But that same individual told me that any amount of taxes that he
paid, he would prefer to see that it goes to educating our children
appropriately, and if it required him to pay more taxes, he would have
no problem doing so, and toward that end, I feel the same way.
People think that those of us up here in Congress live a life of
luxury with a high salary of $174,000 a year. Well, the simple fact of
the matter is--and rightly, perhaps--we have not had a raise for
Congress Members for 5 years.
At the very same time, if I use myself as an example, my rent here in
this town has gone up $600 during that period of time. My salary didn't
go up. So where was I supposed to meet these needs?
The simple fact is that, when we talk about a household budget, that
is an entirely different set of circumstances than a Federal budget or
a State budget or a city budget. They do not operate the same, and we
should stop making that analogy.
It is not like I sit down and fill out my budget. This is an
extremely complex process. The Congressional Budget Office only gives
us the numbers that we tell them that the policy is going to be, and
they tell us what the numbers are going to look like. They don't
provide the numbers. They don't do the oversight on the programs that
we make here.
We don't have to just give them the money, but if we set a baseline
and if we do allow for inflation, when those programs have failed or
those that are sunsetting--and more of them should sunset and too many
of them have failed--then that is our responsibility.
When we cut poor people, when we cut middle class people in this
country--that is the base of this country, that is the bedrock of this
country. It has been and will continue to be.
If we go the path that my friends want us to pass through, what we
will do is allow for those people that are better off in our society--
who could afford to help more the poor and the middle class--to get
richer, and it will cause more middle class people to become poorer;
and then the needs will be greater. If we don't see ourselves as a
better society than that, then something is drastically wrong with us.
I don't begrudge a single rich person on Earth, but I do feel
strongly responsible for those that are poor and not poor necessarily
by virtue of their circumstances.
What we tend to do to poor people here is, rather than ask them what
we can do with them to lift them out of poverty, we do things to them.
That is why most of us know that they won't vote at voting time,
largely for the reason that they have the most reasons to vote and, at
the same time, have the relative least reasons to vote.
The insufferable triumvirate of inadequate jobs, inadequate housing,
inadequate educational opportunity persists in this country, and the
fact of the matter is that we can do better--and we should do better--
by those that are poor. We should do something meaningful to create
jobs.
After Monday of next week, when we talk about this budget, I defy my
friends to tell me that they are going to put that budget on the floor.
When we vote on it Wednesday, I say let's go into debate Thursday and
debate it until its conclusion and then vote on it.
I guarantee you we are not going to vote on the Ryan budget,
everybody knows that, and I challenge my friends to bring it forth any
day after next Monday when we do the rule. I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Florida has
5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia has 16 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1000

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It never surprises me how much I have in common with my friend from
Florida. We come from very different parts of the world, Mr. Speaker.
If you go to many events in this town, they will generally have a
Southeastern State section and a Florida section. Florida is a little
bit different from the rest of those Southeastern States. Our
constituencies may not look the same demographically, may not look the
same on paper, but when it comes to caring about one another, I have no
doubt that our communities are incredibly similar, as the gentleman
from Florida and I are very similar.
The debate is not about whether or not we have an obligation to our
neighbors. We do. The question is are we meeting our obligation to our
neighbors, and I will tell you that we are not. The pathway up in this
country is what our obligation is here. I would say to my friends that
providing a safety net that has no ladder out is a cruel and
unsatisfactory path for this House.
I was talking with a gentleman down in southeast D.C., Mr. Speaker,
and he runs a project that takes folks from homelessness and drug
addiction to employment. He said: The problem with you Republicans is
all you do is offer people hope: pick yourself up by your bootstraps;
tomorrow will be better than today. He said hope in the absence of
access is futile. He said: But Democrats offer help. If you are naked,
I will clothe you. If you are hungry, I will feed you. If you are in
prison, I will visit you. But he said help in the absence of a pathway
out is to condemn someone to a life of poverty. He said: What you all
have to do is to come together. You have to provide that help to meet
people's immediate needs, but you have to provide that pathway out.
Mr. Speaker, I don't care if you are rich today; I care whether or
not the

[[Page H2924]]

opportunity exists in America for you to be rich tomorrow. And I don't
mean rich by having six figures or seven figures or eight figures; I
mean rich because you have got a roof over your head and you can feed
your family.
The American Dream, Mr. Speaker, is not to be the next Bill Gates. I
don't know where that ever got started. The American Dream is to be
able, by the sweat of your brow and the power of your ideas, to be your
own man or woman, to make your own decisions.
I listened deeply to the words of my friend and I looked for where we
might find that common ground, because, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my
friend from Florida, if you go into any public housing facility in my
district, they will tell you that the Federal Government prevents them
from succeeding. The residents would say: You have got to let us kick
the bad actors out. The residents would say: We have got folks here who
are trying to make a difference, and we have got folks here who are
bringing us down. You have got to give us the ability to keep our kids
safe. You have got to give us the ability to keep our community safe.
You have got to give us the ability to run our lives.
But Federal law says no, Mr. Speaker. Federal law says we know what
is fair; we know what is best.
But I know the gentleman from Florida and I share a heart for letting
folks in these communities take control of their lives, make those
choices that will enable tomorrow to be better than today.
Mr. Speaker, with this budget--again, I can't make this point sharply
enough--the President proposes to spend $6 trillion on interest alone
over the next 10 years--$6 trillion. Now, at the President's spending
levels, Mr. Speaker, that is almost 18 months of running this country.
Understand that because of the borrowing patterns of past Congresses
and administrations, we are losing 18 months of the very services the
gentleman from Florida proposes that we provide. Eighteen months are
eroded out of the next 10 years with interest alone.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act
does, for example, is say you have got to project out over 40 years.
You will remember, when the President proposed his health care bill,
no question, his intention was to help folks; no question, his
intention was to make life better for folks. We can absolutely debate
whether or not those were successes or failures, but this is the way
that budget sorted itself out. He said: I am not going to spend more
than $1 trillion on this program.
Now, I don't know when in the world, Mr. Speaker, $1 trillion became
the low number that we decided would be tolerable as a program, but he
said: I don't want to spend more than $1 trillion on this program.
So, instead of creating a 10-year program, he created a 6-year
program, put the implementation off for 4 years. Critical health care
services, absolutely necessary we provide these services to the
American people, but they can wait 4 years. We have got families in
need, families that don't have options, families that don't have
choices, but I am not going to help them get choices for another 4
years. Six-year program, $1 trillion.
The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act says we need to look at programs over 40
years because that $1 trillion, 6-year program explodes in years 7 and
8 and 9 and 10. And it may be money well spent. I hope that is what the
gentleman from Florida believes because I know he supported the
program. I don't believe it is money well spent. I think we are losing
trillions of dollars in health care costs that could be better
controlled. I think we are losing trillions of dollars in care that
could have been provided to folks but, instead, is being lost in an
inefficient health care system.
But we don't have those answers when those bills come to the floor of
this House for a vote. Who is it that opposes that, Mr. Speaker? Who is
it that opposes, when we make trillion-dollar decisions that are
multigenerational, that we don't have access to long-term data?
The gentleman from Florida says it seems disingenuous for us to
pretend inflation does not exist. That is not what I am proposing, but
disingenuous to pretend that it does. I think it is similarly odd to
pretend that the program stops after 10 years instead of it continuing
on in perpetuity, as these programs do. These bills do nothing but
provide us with other information.
I will close with this, Mr. Speaker. My experience in this House with
a voting card began in 2011. And while the gentleman is absolutely
right, Mr. Speaker, when he talks about inflation and how services can
be eroded, my experience in this House, your experience in this House,
Mr. Speaker, is that we spent less in 2011 than we did in 2010, not
more. Inflation was there, but we spent less. My experience, Mr.
Speaker, is that we spent less in 2012 than we did in 2011, less in
2013 than we did in 2012, less in 2014 than we did in 2013. Every year
I have been here we have spent less. I think that is what our
constituency expects from us, not to cut critical service programs, but
to increase our productivity and prioritize their dollars, prioritize
their dollars to those places where they can do the most good.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire and ask the
Speaker to inquire if my colleague is prepared to close. I have no
further speakers at this time, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. WOODALL. I would say to my friend from Florida, Mr. Speaker, I,
too, am prepared to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 5 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
My colleague just concluded his remarks by saying in 2011, 2012, 2013
they spent less, and he is correct. But in 2011, more people needed
food stamps; in 2012, more people needed housing; in 2013, more people
needed to get across safe bridges and safe roads. So I am not sure
where the twain meets.
I agree with my colleague that he and I have more in common than we
do differences, but I hearken back to my earlier comment. He wants to
spend or not spend on what he wants to spend or not spend, and I want
to spend or not spend on what I want to spend or not spend.
I want to spend on roads. I want to spend on children's education. I
want to spend on people who are hungry. And I believe he does as well,
but you cannot do that if you keep cutting everything all the time.
Mr. Speaker, these bills and Chairman Ryan's budget are nothing more
than base attempts to rally the fringe of the Republican Party, and I
stand steadfastly against each one of these attempts to drag us down a
Ryan road to ruin.
To quote the great American poet, Robert Frost:

I shall be telling this with a sigh somewhere ages and ages
hence. Two roads diverged in a wood and I took the one less
traveled, and that has made all the difference.

Mr. Speaker, friends, today we stand before two roads: one, a road to
ruin paved with pummeling cuts to hurt the poor and attack middle class
families, simply put, to protect the better off in our society, the
real rich; the other road, a road that helps the poor ascend out from
poverty, not a ladder out that has its ladder rungs with holes in it,
as my friend discussed that ladder out, a road that helps middle class
families more fully achieve their dreams, a road that helps our
businesses and economy grow, a road that embraces our veterans and
fights for them as vigorously as they fought for us. And if Fort Hood
doesn't teach us anything about the mental health of our soldiers and
our society, then I don't know what will.
Unfortunately, I believe this latter road traveled by my fellow
Democrats and by me today will be the road less traveled, and this fact
will certainly make a significant difference for the millions of
Americans trying to fully realize their dreams.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, our bill to raise the
Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.
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 Florida?

[[Page H2925]]

There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' and defeat the previous question, vote ``no'' on the underlying
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Two paths diverged in the wood, and I took the path less traveled,
and that has made all the difference.
Mr. Speaker, this is Washington, D.C. There is a term called
``Washington, D.C., math,'' which, as my friend from Florida, the
sheriff, described earlier is when you can raise spending by $5 and
call it a cut. That is Washington, D.C., math.
The path less traveled in this town is the path of fiscal
responsibility; the path less traveled in this town is the path of
accountability; the path less traveled in this town is the path of
transparency, and that is what these three measures before us today
propose, Mr. Speaker.
I held a townhall meeting, Mr. Speaker, about 12 months ago. They
asked if I was going to support the congressional pay raise. I said:
Well, we are not going to do a congressional pay raise this year, but I
hope one day to come home and tell you that I have earned it.
I do. I want to show up back home, Mr. Speaker, and tell folks that,
dadgummit: I have earned it. Be proud of what we have done in
Washington, D.C. I have earned it.
I think that is true of every dime of spending the Federal Government
does. I don't think we ought to assume, as the current baseline does,
that every single Federal agency is going to have their budget increase
next year by the cost of inflation. I think those agencies should come
to this institution, as they do in an annual appropriation process, and
say: I have earned it. I have earned it.
I am not just talking about making a difference in people's lives;
here are the results. I am not just talking about lifting people up;
here are the results.
The hardest thing to end in this town, Mr. Speaker, is a Federal
program. Once they get started, they seem to last forever. Mission
creep. If they solve one mission, they are going to adopt a new
mission, roll right on down the line. Nobody wants to work themselves
out of a job.
Is it so outrageous, is it the role only of the fringe, as my friend
from Florida proposed, to suggest that, if we are going to borrow and
spend more of our children's money, we should come and justify it?

{time} 1015

Mr. Speaker, that kind of budget transparency has become relevant
only to the fringe of America. It is not the America I know.
I tell the young people--and I try to start every day back home with
young people, Mr. Speaker. I say, listen, just tell me what you want in
terms of support for higher education because the only dollars I am
going to spend, I am going to borrow from you. I am borrowing it from
you.
We all love our children. We all want our children to succeed. But we
are borrowing from them. Every decision we make. These three bills ask
for three things, and three things only before we make the decision to
borrow from our children:
Number one, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. It asks that for those
programs that are going to have a big impact on our economy, that we
look not just at what the 1-year impact is, not just at what the 10-
year impact is, but that we look at a generation of impact.
Before we start down that road less traveled, Mr. Speaker, we should
know what it is going to cost us and how it is going to benefit us. We
don't get that information today, as the gentleman from Florida, the
sheriff, noted. We have not reformed the Congressional Budget Act since
1974. That kind of multigenerational information is worthy of this
body. This bill would provide it to us for the very first time.
The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act. If you are going to lend
money, you ought to account for it; you ought to evaluate it.
We often talk about our $17.5 trillion debt, Mr. Speaker. That comes
from Washington math because if we were anywhere else other than this
town, we would have to evaluate all the promises that we have made. I
mean, you know how Social Security is funded, for example, Mr. Speaker.
It is today's workers that are paying for today's retirees. There is
not a dime set aside for today's workers when they retire.
The true cost of government, the true national debt, as recently
calculated by Dr. Larry Kotlikoff of Boston University, not a
conservative by any stretch of the imagination, is over $200 trillion--
$200 trillion. ``Trillion''--we throw these words around as if they are
nothing--that is 1 million millions. We have not had 1 million days
since the birth of Christ, Mr. Speaker. We won't for another 730 years.
Mr. Speaker, 1 million millions is 1 trillion. We have borrowed and
promised on behalf of our children $200 trillion.
The fair value accounting request is only that we be honest with the
American people. I am prepared to live by whatever decision the
American people make. I believe in our Republic. But we cannot ask
people to make decisions without providing people with good
information. This bill does that.
Then finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill, again, sponsored by my good
friend from Texas, Louie Gohmert, a long champion that I have the
privilege of serving with in this Congress, the Baseline Reform Act.
The Baseline Reform Act says, if you are going to raise spending by $1,
you are actually raising spending by $1.
I know it sounds radical, Mr. Speaker. I know it sounds like the
province of the fringe, but it is not. If you are going to raise
spending by $1, you should say you are going to raise spending by $1.
Dadgummit, Mr. Speaker, I can't even have a town hall meeting these
days and talk about budget numbers--because I am a budget guy--I can't
talk about budget numbers without someone raising their hand and
saying, now, Rob, when you talk about spending reductions, is that
really a spending reduction, or is that just a reduction in the rate of
growth? That is how it has become.
For 4 years in this institution, we have spent less each and every
succeeding year. Now, I would argue, contrary to what my friend from
Florida suggested, that we are prioritizing spending on shared goals,
and we are deprioritizing spending on which we do not have those shared
goals. It seems fair in these difficult economic times, as we are
taking those dollars from hardworking American taxpayers across the
country, that we identify high-priority spending and low-priority
spending.
I will take the work at NIH, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker.
That is high-priority spending. That is basic research that is going to
make a difference in people's lives and not a difference in something
minor, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps a life-and-death difference. It is a
goal that we share. It is a goal that the Appropriations Committee
shares. It is a goal that we are going to be able to realize.
But I don't think there is a single man or woman at NIH, I don't
think there is a single professor at NIH, I don't think there is a
single Ph.D. candidate at NIH who is embarrassed to come up here and
say, I have done well. I am a good steward of the taxpayers' money.
Trust me again.
Mr. Speaker, that is where I want to take us with these budget bills.
I want to have folks proud of how they are spending the dollars, proud
to come and share that with us here in this Congress and have the
American people proud to get onboard with renewing those dollars once
again.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this rule. This
rule has made in order every amendment that was germane to these three
bills. I ask them to support this rule so that we can begin voting
these bills this very day.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 539 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.
1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

[[Page H2926]]

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1010.

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
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. WOODALL. With that, 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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 193, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 157]

YEAS--222

Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
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
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
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)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
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
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NAYS--193

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
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
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)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
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
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

[[Page H2927]]

NOT VOTING--16

Amodei
Brady (TX)
Castor (FL)
Gosar
Gutierrez
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Lankford
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Noem
Rangel
Salmon
Smith (WA)
Waxman
Wolf

{time} 1047

Mr. RICHMOND changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. POSEY and LONG changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 194, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 158]

AYES--220

Aderholt
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
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)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
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)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
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)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--194

NOT VOTING--17

Amodei
Brady (TX)
Castor (FL)
Duncan (TN)
Gosar
Gutierrez
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Lankford
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Noem
Rangel
Salmon
Smith (WA)
Webster (FL)
Wolf

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1054

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.

____________________