[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

     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
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             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.

                          ____________________