[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3001-H3014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 96, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS 
     DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 11, 2014, THROUGH APRIL 25, 2014

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 544 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 544

       Resolved, That at any time after the 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 concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) establishing the 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2015 
     and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 2016 through 2024. The first reading of the concurrent 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the concurrent resolution are 
     waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with 
     three hours of general debate confined to the congressional 
     budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and 
     one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals 
     and policies equally divided and controlled by Representative 
     Brady of Texas and Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York 
     or their respective designees. After general debate the 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
     the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each 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, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
     report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. 
     After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for amendment and a final period of general 
     debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise and report 
     the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and 
     amendments thereto to adoption without intervening motion 
     except amendments offered by the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The 
     concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question of its adoption.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     April 11, 2014, through April 25, 2014--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 5.  The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time 
     before 5 p.m. on Thursday, April 17, 2014, file privileged 
     reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2015.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may 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. Madam Speaker, it is budget week. I have been trying to 
contain my smile all week long. I have the great pleasure of sitting on 
both the Budget Committee and the Rules Committee here in this House. 
The rule that we have before us today, House Resolution 544, does 
candidly what I think my friend from Massachusetts and I came here to 
do, and that is to have an open debate on the floor of the House about 
absolutely everyone's ideas.
  I want to tell you what that means, Madam Speaker, because we sit on 
the Rules Committee, my friend from Massachusetts and I, and part of 
that responsibility is deciding whose voice gets heard and whose 
doesn't. It is a very solemn responsibility, one that neither of us 
takes lightly. I believe we would both say that whenever possible we 
should err on the side of having more voices instead of less. What we 
have today, Madam Speaker, is a rule that provides for absolutely every 
budget alternative written, drafted, and presented in this House, every 
one.
  I want you to think about that, Madam Speaker, because this ought to 
be a place where we debate ideas. This ought to be a place where we 
talk about what tomorrow looks like, how can we make tomorrow better 
than today. And on this day, we will be voting on a rule that will make 
every single alternative idea available for robust debate on the floor 
of this House.

[[Page H3002]]

  Now, the underlying bill is the bill that came out of the Budget 
Committee. Again, Madam Speaker, in full disclosure, I am a member of 
that Budget Committee. I am proud of the work that that committee put 
out.
  Some folks call it the Paul Ryan budget. I take umbrage at that. I 
sit on that committee. I work shoulder to shoulder with Paul. I am 
going to call it the Budget Committee budget. I hope at the end of this 
budget week it will be the House-passed budget, because I think it 
reflects the priorities of this institution, and I think it reflects 
the priorities of the American people.
  If it does not reflect the priorities of any Member in this Chamber, 
they will have alternatives to vote on. One of those alternatives is 
written and drafted by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the 
lead Democrat on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen), that substitute amendment made in order today.
  The Congressional Black Caucus, Madam Speaker, comes together to put 
together a list of priorities, a full substitute budget, has done that 
for a number of years, has done that again this year. This rule makes 
that Congressional Black Caucus substitute in order for a vote.
  The Congressional Progressive Caucus, Madam Speaker, they have 
presented a budget. Now, their budget is one that raises taxes by $5 
trillion over the next 10 years. It is not going to be one that I 
support here on the floor of the House, but it is absolutely a 
legitimate list of priorities, as I talked about earlier, priorities 
that affect the young people of this Nation. We are going to get a vote 
on that budget here on the floor of this House.
  The Republican Study Committee, Madam Speaker, of which I am also a 
member, a proud drafter of that budget document, that vote, espousing 
the absolute fastest path to balance that we will be hearing in this 
institution during budget week, Madam Speaker, will get a vote on the 
floor of this House.
  Finally, a budget presented by Representative Mulvaney of South 
Carolina but intended to replicate the budget written by the President 
of the United States of America. It is a funny thing in constitutional 
government. Of course we have article I, legislative branch; article 
II, executive branch. Certainly, we have different responsibilities, 
but I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who would say the 
President hasn't invested an incredible amount of time and energy 
presenting his budget. It wasn't here on time, but it did arrive here. 
It is a complete budget, and it deserves a hearing. No one on the 
Democrat side of the aisle picked up that budget to present it until 
Representative Mulvaney did. Again, I think that is part of the robust 
debate that we must have.
  All together, we are going to have 4 hours of debate on these budget 
alternatives. That is in addition to all the regular order that has 
already gone on in committee, in addition to the hours that we have 
invested in the Rules Committee already, 4 hours here on the floor of 
this House.
  Why is that important, Madam Speaker? Because I think what I will 
hear on both sides of the aisle is that these budgets represent a 
statement of values. Who are you going to take the money from? Who are 
you going to spend the money on? How are you going to invest in the 
future? How are you going to prevent the future from being eroded by 
payments on debt after debt, after debt, after debt? These are the 
discussions that we are going to have.
  Just 10 years ago, Madam Speaker, the public debt in this country was 
$7.3 trillion. Today, it is $17.5 trillion--all of the debt that we 
have racked up in the history of this country through 2004 more than 
doubled in just the last 10 years.
  Madam Speaker, there may be folks in this Chamber who say that is a 
debt worth making, that the investments that we are creating by 
borrowing this money from our children and spending it on the 
generations today, that that is worth doing. I say no. I say our 
obligation to our children tomorrow, to our grandchildren tomorrow is 
not to advance ourselves at their expense. I think our obligation is to 
pay down that debt, but that is a legitimate discussion that we are 
going to have over the next several days.
  The $10 trillion on the Nation's credit card in just the past 10 
years, Madam Speaker, let there be no doubt that that is the gravity of 
the conversation that we are having today.
  I remember back in 2012, Madam Speaker, President Obama said in an 
interview with ABC News: ``We don't have an immediate crisis in terms 
of debt. In fact, for the next 10 years, it's going to be in a 
sustainable place.'' In 2012, the President predicting that for the 
next 10 years the crisis won't come, that the crisis will be out beyond 
year 10. Madam Speaker, he may be right, but that was 2 years ago, and 
there are only two bills, two budgets that we have before us this 
budget week that even balance in that 10-year window.
  This is a debate worthy of this Chamber; this is a debate worthy of 
America. And I hope that by the end of budget week, Madam Speaker, by 
the time we take our vote on final passage, irrespective of which 
substitute has passed or whether the House-passed or committee-passed 
budget remains, that we have a document that represents not just this 
institution's values but that represents our constituents' values, that 
represents American values, that is true to the obligation that we all 
have to protect the opportunities of the generations of tomorrow.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, budgets are moral documents. These 
annual documents are really statements of who we are as political 
parties and as groups and as people. They represent our values. They 
tell a story about what we believe in and how we would govern.
  I had thought that I had come here today to say that this budget 
before us, the Ryan budget, is simply bad or that it is misguided. 
Madam Speaker, it is much worse than that.

                              {time}  1230

  This is an awful budget. It takes our country in the fundamentally 
wrong direction.
  It seems as though every year we shake our heads wondering how the 
latest Ryan budget could possibly get worse than the previous year's 
efforts. And yet, time after time, the Ryan budget manages to pull it 
off.
  This budget is cruel, but sadly, it is not unusual.
  The gentleman from Georgia says he can't contain his smiles when he 
talks about this budget. I don't think there is anything to smile 
about.
  Year after year, the Ryan budget does more and more damage to the 
social fabric of our Nation. Year after year, it puts the wishes of the 
rich ahead of the needs of the poor. And year after year, it sacrifices 
the reality of desperately needed investments at the altar of 
theoretical deficit reduction.
  Let's look at the details. The Ryan budget includes deep cuts. How 
deep? $791 billion below the sequester number. $791 billion below 
sequester. That is amazing, Madam Speaker.
  Now, I voted against sequester because of the damage it would and it 
did inflict on our economy. This budget would actually cut nearly $1 
trillion on top of the sequester. I thought we wanted to end sequester, 
not make choices that are even worse.
  But that is not the end of the story. According to one estimate, 69 
percent of the Ryan budget cuts come from low-income programs. It would 
shred the safety net. The programs that keep millions of Americans out 
of poverty and help provide millions of Americans with health care, 
that will provide millions of children with school meals and early 
childhood education, received the lion's share of the cuts. That is 
what the Ryan budget does.
  In fact, according to the same estimate, $3.3 trillion of the Ryan 
budget's $4.8 trillion in non-defense cuts come from low-income safety 
net programs like Medicaid, SNAP, school breakfast and lunch programs, 
Head Start, the Supplemental Security Income program, the Earned Income 
Tax Credit, and Child Tax Credits.

[[Page H3003]]

  Sixty-nine percent of the total non-defense cuts come from these 
life-changing, indeed, lifesaving programs.
  The Ryan budget is successful at one thing: it deepens the divide 
between the rich and poor in this country. It successfully makes life 
harder for those who are already struggling to make ends meet.
  If you are hungry in America, you would see food benefits cut by $137 
billion.
  If you are a middle class college student in America, hopefully you 
can win the lottery, or have a rich uncle, because Pell grants would be 
cut by $125 billion by freezing the maximum grant and cutting 
eligibility.
  If you are a low-income working mother in America who gets health 
care through Medicaid, you would join at least 40 million Americans who 
will become uninsured by 2024 after the Ryan budget cuts at least $2.7 
trillion from Medicaid.
  And if you are a middle class family with kids in America just trying 
to get by in this sluggish economy, you would see your taxes go up by 
$2,000.
  But if you are fortunate enough to be very rich in America, you 
lucked out. It is time to pop the champagne because you make out like a 
bandit. The oil companies keep their tax breaks. Businesses can keep 
putting money in overseas accounts just to avoid paying taxes here in 
America.
  And if you are a millionaire?
  Get ready for a big fat check from Uncle Sam. That is because anyone 
making $1 million a year will see a tax cut of at least $200,000.
  On top of these disastrous policies, the Ryan budget, once again, 
goes after seniors. This version, once again, ends the Medicare 
guarantee and reopens the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole.
  As a result of these cuts, seniors will see their traditional 
Medicare premiums soar by an average of 50 percent. As AARP says:

       Removing the Medicare guarantee of affordable health 
     coverage for older Americans by implementing a premium 
     support system and asking seniors and future retirees to pay 
     more is not the right direction.

  Now these policies have real world ramifications. Last week, Madam 
Speaker, an incredibly strong and courageous group of women called the 
Witnesses to Hunger returned to Capitol Hill to talk about their 
struggles as low-income, working women trying to make ends meet.
  It takes guts to come here to Capitol Hill to tell your story and 
challenge Members of Congress to do better, and that is exactly what 
these impressive women did. They told their stories. They talked about 
their struggles, and they challenged us to do more to help so they 
don't fall back into poverty.
  These women, and the millions of Americans like them who work hard 
every day, don't earn enough to make ends meet. They are having to 
choose between rent and food and electricity.
  These women and their children aren't line items in our budget. They 
aren't statistics in our reports. They are people, people who just want 
to have a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and an education 
system that will help their children learn and succeed.
  They want to go to college and not have to worry about losing their 
scholarships just because they are a single mother and need to work a 
night job to feed their child.
  These women, and millions of Americans, would be hurt, they would be 
devastated by the Ryan budget. I am glad there are people who are able 
to make a lot of money in this country. I have nothing against rich 
people, but we shouldn't penalize those who are struggling.
  Madam Speaker, we should be providing ladders of opportunity to help 
people get out of poverty and move into the middle class. When people 
need a helping hand, we should provide that assistance, whether it is a 
job training program, early childhood education, health care, or 
something as simple and as basic as food.
  These aren't handouts; they are hand-ups. They are investments in our 
future, and we should be providing opportunities to strengthen our 
communities and the middle class through job creation, higher 
education, and advancing research and innovation.
  This is a great country. We have done great things, but we have begun 
to think small. That is what the Republican majority has succeeded in 
doing. They have got us to start thinking small rather than big. We 
don't tackle big problems anymore. We use deficit reduction as an 
excuse to do nothing.
  What we need to do is tackle big issues like ending hunger. We should 
tackle the issue of ending poverty. We should want to strive for a 
country that benefits not just the few who are rich but the many who 
are poor.
  The Ryan budget would set us back. It would do real damage to 
millions and millions of real Americans, our neighbors, our friends, 
our fellow parishioners.
  As Pope Francis has written in his Papal Exhortation:

       I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere 
     and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots, 
     and not simply the appearances of the evils in our world. 
     Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation 
     and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks 
     the common good.

  Inasmuch as it seeks the common good. This budget, this Ryan budget, 
this Republican budget, or whatever you want to call it, does not seek 
the common good. This budget fails that basic test that Pope Francis 
outlined. It does not seek the common good. It deserves to be defeated.
  We can do so much better in this Congress and for our country. I am 
ashamed that this is what we are debating here today, that this is the 
Republican vision for our future.
  This the wrong way to go. Democrats and Republicans should say ``no'' 
to this.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to say to my 
friend from Massachusetts, I believe we share many of the same 
priorities. But because of past Congresses, because of past 
administrations, because of past decisions that have been made in this 
Chamber, we are on track to spend $6 trillion on interest over the next 
10 years.
  Madam Speaker, that is opportunity to fulfill every single one of 
those goals my friend from Massachusetts laid out that is frittered 
away by the borrow-and-spend behaviors of the past.
  There is no disagreement in this Chamber about the commitment to a 
hand-up. The disagreement is about how much further out of reach we put 
opportunity and success by trading away future opportunities for 
spending today.
  I have great respect and admiration for my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who have said yes, let's do raise taxes by $5 
trillion. Yes, let's do reset our priorities. Let's actually describe a 
pathway to a balanced budget. It is not an easy pathway to get to, but 
it matters.
  It doesn't matter because it's a number, Madam Speaker. It matters 
because every year we don't balance the budget we steal opportunities 
from our children, and that is undeniable.
  The debate is, Do the investments today outweigh those stolen 
opportunities from tomorrow? Or do the savings today that ensure that 
opportunity for tomorrow represent the best course of success that we 
can provide, again, for our children and grandchildren, about whom 
there is no disagreement about our strong and steadfast commitment?
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think one of the differences between what the Republicans have 
proposed and what Democrats are proposing is that what they propose is 
just one thing--cuts. Cuts and cuts and cuts in programs for the most 
needy in this country, and more tax cuts for the most wealthy.
  What the Democrats have proposed is a more balanced approach. Yeah, 
there needs to be some sacrifice, but we also understand the importance 
of investment.
  If you want to find a way to balance the budget, why don't we find a 
cure for Alzheimer's disease? Not only would that help improve the 
quality of life for millions of people, but it would also eliminate all 
the fiscal problems that Medicaid has.
  Let's find a cure for diabetes. Let's find a cure for cancer.
  Why aren't our energies devoted toward investing in medical research?

[[Page H3004]]

  And yet the Ryan budget that we are now debating would devastate 
medical research in this country. It would devastate it.
  We have researchers coming in to visit us who are telling us that 
China is offering them a better package to do their medical research, 
Singapore. I want these cures to be found here in the United States. I 
want to invest in that research that will not only save people's lives, 
but create jobs and also save money.
  Yet, my friends on the other side, they devastate investments in 
medical research. They devastate investments in scientific research. 
They devastate investments in transportation.
  Their way is one way: cut programs that help the most needy, and give 
tax breaks to the Donald Trumps of the world. Donald Trump doesn't need 
any more help. Middle class families, those struggling to get into the 
middle class, do need help.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous 
question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring 
up H.R. 4415, the House companion to the unemployment insurance 
extension bill passed by a bipartisan majority in the Senate just 
yesterday. Representative Kildee introduced this bill just hours after 
Senate passage.
  Today, on Equal Pay Day, my amendment will also bring up H.R. 377, 
Rosa DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act. It is shameful that women in 
America still make an average of only 77 cents for every dollar earned 
by their male colleagues. The Paycheck Fairness Act will require equal 
pay for equal work.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
join him in urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
that we can immediately bring up H.R. 4415, which is identical to a 
bill that passed on a bipartisan basis by the Senate just last night.
  It would extend emergency unemployment benefits to the 2 million 
Americans who have lost those benefits since Congress failed to act 
late last year.
  I also will note that I read today a report that seven of my 
Republican House colleagues have written the Speaker urging him to 
bring this legislation up immediately as well. So we have bipartisan 
support for this effort to restore necessary benefits to individuals 
who have lost their job.
  It takes an average of 37 weeks for someone who loses their job in 
this country to find their next opportunity. Yet, in my State, after 20 
weeks, you are cut off of unemployment.
  So while today is a beautiful spring day outside, and all across the 
country people are breathing in the optimism that comes with spring, 
for 2 million Americans, they look at this a different way. They go 
outside today and wonder if today is the day that the foreclosure 
notice will come, if today is the day that the eviction will be tacked 
on to their front door, if they will go outside and today will be the 
day that the car has been repossessed or that there won't be enough 
food to feed their family.
  These are real-life Americans who are facing this struggle. We have 
it in our power to do something about it.
  H.R. 4415, like the Senate action, is fully paid for. Despite the 
fact that, in the past, on a bipartisan basis, we have approved an 
unemployment insurance extension without it being paid for, this is 
paid for. It will not increase the deficit but will decrease the 
suffering of millions of American people who go every day trying to 
find their next job.
  I have heard some on the other side say, well, we shouldn't do this 
because it is not an emergency. Well, if you are about to lose your 
house, or about to lose your apartment, or about to lose your car, or 
don't have enough food to feed your children, let me tell you, for 
them, maybe not for all of you, but for them it is an emergency, and 
this Congress can act, and it should act immediately.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, is it a constitutional right of the House 
to change the rules for consideration of a budget resolution as they 
are otherwise established in the Congressional Budget Act and were 
adopted in this Congress pursuant to H. Res. 5?

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House has the authority to adopt rules 
regarding its proceedings.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, does House Concurrent Resolution 96, 
which provides 4 hours of debate, supersede section 305(a) of the 
Budget Act, which provides for 10 hours of general debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not interpret a special order 
of business prior to or pending its consideration under the guise of a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized to 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Rule XIII, clause 6(c) states that it is not in order for 
the Committee on Rules to report a rule that would prevent the motion 
to recommit from being made as provided in clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
  Was it, therefore, in order under House rule XIII for the Committee 
on Rules to report H. Con. Res. 96?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot interpret the pending 
resolution under the guise of a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
to state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, is a report from the Committee on Rules 
privileged under House rules?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending resolution was called up as 
privileged.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Is it in order to offer an amendment to the rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. An amendment may be offered at this point 
only if the majority manager yields for it.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, will House Concurrent Resolution 96 be 
considered under the hour rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the provisions 
of House Resolution 544.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to permit 
Representative Caardenas to offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia yield for 
that purpose?
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I do not yield for that purpose. All time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia does not yield 
for that request.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Is it correct that on April 2, 2014, I offered an 
amendment to the concurrent resolution on the budget during the markup 
in the Budget Committee and all Republicans on the committee voted 
against it?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot comment on proceedings in 
committee.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Does clause 3(b) of rule XIII, which requires committee 
reports to include--for record votes--the total number of votes cast 
for and against an amendment, as well as the names of Members voting 
for and against an amendment, apply to the Rules Committee?

[[Page H3005]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members may consult the standing rules.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, is the requirement of House rule XIII, 
clause (b), that a committee report include the total number of votes 
cast for and against an amendment, as well as the names of Members 
voting for and against an amendment, enforceable through a point of 
order raised against the reported bill or resolution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may consult the standing 
rules.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Would a point of order lie against H. Res. 544 if the 
accompanying report, House Report 113-405 of the Rules Committee, did 
not include a record of the votes cast for and against an amendment, as 
well as the names of Members voting for and against an amendment, 
knowing that transparency is so fundamental to the rules of the House 
and the democratic process?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 544 is currently pending.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does either manager seek time for debate?
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  I believe that parliamentary inquiries are privileged. Is that 
correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Recognition for a parliamentary inquiry is 
within the discretion of the Chair.
  Does either manager seek time for debate?
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I seek time for debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, there are often reasons to come to this floor and 
instruct the Rules Committee about how the Rules Committee could do 
better. We do the very best we can, but we accept constructive 
criticism from all comers.
  The rule that is before us today is an example of what has gone 
right, not what has gone wrong. The rule that is before us today makes 
in order every single budget that was offered to the Rules Committee.
  Now, I don't dispute that there are lots of different agendas that 
are being pursued here on the floor at this time; but for the budget 
agenda, for the openness agenda, for the full debate agenda, we have a 
rule before us that has made in order every single substitute offered 
in the Rules Committee, which happens to be five substitutes in 
addition to the base bill, but had there been more, we would have made 
more in order.
  Again, there are lots of things that we can come to the floor of the 
House and disagree on, but this rule, to bring those disagreeing 
budgets to the floor, should be a point of great pride for both sides 
of the aisle.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, would a point of order lie against 
House Resolution 544 if it did not include a record of the courageous 
votes cast by Representative Ros-Lehtinen in favor of allowing an 
amendment on comprehensive immigration reform?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution is pending; therefore, the 
gentleman is asking for an advisory opinion. The Chair will not give an 
advisory opinion.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, is it correct that Representative 
Caardenas' amendment, which made the necessary changes in the budget to 
accommodate passage of H.R. 15, the bipartisan Border Security, 
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which lowers 
our deficits and secures our borders and establishes clear and just 
rules for citizenship, was not made in order under H. Res. 554?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members may consult the Committee on Rules 
regarding its proceedings.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, is it correct that my amendment, known 
as the Caardenas amendment, which also called for the House leadership 
to allow a vote on H.R. 15, the House's bipartisan comprehensive 
immigration bill, since the House majority had refused to bring it to 
the floor for a vote, was not made in order under House Resolution 544?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot comment on proceedings in 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. How many cosponsors does H.R. 15 currently have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  How many of those cosponsors are Republican Members of the House of 
Representatives?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
to state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. How many Members have signed on to the discharge 
petition for H.R. 15?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members may consult the petitions at the 
desk.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Further parliamentary inquiry on that note, Madam 
Speaker.
  How many of those cosponsors are Republican Members?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members may consult the discharge petitions 
at the desk.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Recognition for a parliamentary inquiry is 
within the discretion of the Chair.
  The Chair is prepared to recognize the managers for debate.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to 
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the 
chairman of the House Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I recognize why we are here and so do 
Members of this body, and the reason why is because, if you look at the 
pathway of the Democratic Party, which is what our colleagues are 
arguing for today, it is a pathway not only to destruction, but 
insolvency for the United States of America, up to and including Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and our ability to pay for the things 
that this great Nation needs.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall), who is our representative to the Budget Committee, spent 
hours not only in understanding, talking, and debating these issues, 
but in making sure that he brought back a product that was worthy of 
the sale to the American people by the House of Representatives today.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is taking time to describe 
how, really, there are two different pathways that we could go down. 
Now, I am aware that we also made in order five other opportunities, 
opportunities where there are groups of people, Members who came to the 
Rules Committee upstairs, talked forthrightly about what was in their 
bills, and they were very proud of saying they wanted to raise taxes by 
trillions of dollars; they wanted to blame the ills and woes on a 
balanced budget and America doing something that was about solvency and 
a good future.
  Here, we are on the floor today to talk about the pathways. One 
pathway where we can sustain what we do is called the Ryan budget. The 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, thoughtfully and 
carefully--I think

[[Page H3006]]

artfully--came and spoke about how we need to make sure that we 
continue to grow jobs in this country.
  The alternative to that was higher taxes and putting more off on the 
American people to not only have to work harder for what they would 
earn, but less take-home pay.
  We argued forthrightly about putting us on a pathway with our budget 
to where we could look at the energy resources of America, providing us 
with those opportunities to develop jobs and more revenue for the 
country.
  Our friends on the Democratic side want to tax oil by billions of 
dollars, raising the price of energy. We forthrightly understand this, 
and we get it. We have seen energy prices double at the pump by 
President Obama and the Democrat leadership. We have seen food double 
in price.
  No wonder it is difficult for average Americans to make ends meet. We 
have seen the Democrat Party, through their budget and through the 
actual laws that they have passed, diminish not only hours of work--
which was the debate of the last few weeks about whether we would 
diminish the 40-hour workweek in favor of a 30-hour workweek.
  There are two different pathways, two different directions we could 
go, taxing and spending, blaming people who have jobs, blaming 
millionaires and billionaires for the woes of America.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I would submit to you today that it is the 
people who are innovative and creative and do well in life that create 
jobs and opportunities for this country, but they will quit doing so if 
we really tax them out of existence, if we do what the Democrats want 
to do and move to the pathway that means that America does not have a 
brighter future.
  We will do exactly what we have seen is happening in Greece, in 
Iceland, and in France, where the brightest and the best of those 
people have given up on their countries because they cannot make a go 
of it.
  Quite honestly, the Republican Party is proud of what we are doing. 
We are talking about how important it is to be careful and cautious, to 
make sure we can sustain what we do, to make sure that our promise to 
America's seniors on Medicare and Social Security is taken care of, not 
to go and make promises that we know we cannot fulfill.
  On the other side, they turn right around and say: let's just go tax 
business, let's go tax energy, let's go tax people, those rich people.
  Ladies and gentlemen, that is how you kill the goose that lays the 
golden egg. I have worked hard and never missed a day of work in 36 
years.
  I am not one of those people that they want to pick on, but I say 
thank goodness that we have entrepreneurs in our country who have 
chosen to make America home, who have chosen to employ American 
workers, and what the Democrat Party wants to do with their budget is 
to throw us all out of work and make us beholden to them.

                              {time}  1300


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, is it correct that the concurrent 
resolution on the budget fails to assume enactment of H.R. 15, 
immigration reform and, in doing so, squanders the opportunity to 
reduce taxes that Mr. Sessions just talked about to the tune of $900 
billion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman is engaging in debate.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, isn't it true that unlike the 
concurrent resolution on the budget, which fails to balance in 10 
years, H.R. 15, the House's bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform 
bill, would, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, 
reduce our deficit by nearly $1 trillion over the next 20 years?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman is engaging in debate.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, is it true that, unlike the concurrent 
resolution on the budget, which slashes the transportation budget by 
$52 billion this year alone, and, according to the Economic Policy 
Institute, decreases GDP by 2.5 percent, H.R. 15, the House's 
comprehensive immigration reform bill, would create 120,000 jobs, 
according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman is engaging in debate.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, is it correct that Ranking Member Van 
Hollen's substitute amendment assumes the passage of immigration reform 
and that a vote against the Van Hollen substitute is a vote against 
immigration reform?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman is engaging in debate.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized to 
state a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. POLIS. Would it be in order to introduce an amendment to allow 
for an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 15 as 
part of the budget?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment could only be offered at this 
point if the majority manager yielded for the amendment.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow for the 
consideration of the Caardenas amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia yield for 
that purpose?
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, all time is yielded for the purpose of 
debate only.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
California seek recognition?
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Permission to debate for 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may be yielded to by a 
manager. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Caardenas).
  Mr. CAARDENAS. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to respond a little bit 
to what Congressman Woodall just said a little while ago. The fact of 
the matter is that 68 Senators and a majority of the American people 
believe in debate and reform. When it comes to comprehensive 
immigration reform, it is about the budget. It is about the budget: 
120,000 American jobs every year for the next 10 years, $900 billion 
reduction in the deficit--in our deficit--the United States deficit.
  That is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. It is about the 
budget, Madam Speaker and Members. I think it is important for us to 
understand that that would be the responsible--responsible--budget to 
pass, one that has comprehensive immigration reform.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I recognize that I need to hold some 
classes up at the Rules Committee so that Members have a better 
opportunity to understand more about the rules of the House and about 
how we operate on the floor. The facts of the case are very simple.
  The Rules Committee last night made in order anything that was a 
complete substitute or an opportunity to have their bill heard last 
night. We do not take on what might be one single issue or literally an 
amendment.
  The process that we are trying to follow here today is one that is 
happening

[[Page H3007]]

because, for 4 years, the Democratic Party had the Speaker of the 
House, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United 
States, and they did not do for 4 years what they are asking us to do 
today. And all these shiny objects swirling around do not fool the 
American people. They want to raise taxes, raise spending, and blame 
someone rather than coming to the table and working together.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think what you just saw on the floor 
is frustration. In the supposedly open House that my colleagues brag 
about--erroneously, I should add--this issue of comprehensive 
immigration reform has failed to be given a day on the floor.
  The United States Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed comprehensive 
immigration reform, a bill that would, by the way, raise close to a 
trillion dollars over the next 20 years to pay down our debt, and yet 
we can't even get it scheduled on the House floor. The leadership here 
continues to block it, and Mr. Caardenas and Mr. Polis last night in 
the Rules Committee thought that, given the fact that there is such an 
incredible savings here, it was relevant to this.

  And, by the way, the Rules Committee can do whatever it wants to. The 
Rules Committee could issue the necessary waivers to allow this to 
happen. There is no reason at all why this couldn't have been brought 
up today except that a majority in the Rules Committee said no. I mean, 
that is the reason why.
  So what you see is frustration. What you see is frustration not just 
by Democrats. There are people on the Republican side who, as well, 
would like to see us debate comprehensive immigration reform, and 
instead we are blocked at every single avenue. So that has to change; 
otherwise, you are going to see more of the kinds of displays that you 
just witnessed.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to 
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of 
both the Rules Committee and the House Budget Committee.
  (Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Woodall, for 
yielding me the time. I want to urge support for the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  I would be the first to tell you that this budget is not a perfect 
budget--no budget is actually perfect--but it is a good budget.
  There are a couple of issues that do concern me, as I addressed Mr. 
Ryan last night; and we are worried that we haven't dealt with the 
wildfire issue to my satisfaction, which disrupts the appropriating 
process within Interior, but he assured me that he recognized that was 
a problem, and we are going to continue to work on it. I actually am 
going to vote for Mr. Woodall's budget when I have the opportunity to 
do that. It is the most conservative approach on the floor, and I 
appreciate that.
  I think we ought to stop and remember that without Paul Ryan, we 
wouldn't have the choices in front of us today. The United States 
Senate has chosen not to have a budget once again this year, something 
that it frequently does. And with all due respect to my friends who do 
have a budget--and I am pleased that they do--in 2010, when they were 
actually in the majority, they didn't present a budget to this body, 
either.
  It is Paul Ryan that has forced us to confront the fiscal crisis that 
is facing the country and has actually put something on the table to 
deal with it. Now, you don't have to agree with everything in it, but 
it has a lot of virtues to it. The first virtue is it actually focuses 
on the number one driver of the debt, and that is our unsustainable 
entitlement programs.
  We have made a lot of progress in the last few years in this body on 
a bipartisan basis in reducing discretionary spending. We are actually 
spending $165 billion less in discretionary accounts than we were in 
2008 when George W. Bush was President of the United States. I don't 
agree with all those reductions, and I suspect my friends on the other 
side don't either, but that is a tangible contribution to reducing the 
deficit and moving us toward balance.
  What we haven't dealt with, what the President has largely refused to 
deal with, and what I suspect my friends in their budget will not deal 
with, but Paul Ryan has, are the real drivers of the debt: Medicare and 
Medicaid, in particular. There is an offer in there to sit down and 
deal seriously with Social Security, as well. And until we do those 
things--and Paul Ryan has started us on a path to do them--we will 
never bring the budget into balance.
  Now, one of the other things I like about Mr. Ryan's budget is, gosh, 
it really does balance within 10 years. It makes a lot of tough 
choices. My friend, Mr. Woodall, actually gets there a little bit 
faster because he makes even tougher choices, but it balances.
  My friends on the other side and the administration haven't presented 
a budget that balances in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years or 40 or 
50--or just draw the lines right on out to infinity. I don't think that 
is what the American people sent us here to do. But until somebody 
actually has the courage to do what Mr. Ryan has done and what Mr. 
Woodall has done, that is the situation the country is going to be in.
  The other thing I like about the Ryan budget, in particular, is that 
it actually incorporates in it the agreement that he arrived at with 
Senator Murray in the other body. Now, there was a lot of criticism 
about that because it probably wasn't what I would have negotiated if I 
got my way or probably Mr. Woodall or any other Senator, but it was a 
real agreement--only a 2-year agreement, but a real agreement. And 
against a lot of criticism, Mr. Ryan incorporated, okay, if that is 
going to be the settled law of the land, then that should be part of 
our budget. He put it in there, and I am proud of him for doing that.
  Finally, again, it reduces not spending, but the growth of spending. 
We are going to hear a lot of talk about slashes and not investing. If 
you actually look at the Ryan budget, Federal spending still grows. It 
grows by about 3\1/2\ percent a year. The difference is the Democratic 
alternative--well, excuse me--the current course is like 5.2 percent. 
That is not a great deal of difference. We could really restrain our 
deficit in the short term and ultimately bring ourselves into balance 
not by slashing everything, but by simply making some of the simple, 
commonsense reforms that my friend, Mr. Ryan, to great criticism, has 
advanced and put on this floor year after year after year.
  So I want to urge the adoption of this rule, which is a terrific 
rule, because despite some complaints, the reality is my friend, Mr. 
Woodall, and the Rules Committee have put a variety of choices before 
this body.
  We are going to have a budget from the Progressive Caucus that is 
very different than I would like, but it is going to get its 
opportunity. We are going to have a budget from the Congressional Black 
Caucus--again, different than I would choose, but it certainly deserves 
to be heard and examined. We are going to have Mr. Woodall's budget. So 
we are going to have several choices before we get to Mr. Ryan's 
budget, any one of whom might win, might actually persuade people.
  At the end of the day, we are going to have multiple choices because 
of this rule, and so it deserves to be dealt with because it does, 
indeed, open the process. At the end of the day, I suspect Mr. Ryan's 
budget will be the one that passes. Again, I am very proud to do that, 
and I urge its passage.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Ryan for again putting 
together yet another budget that balances in ten years. I know from the 
many meetings that we had on this side of the aisle that there was a 
lot of thought put into how we can maintain our commitment to fiscal 
balance, given the mounting debt, and the overall deterioration of our 
economic growth, brought about, in part, by the over 17 trillion debt.
  Additionally, this budget maintains the Republican focus on dealing 
with the true drivers of our debt, entitlement programs. It would have 
been very easy, given that the Bipartisan Budget Act set the 302(a) 
allocations for Fiscal Year 2015, to not do a budget; however, this 
budget, this blueprint yet again allows us to share our vision for the 
future.
  This budget reflects the discretionary caps which were agreed to in 
the Bipartisan Budget

[[Page H3008]]

Act. As a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have 
seen the devastating cuts in end strength and capabilities we will face 
if we continue with sequester. And, instead of making discretionary 
cuts for the fifth year in a row, we have redoubled our efforts in 
entitlement programs to ensure they are available for all in the 
future.
  I was disappointed to see that the President reversed himself in his 
budget submission, removing Chained CPI from his budget proposal. 
However, House Republicans are willing to work with the President where 
possible and find common ground that will move our debt trajectory 
downward, instead of increasing at an exponential rate.
  Many have criticized this budget for ``moving the goalposts'' and now 
transitioning to a Premium Support model for those 56 and below; 
however, Madam Speaker, we have to face the facts. Every year that we 
do not act it becomes harder and harder to preserve the current 
programs for those already at or near retirement. This budget 
recognizes that hard reality and adjusts itself accordingly.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to say a little about wildfires 
suppression costs. When devastating wildfires do occur and the costs 
exceed the Forest Service's budget, most often, other programs within 
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee bear the costs. And that is 
not right. I am disappointed that this budget fails to consider how we 
can better budget for the true costs of wildfire suppression 
activities. My friend from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, has a deficit-neutral 
bill that would deal with this issue. Much of what we have considered 
on the floor the past few days has aimed at ensuring the true costs of 
programs are reflected in the budget. That is what Mr. Simpson's bill 
does and I hope we can consider it in the coming weeks.
  I hope this budget serves as a wake-up call that it is time to act. 
Here in Washington, we can become numbed to the problems facing our 
country. But they are real, and they must be addressed. This budget 
reflects the Republican vision for the future, one where we are in 
control of our destiny, as opposed to turning over control to our 
creditors.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to agree with my friend from 
Oklahoma that Mr. Ryan has given us a choice. He has presented us a 
budget that would end Medicare as we know it; it would slash the social 
safety net to smithereens; it cuts SNAP by $137 billion; and it would 
damage the National Institutes of Health and transportation funding. 
Pell grants would be cut. I could go right down the list. Yeah, I know 
we have got a choice here, and people ought to understand what that 
budget is all about.
  My friends on the other side may be proud of this. Again, I find that 
puzzling, because the notion that the only way to balance the budget is 
by hurting poor people or hurting the middle class, I don't agree with.
  You talk about sacrifices. Why are all the sacrifices on the backs of 
middle-income families or on the backs of the poor in this country? The 
rich get a tax cut. The rich get a tax cut. Middle class families get a 
tax increase. Poor people get their food stamps taken away from them. 
Why is that always the choice that you provide Members of this House? 
Why are those the only people that sacrifice? I just find it 
unconscionable, quite frankly.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, let's talk about what is not in the Ryan 
budget.
  The Federal highway trust fund, which funds all highway, road, 
bridge, and transit projects in the United States of America will be 
exhausted sometime this summer. A number of States are already delaying 
or canceling major projects, and there will be a flood of States doing 
that after the trust fund goes belly up.
  For next year, under the Ryan budget, there will be zero--no, none, 
zero--Federal investment in roads, bridges, highways, and transit 
despite the deteriorated state of our infrastructure for somewhere 
between 9 and 11 months until we pay our past bills, and then there 
will be a little trickle.
  Meanwhile, bridges will be falling down, people will be driving 
through potholes, delays, and congestion. We will walk away from or 
lose over 1 million construction, manufacturing, and engineering jobs, 
and it will have an impact on hundreds of thousands--millions--of other 
jobs across the United States of America, not even to begin to talk 
about our lack of competitiveness with the rest of the world.

                              {time}  1315

  The Ryan budget does address this in a rather novel way, so the trust 
fund is going broke. Probably what we have done the last couple of 
times when we get to that point, we say transportation is so important 
we transferred some general fund money over. The Ryan budget says you 
can't transfer general fund money over to transportation; it must go 
broke.
  Well, the other thing is a new source of revenue or user fees. The 
Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents a gallon, and that has been since 1993, 
the same tax in 1993 when gas was $1.11 a gal. Last weekend, I paid 
$3.71, and Federal tax is still 18.4 cents a gallon.
  Where is that money going? It is going to ExxonMobil; it is going to 
Wall Street speculators. It sure is the heck not going to rebuilding 
our crumbling infrastructure and putting millions of Americans back to 
work.
  Under the Ryan budget, we are going to revolve Federal 
transportation. What does that mean? It means we are going to have a 
50-State and territory Federal transportation policy. You know, we 
actually tried that once. This was 1956. This is the brandnew Kansas 
Turnpike.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Oklahoma promised they would build one, too. Well, they 
didn't have the money. They said: sorry, guys, can't build it.
  This is Emil Schweitzer's farm field. For 3 years, people crashed 
through the barrier at the end here and went into his field, until 
Dwight David Eisenhower, a Republican, passed the national highway 
transportation bill with a trust fund.
  That would be undone by Paul Ryan. He says States can opt out. They 
don't even have to collect the 18.4 cents Federal tax; they can do 
whatever they want with that money.
  Madam Speaker, counties are actually ripping up paved roads and 
turning them back to gravel because they can't afford them. There are 
140,000 bridges that need repair or replacement. Forty percent of the 
national highway system has pavement that has totally failed.
  There is a $70 billion backlog on our transit systems. These are 
millions of jobs foregone--productivity foregone, and if you are so 
darn proud, as I heard on that side, why aren't you proud of the future 
of America, putting people back to work and competing with the rest of 
the world with a world class, 21st century transportation system? 
You're going to kill it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), a former 
sheriff, a member of the class of 2010, and a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, one of the most important things that we 
do in this Congress--and it is a constitutional requirement--is we 
provide for the common defense of this Nation, to allow things like my 
good friends on the Democrat side are arguing for in regards to more 
entitlement programs, more helping our neighbors; but without a 
national defense, all of this is moot. It doesn't matter. It adds up to 
nothing if we can't defend the homeland and defend our friends when 
they need it.
  Now, I will tell you that this budget does something that is needed. 
It increases the spending for our military. It actually takes something 
that the President, the Commander in Chief who has cut the military by 
$1 trillion in the last few years, is actually restoring money that he 
was holding hostage.
  He said the military can have $26 billion more if you give us $27 
billion more for domestic spending. It is about holding our safety 
hostage. When those that are in a position to talk to us and tell us 
that the world is changing, you don't have to look very far.
  See what is going on in Russia and China and Iran and North Korea. 
This is not a safer world since this President has taken office. It has 
become a much more dangerous world, particularly from state actors.
  It is not all his fault, I must say, Madam Speaker. This goes back to 
years of kicking the can down the road by this Congress.
  Mr. Woodall and I came to Congress at the same time, 3 years ago, 
Madam

[[Page H3009]]

Speaker. We weren't part of the problem, but those who were here prior 
to that have been part of the problem. They continued to kick the can 
down the road.
  Paul Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee, and members of the 
Budget Committee actually took the bull by the horns. It is starting to 
turn this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. NUGENT. This is actually talking about difficult questions we 
have to talk about.
  This body loves, if the problem isn't immediate, we don't have to 
worry about it, don't worry about it because it will never happen; but 
we are being told by professionals: guess what, Medicare and Social 
Security are at risk if we do nothing.
  If we don't challenge the status quo, if we don't start talking about 
how do we move forward to protect our seniors today from cuts in 
Medicare and Social Security, how we move forward for our younger folks 
as they get closer to retirement age, we have to do more, and I believe 
this budget is creating a dialogue for us to move forward and do more, 
not just put our heads in the sand and say we just need to spend more 
money because we can tax our way out of it. Everybody knows that is not 
true.
  Madam Speaker, the first and most important job of our government is 
to provide for the defense of its citizens.
  If the government can't protect the people's liberty then everything 
else we talk about today--every dime spent on every domestic program--
is all moot.
  So when we're considering how taxpayer money should be spent, we 
ought to keep this at the forefront of our minds.
  We ought to put forward a budget that recognizes this basic truth and 
most fundamental responsibility.
  I'm glad to see that Chairman Ryan's budget embraces this fundamental 
priority because, Madam Speaker, not all the budgets we'll debate today 
share this perspective.
  Not even the budget of the military's own Commander in Chief.
  The House Armed Services Committee has analyzed the last several 
budget proposals from President Obama, and I want to share some of 
those findings with my colleagues in the larger House of 
Representatives today:
  Since entering the White House, President Obama has proposed more 
than $1 trillion in cuts to the military.
  Over the next 10 years, the President is proposing $345 billion less 
than the minimum amount the military says they need to perform the 
President's own defense strategy.
  Less than 15 percent of our U.S. Army is deployment ready today.
  Without regard for the command signals from Combatant Commanders, the 
President has produced a budget recommendation that neither complies 
with the statutory nor strategic requirements of the military.
  Instead, the President cuts $26 billion from the military and holds 
it for ransom until this Congress is willing to give him $32 billion in 
domestic programs.
  These budget gimmicks will not stand and I applaud the House Budget 
Committee for not engaging in the false narrative that this Congress 
must pay $58 billion in order to restore $26 billion to meet the 
minimum standard of national security.
  In this tough fiscal environment, the budget brought to the Floor by 
this Rule provides the minimum dollars necessary to resource the 
President's strategy and sustain the World's premiere fighting force.
  In fiscal year 2015, that means a commitment of this Congress to our 
military of more than $521 billion.
  Translating that dollar amount into capability--this budget maintains 
a force structure well above the drastic reductions recommended by the 
President:
  The Army has the flexibility to retain the 100,000 soldiers on the 
chopping block,
  Navy can preserve the 11 aircraft carriers required by both strategy 
and law,
  Modernization programs critical to maintaining our military's 
technological edge and our troops' safety will continue to give our 
warfighters an advantage on the battlefield next year and beyond.
  I truly hope the Army will take the flexibility afforded them under 
this budget as an opportunity to establish the right balance between 
Active Component, Reserve Component and the National Guard.
  By the time this budget goes into effect, our Army will be drawing 
down from 14 years of continuous war.
  To effectively make that transition
  To reduce the cost of a war-time standing Army while preserving 
capability
  To ``right-size'' the forward deployed force and meet the domestic 
responsibilities to the individual states
  Big Army must recognize and incorporate the National Guard's 
indispensable role in providing our national security at home and 
abroad.
  If such a right-sizing cannot be found internally within the Army, 
this Congress will have to put Army decisions on hold until a 
commission can be established to study the correct balance of the 
Service moving forward.
  Finally, I applaud this budget for sustaining compensation for all 
warfighters, retirees and their families.
  Too many times over the past several years, Congress has had to 
defend the pay of service members--as if the reasons for adequately 
compensating our all-volunteer military were not self-evident.
  I hope that this year, the paycheck of our troops will be spared the 
political games of the recent history.
  We are certainly off to a good start with this budget that meets our 
compensation commitments to the military--including healthcare.
  And so, Madam Speaker, I support this rule and the underlining 
resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from 
Florida that national defense includes more than the number of weapons 
we have in our arsenal. It also include the quality of life for our 
people here at home, and these programs that he is denigrating, like 
SNAP, for example, I should remind him there are an extremely high 
number of military families that rely on SNAP to get by and a high 
number of veterans who do as well.
  Basic food, they are looking for helping with putting food on the 
table. So before anybody denigrates those programs, understand that 
they contribute to our national defense as well. They are feeding our 
military families and veterans because our returning veterans can't 
find jobs that pay a livable wage.
  At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Rules Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern.
  Madam Speaker, this is pretty exciting this morning. I think this is 
the first time in 5 years that I have been here that we were actually 
having a debate, discussing what both sides stand for.
  Mr. DeFazio was wonderful. He is absolutely right. He knows what he 
is talking about. We haven't built infrastructure. Do you know, we 
haven't built one airport from the ground up in the United States since 
1972, and every place else in the rest of the world has brandnew 
airports?
  They are all whizzing about on high-speed rail. We don't have any; 
but we spent $2 billion a week while we were in Iraq. We were willing 
to spend that, maimed 46,000 young people, killed thousands of them as 
well, as well as people in those countries--for oil.
  What we really do hear this morning and what pleases me so much is we 
are really showing the difference in this country and what the two 
sides believe in. We don't believe over here that the richest people 
should get richer. We don't believe that we need a budget right now 
that lowers the corporate tax rate.
  We believe that all Americans should be paying their fair share, so 
we can build back up, and maybe we can start to enjoy some of the 
things that are happening elsewhere in the 21st century.
  This budget is a misguided proposal driven by flawed math. At worst, 
it is a cynical choice to balance our budget on the backs of the most 
vulnerable Americans in order to protect the incomes of powerful 
special interests and the wealthiest few, and it does precisely that.
  It is not news to anybody in the country that the rich are getting 
richer and the poor are getting poorer and the unemployed are 
desperate. Everybody knows that. The issue is: What is the Congress of 
the United States going to do about that?
  Now, with this proposal, the majority gives an average tax cut of 
$200,000 to families earning more than $1 million a year, so they are 
okay. They earn $1 million a year, and they are going to get $200,000; 
but to pay for it, we have to raise taxes on the middle class.
  Let me tell you how we do that. With this proposal, they defend the 
tax loophole that we have been trying to close

[[Page H3010]]

ever since I have been in Congress, the money we give oil companies so 
they will drill.
  The five major oil companies, we pay them $4 billion a year so they 
will drill; like they weren't having the biggest profits on the face of 
the Earth and no one needs to encourage them to drill, but we pay for 
that, and to do that, they are going to turn Medicare into a voucher 
program.
  We have discussed this before. That means your aged parents and 
grandparents will go into a marketplace by themselves--or maybe you can 
go with them--and look for their own insurance policy.
  They will be given a government voucher or a stipend or whatever they 
want to call it to help pay for it, but it may not cover the cost, so 
the rest of the cost will come from the senior citizen. It will take 
exactly away what Lyndon Johnson had in mind in 1968. The benefit 
guaranteed by Medicare will be gone.
  To pay for that, again, they want to keep the Medicare plan we have 
today, and with this proposal, the majority reduces the tax rate paid 
by corporations. I have said that before, and I want to say it again. 
Corporation tax rates are reduced, and we already know that most of 
them put all of their assets in the Cayman Islands or in some other 
country and pay no taxes whatsoever.
  If we just brought some of the tax money back from the Cayman 
Islands, I bet we could have high-speed rail in the United States. 
Wouldn't that be wonderful?
  So they take $137 billion in nutrition assistance, the food people 
live on, out of the mouths of low-income families struggling to get by. 
The author of this budget said such draconian cuts are necessary 
because:

       We don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that 
     lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and 
     complacency.

  If that is his goal, then he and his colleagues have written a budget 
that badly misses the mark. For the hammock of dependency isn't found 
in the homes of working Americans, but on the beaches of the Cayman 
Islands, where powerful special interest and the wealthiest few depend 
upon policies like this budget to build their own hammock out of the 
social safety net that used to support the largest middle class on 
Earth that is fast disappearing.
  For more than three decades, the wealthy and the powerful have used 
money and influence to secure tax cuts, to deregulate industries, and 
to pass free trade deals that put corporate profits before America's 
jobs.
  In so doing, they have redirected revenue away from the Federal 
Government and made it virtually impossible to fund the programs that 
have made our Nation the envy of the world.
  With the wealthy and powerful exempted from paying their fair share, 
our Nation put tens of billions of dollars and two wars on the Nation's 
credit card and failed to invest in maintaining our roads, modernizing 
our airports, or building efficient passenger rail here at home.
  As a result, highway bridges are literally falling into the water, 
our airports have become laughably out of date, and our trains travel 
at speeds half as fast as those found in Germany, China, and Japan.
  Far from solving this crisis, the majority's budget doubles down on 
the failed policies by reducing taxing for the rich and powerful even 
further. We have already said a millionaire gets a $200,000 tax cut, so 
we are going to ask the most vulnerable Americans to pay the price.
  Under this budget, 170,000 children will lose Head Start, and 29,000 
teachers and aides will be left without jobs. College students, who are 
already suffering under staggering costs of higher education, would be 
told that they must repay their loans while they are still in school.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. And $205 billion would be cut from programs like Pell 
grants, making it harder than ever to get the education that is needed 
to succeed in the modern world.
  Perhaps, most egregiously, the promise of secure and affordable 
health care would be broken with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act 
and the end of the Medicare guarantee. Under the majority's budget, 
Medicare would be turned into a voucher, as I said before.
  On Sunday, the news program ``60 Minutes'' traveled down the winding 
roads of the Cumberland Mountains into the heart of Appalachia in a RV 
called the Health Wagon. The aging vehicle is the only source of health 
care for thousands of Americans in desperate need of medical attention.
  The vehicle is staffed by two incredible nurses and other medical 
volunteers, including Dr. Joe Smiddy, the Health Wagon's volunteer 
medical director. After completing medical school, Dr. Smiddy had to 
enroll in truck driver school so he could drive the Health Wagon's x-
ray lab, an 18-wheel truck that provides insight into diseases that 
were going undiagnosed.
  These volunteers have seen the price individual Americans pay when 
the Chamber puts the priorities of the rich and the powerful ahead of 
everyone else. Dr. Smiddy said of life in the Cumberland Mountains:

       This is a Third World country of diabetes, hypertension, 
     lung cancer, and COPD in the United States.

  Madam Speaker, a Third World country.
  Though the work of the Health Wagon does every day is heroic, no 
individual living in the wealthiest Nation on Earth should be relying 
upon the good will of volunteers to receive modern medical care.
  Doctors and nurses of the Health Wagon should not be relying on 
Federal grants.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. That is why we say this budget is not a reflection of 
our values, but theirs.
  It is through the budget we decide whether we protect tax loopholes 
for Big Oil or provide our fellow citizens with access to secure and 
affordable health care, an education, a job, and a place to live. It is 
through our budget we decide whether kids can go to college or not.
  Only by choosing to act and asking every American, including 
corporations, to pay their fair share--corporations are people, I 
understand, we have established that in the Supreme Court--we will be 
able to put every American on a path to prosperity and restore our role 
as the most advanced nation in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the secretary of the Republican Conference.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding. I also thank Chairman Ryan and his staff for their hard work 
in producing this budget. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
  Madam Speaker, budget puts a numerical value on the priorities we 
claim to value, and as such, it is a moral document. This budget will 
protect and strengthen Medicare, preserve our commitment to veterans, 
and keep faith with future generations by getting spending under 
control and fostering economic growth.
  This budget controls spending by ending sweetheart deals for favored 
corporations and returning government to its proper limits. Years of 
overreach and cronyism have weakened confidence in the Federal 
Government and damaged our economy.
  As Chairman Ryan mentioned in his Rules Committee testimony last 
night, the CBO has warned that, if we fail to address our lackluster 
economic growth and rising debt, our children and grandchildren are 
guaranteed a lower standard of living than what we currently enjoy.
  For the first time in American history, we may bequeath to our 
children and grandchildren a less prosperous country with limited 
opportunities to pursue their American Dream. As a mother and 
grandmother, I will do all I can to keep that from happening.
  Over the next decade, the U.S. Government will spend $5.8 trillion 
servicing debt--$5 trillion, Madam Speaker--simply to make interest 
payments to our creditors.

[[Page H3011]]

  Those dollars could be put to work at home strengthening our 
military, caring for our veterans, and improving the lives of all 
Americans; but instead, nearly half of it will go to pay for the 
inability of those who came before to manage the Nation's Treasury 
responsibly. We need to stop spending money we don't have.
  Unlike the President's budget, this budget actually balances within 
the budget window. A balanced budget will foster a healthier economy 
and help create jobs. By reducing the capital the government takes out 
of the private sector, this budget will foster opportunity.
  This budget would keep our children and grandchildren from inheriting 
an insurmountable debt. If we take action now, we can pass on an 
America that is free, prosperous, and filled with opportunity.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous 
question.
  Defeat of the previous question will allow us to amend the rule to 
provide for consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, an act that 
addresses the persistent problem of unequal pay in our economy, and 
would help make the bill before us a real boon for women and their 
families.
  Women are now half of the Nation's workforce and two-thirds of 
primary or cobreadwinners. The sad fact is they are still only making 
and being paid 77 cents on the dollar on average compared to men. This 
holds true across all occupations and education levels. For women of 
color, the disparities are even worse.
  Less pay for women means less pay for an entire family at a time when 
millions are struggling to enter the middle class. Give their kids a 
chance at a better life, achieve the American Dream. It affects all of 
us.
  We have seen the Republican budget that is being discussed today 
already does so much to put that dream out of reach for America's 
families. It slashes our social safety net, cuts off nutrition support, 
and denies food to millions of low-income Americans, and our most 
important anti-hunger program in the Nation.
  The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said 69 percent of the 
cuts in this Republican budget would come from programs serving low- 
and moderate-income people.
  Let's be in opposition to this previous question because we will have 
an opportunity to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question because when 
women succeed, America succeeds. Let's help hardworking families take 
home the pay that they deserve and ensure that women are being paid the 
same as men for the same job.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I advise my friend from Massachusetts 
that we have no further speakers remaining, if he is prepared to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the 
text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I insert in the Record a report by the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities entitled ``Ryan Budget Would 
Slash SNAP by $137 Billion Over 10 Years, Low-Income Households in all 
States Would Feel Sharp Effects.''
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  The Ryan budget will create a government without a conscience. It is 
cruel. This budget is a rotten thing to do to poor people; it is a 
rotten thing to do to the middle class. It is an outrage.
  So please, again, vote ``no'' on the previous question, and vote 
``no'' on the underlying bill.
  This really is an embarrassment. We could do so much better in this 
Chamber. The people in this country deserve much better than what we 
are giving them.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

    [From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Apr. 4, 2014]

      Ryan Budget Would Slash SNAP by $137 Billion Over Ten Years


      Low-Income Households in All States Would Feel Sharp Effects

                         (By Dorothy Rosenbaum)

       House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget plan 
     includes cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
     Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) of 
     $137 billion--18 percent--over the next ten years (2015-
     2024), which would necessitate ending food assistance for 
     millions of low-income families, cutting benefits for 
     millions of such households, or some combination of the two. 
     Chairman Ryan proposed similarly deep SNAP cuts in each of 
     his last three budgets. The new Ryan budget specifies two 
     categories of SNAP cuts:
       It includes every major benefit cut in a House-passed 
     version of the recent farm bill that Congress ultimately 
     rejected when enacting the final farm bill. The Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the House cuts, which 
     amount to $12 billion over the 2015-2018 period, would have 
     terminated benefits to 3.8 million low-income people in 2014. 
     After a difficult two-year process, Congress just two months 
     ago, on a bipartisan basis, passed a farm bill that rejected 
     these House cuts and reauthorized SNAP and other Agriculture 
     programs for five years.
       It would convert SNAP into a block grant beginning in 2019 
     and cut funding steeply--by $125 billion (or almost 30 
     percent) over 2019 to 2024. States would be left to decide 
     whose benefits to reduce or terminate. They would have no 
     good choices--the program already provides an average of only 
     $1.40 per person per meal, primarily to poor children, 
     working-poor parents, seniors, people with disabilities, and 
     others struggling to make ends meet.


   Ryan Block Grant Would Force States to Cut Food Assistance Deeply

       Since 90 percent of SNAP spending goes for food assistance, 
     and most of the rest covers state administrative costs to 
     determine program eligibility and operate SNAP properly, 
     policymakers couldn't achieve cuts of this magnitude without 
     substantially scaling back eligibility or reducing benefits 
     deeply, with serious effects on low-income families and 
     individuals. Table 1 provides state-by-state estimates of the 
     potential impact of the block grant proposal.
       Cuts in eligibility. If the cuts came solely from 
     eliminating eligibility for categories of currently eligible 
     households or individuals, states would have to cut an 
     average of 10 million people from the program (relative to 
     SNAP enrollment without the cuts) each year between 2019 and 
     2024.
       Cuts in benefits. If the cuts came solely from across-the-
     board benefit cuts, states would have to cut more than $40 
     per person per month in 2019 to 2024 (in nominal dollars), on 
     average. This would require setting the maximum benefit at 
     about 77 percent of the Thrifty Food Plan, the Agriculture 
     Department's (USDA) estimate of the cost of a bare-bones, 
     nutritionally adequate diet. (Under SNAP rules, the maximum 
     benefit--which goes to households with no disposable income 
     after deductions for certain necessities--is set at 100 
     percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan.)
       The impact of such a change would be pronounced. All 
     families of four--including the poorest--would face benefit 
     cuts of about $160 a month in fiscal year 2019, or more than 
     $1,900 per year. All families of three would face cuts of 
     about $125 per month, or about $1,500 per year. Of course, 
     policymakers could shield some households from such deep 
     cuts, but then other households would need to bear even 
     larger cuts in order to produce the $125 billion in block-
     grant savings.
       While states might not seek to hit the Ryan targets through 
     eligibility cuts or benefit cuts alone, these examples 
     illustrate the magnitude of the reductions needed. States 
     would have few other places to achieve the required cuts; as 
     noted, about 90 percent of SNAP expenditures are for food 
     assistance.


                Proposed Cuts Rest on Inaccurate Claims

       Chairman Ryan bases his proposed SNAP cuts on a series of 
     inaccurate claims about SNAP program growth, work 
     disincentives, and waste, fraud, and abuse.
       Spending growth. Chairman Ryan justifies deep SNAP cuts in 
     part by claiming that the ``explosive growth [of SNAP and 
     other low-income programs] is threatening the overall 
     strength of the safety net'' and ``SNAP spending is forecast 
     to be permanently higher than previous estimates even after 
     the recession is long past.'' While SNAP spending did grow 
     substantially during the recession, it has begun to decline 
     as a share of the economy and is expected to continue 
     shrinking over the coming decade.
       SNAP grew because of three factors: the depth of the recent 
     recession, which made more people eligible; improvements in 
     reaching eligible households (particularly working-poor 
     families); and the 2009 Recovery Act's temporary benefit 
     boost (which ended in November 2013). As Figure 1 indicates, 
     CBO projects that SNAP will return to pre-recession levels as 
     a share of the economy

[[Page H3012]]

     (gross domestic product) once the economy fully recovers. The 
     program does not contribute to the nation's long-term budget 
     problem because it is projected to grow no faster than the 
     economy over time.
       Work and dependency. Chairman Ryan also justifies cutting 
     SNAP and turning it over to the states by implying that SNAP 
     doesn't encourage recipients to work. Yet the number of SNAP 
     recipients who work while receiving SNAP has more than 
     tripled over the past decade. Furthermore, CBPP analysis 
     finds that the large majority of SNAP recipients who can work 
     do so, and many more rely on SNAP when they are between jobs 
     or looking for work.
       Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-
     disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP and 
     more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year 
     after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families 
     with children: more than 60 percent work while receiving 
     SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent 
     year. Only 4 percent of households that worked in the year 
     before receiving SNAP did not work the following year.
       Moreover, SNAP already has work requirements. Adults 
     without children face a harsh three-month time limit if they 
     are unemployed and not participating in a qualifying 
     employment and training program. States can apply for a 
     waiver from this requirement during a weak economy when jobs 
     are not available by submitting detailed Department of Labor 
     data showing high unemployment in local areas or statewide, 
     but the number of areas qualifying for a waiver is falling as 
     the economy recovers, and CBO expects the number of such 
     areas to shrink markedly over the next few years. (The Ryan 
     budget would eliminate these waivers immediately, even for 
     areas with double-digit unemployment.) In addition, states 
     have broad authority to operate employment and training 
     programs, and the recent farm bill includes a major 
     demonstration program for states to test innovative 
     approaches to providing employment and training services that 
     raise recipients' earnings and reduce their reliance on 
     public assistance.
       Waste, fraud, and abuse. Finally, Chairman Ryan justifies 
     his SNAP proposals based on charges that SNAP is rife with 
     waste, fraud, and abuse. The reality is that SNAP has one of 
     the most rigorous quality control systems of any public 
     benefit program and a very low error rate. Despite the recent 
     growth in caseloads, the share of total SNAP payments that 
     represent overpayments or payments to ineligible households 
     fell to a record low of 2.77 percent in fiscal year 2012. In 
     addition, USDA has cut ``trafficking''--the sale of SNAP 
     benefits for cash, which violates federal law--by three-
     quarters over the past 15 years. Only 1.3 percent of SNAP 
     benefits are trafficked. USDA has also permanently 
     disqualified thousands of retail stores from the program for 
     not following strict federal requirements. When cases of SNAP 
     fraud are reported in the news, it is because the offenders 
     have been caught, evidence that states and USDA are 
     aggressively combating fraud.


Benefit Cuts Would Primarily Affect Low-Income Families With Children, 
                 Seniors, and People With Disabilities

       The Ryan budget documents assert that Congress could 
     achieve the required savings by capping federal SNAP funding 
     and ``allow[ing] states to customize SNAP to the needs of 
     their citizens'' through a block grant. That description 
     leaves the mistaken impression that the program is not 
     serving a population that is overwhelmingly poor and that 
     savings could be achieved without significantly harming 
     millions of vulnerable Americans.
       Unlike most means-tested benefit programs, which are 
     restricted to particular categories of low-income 
     individuals, SNAP is broadly available to almost all 
     households with very low incomes. Cutting SNAP thus would 
     affect broad swaths of the low-income population. Currently, 
     46.8 million people receive SNAP to help them feed their 
     families. Census data show that in 2012 (the latest year for 
     which these data are available), 46.5 million Americans lived 
     below the poverty line, and 64.8 million lived below 130 
     percent of the poverty line, SNAP's gross income limit.
       The overwhelming majority of SNAP households are families 
     with children, seniors, or people with disabilities. Seventy 
     percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; 
     more than one-quarter are in households that include senior 
     citizens or people with disabilities.
       SNAP households have very low incomes. Eighty-three percent 
     of SNAP households have incomes below the poverty line while 
     they are receiving SNAP assistance (about $19,800 for a 
     family of three in 2014). Such households receive 91 percent 
     of SNAP benefits. Two of every five SNAP households have 
     incomes below half of the poverty line. Such individuals and 
     families have little flexibility in their monthly budgets to 
     cope with deep reductions in food assistance.
       Low-wage workers rely on SNAP to boost their monthly 
     income. Millions of Americans live in working households with 
     earnings that are not sufficient to meet basic needs. In 
     2012, some 39 million people (1 in 8 Americans) lived in a 
     working family with cash income below 130 percent of the 
     poverty line. Low incomes like these--which typically reflect 
     low wages or limited work hours--can leave families unable to 
     afford necessities like food and housing on a regular basis. 
     SNAP benefits play a crucial role in boosting such families' 
     monthly resources: in 2012, a typical working mother with two 
     children on SNAP earned $1,148 per month ($13,700 on an 
     annual basis) and received $307 per month in SNAP benefits. 
     If the Ryan proposal had been in place in 2012 and was 
     implemented via across-the-board cuts, this family's monthly 
     benefits would have been cut by $110 per month--or about 36 
     percent.


          SNAP Benefit Cuts Would Increase Hunger and Poverty

       SNAP cuts of the magnitude that the Ryan budget proposes 
     would almost certainly lead to increases in hunger and 
     poverty. Emergency food providers report that more people ask 
     for help in the latter half of the month, after their SNAP 
     benefits run out. Under the Ryan budget's steep funding cuts, 
     a typical household's SNAP benefits would run out many days 
     earlier, placing greater strain on household finances (and on 
     emergency food providers) and significantly increasing the 
     risk of hunger.
       Deep SNAP cuts also would cause more families and 
     individuals to fall into poverty and push poor families 
     deeper into poverty. Currently, SNAP helps lessen the extent 
     and severity of poverty; Census Bureau data on disposable 
     family income that include the value of SNAP and other non-
     cash benefits and taxes show that:
       SNAP lifted 4.9 million Americans above the poverty line in 
     2012, including 2.2 million children.
       SNAP kept more children--1.4 million--from falling below 
     half of the poverty line in 2012, more than any other 
     program.
       The Ryan SNAP cuts would thus have a sharp, adverse effect 
     on millions of the lowest-income Americans. Moreover, they 
     would not occur in isolation. The Ryan budget contains steep 
     cuts in other low-income assistance programs, compounding the 
     effects of the SNAP cuts. Many vulnerable families would lose 
     health coverage, housing assistance, and other important 
     supports such as child care at the same time they faced SNAP 
     cuts.


             Cuts Could Be Even Larger Under a Block Grant

       Block-granting SNAP, as Chairman Ryan proposes, would 
     eliminate its ability to respond automatically to the 
     increased need that results from rising poverty and 
     unemployment during economic downturns. Annual federal 
     funding would remain fixed, regardless of whether the economy 
     was in a recession or how severe a downturn was. As a result, 
     the House Budget Committee staff's estimate that the Ryan 
     plan would cut SNAP by $137 billion over ten years may 
     understate the magnitude of the cut--the cuts would be still 
     more severe if the economy performs less well over the coming 
     decade than CBO projects.
       If a SNAP block grant had been in effect in 2013 at funding 
     levels set in 2007, before the recession, federal funding in 
     2013 would have been about 50 percent below actual funding 
     that year (excluding the Recovery Act benefit boost).
       Furthermore, under a block grant, SNAP would not be able to 
     respond to natural disasters. Hurricane Sandy victims in New 
     York and New Jersey obtained temporary food aid through SNAP 
     in 2013, as did victims of disasters in five other states.
       Also, under a block grant, many states would likely shift 
     funds away from food assistance to other purposes when they 
     faced large state budget shortfalls. SNAP includes several 
     non-food components, such as job training and related child 
     care; a block grant structure would enable states to divert 
     funds away from food to these purposes and withdraw state 
     funds currently spent on these services.
       Finally, because of its capped funding structure, a block 
     grant like the one Chairman Ryan proposes would reverse the 
     recent progress made, on a bipartisan basis, to improve SNAP 
     participation among eligible low-income households. Viewing 
     SNAP as an important work support and health and nutrition 
     benefit, the last three Administrations, as well as governors 
     from across the political spectrum, have sought to boost 
     participation rates--especially among working-poor families 
     and low-income elderly people, the two groups with the lowest 
     participation rates. Overall, the efforts have paid off. SNAP 
     reached 79 percent of all eligible individuals in a typical 
     month in 2011 (the most recent year for which these data are 
     available), a significant improvement from 2002, when the 
     participation rate bottomed out at 54 percent. Participation 
     among eligible low-income working families rose from 43 
     percent in 2002 to about 67 percent in 2011. For the elderly, 
     it improved more modestly--from 26 percent in 2002 to about 
     39 percent in 2011.

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  You couldn't tell it from the acrimony that has been expressed over 
the last hour, but this is a good day. There are so many opportunities 
we have to come to this House and be disappointed with the bills that 
are here before us.
  Why? Because we have different ideas, we have different ideas. My 
constituency, different from the constituencies of so many of my other 
colleagues, I don't question that they do their best to serve their 
constituencies, but in serving their voters, they harm mine and 
sometimes vice versa.

[[Page H3013]]

  Today, that is not the question. We don't have a choice between the 
lesser of two evils. We don't have a choice against my way or their 
way. We have a rule that allows for absolutely every Member of this 
Congress to write their own budget. Think about that, Madam Speaker. We 
are talking about the budget of the United States of America, $3.5 
trillion.
  Now, everybody doesn't write their own budget. It turns out we have 
more in common than we have that divides us around this institution, 
Madam Speaker. We have six budgets that we are going to be voting on.
  That is every single budget that was submitted, but it is only six 
budgets. One came out of the House Budget Committee, one came out of 
the Republican Study Committee, one came out of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, one came from the Progressive Caucus, one came from the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, and one came from Mr. 
Mulvaney representing the President's budget.
  By golly, Madam Speaker, if you can't find something that you believe 
in, in that continuum of budgets, you are not looking hard enough.
  Here is the thing: budgets are about choices; budgets are about 
priorities. The budgets of previous Congresses and previous Presidents 
have run up a debt the size of which servicing, even at these lowest 
teaser interest rates in American history, will suck out 18 months of 
productivity over the next 10 years.
  I do not question my friend's commitment to the SNAP program, but 
understand that decisions of the past, paying the interest alone, 
require the SNAP program be closed completely for 18 months.
  I do not question my friend's commitment to national security, but 
the budgets and the priorities of past Congresses have borrowed us into 
such a state that paying interest alone would require us to close our 
military for 18 months over the next 10 years.
  We could not agree more that this budget week is about choices and 
priorities, and I tell you the choices and priorities of past 
Congresses and past Presidents are trading away hope for the next 
generation of Americans. They are trading away opportunities to serve 
Americans who need to be served today.
  They are trading away security that folks should be able to have in a 
land as great as America; but because of decisions that this body, the 
Senate, and the White House have made over the past decades, that 
security is no more.
  Not the budget-passed budget, Madam Speaker, the Budget Committee 
budget brings us to balance. We will begin to pay down that debt. We 
will reclaim those opportunities for those future generations.
  Don't we owe it to them, Madam Speaker, not to advance ourselves at 
their expense? I think I know what the answer to that question is. We 
are going to be debating it over the next 3 days here on the House 
floor, and I hope my colleagues will agree with me, at the end of that 
process, that we owe it to them to do better today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, this budget is not about 
reducing deficit or establishing a regime of fiscal responsibility. 
This is a budget to dismantle the national safety net system and to 
transfer those savings to the wealthiest individuals and corporations. 
Even the Appropriations Chairman, Chairman Hal Rogers, thinks that this 
budget is ``Draconian.''
  If you want a perfect example of Republican ideology and book 
cooking, look no further than H.R. 1874, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act 
of 2013.
  Republicans want to force the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to 
use their discredited models to help them mask the true effect of their 
slash and burn agenda, while at the same time, denying the use of their 
pseudo-math to the one committee where it would hurt them, the 
Appropriations Committee. They want to pretend all day long that the 
discredited ``tax-cuts = revenue growth'' model will do wonders for 
America, while denying the fact that the economically proven model of 
``investment = growth'' will bring the much needed prosperity and 
equality that our citizens desperately want and need.
  Defense spending is certainly important, but this budget is a 
complete failure of imagination when it comes to defending this 
country. Defense is not simply about bullets, bombs and brigades. We 
also defend this country militarily and economically through making 
sure we have an educated citizenry. At the very least, please tell me 
that you understand that our war materiel is the most sophisticated in 
the world. Please tell me that you understand that we, at the very 
least, need educated men and women to operate this equipment. Well, 
this education does not miraculously appear overnight. Indeed, their 
journey to where they are today started many years ago. And sure, some 
of them did not come from wealthy families and yes, some of our men and 
women in uniform had to rely on federal programs like Head Start, but 
that is never anything to be ashamed of and is certainly not something 
we should now turn our backs on. To defend a country as large and 
complex as ours is a multifaceted endeavor, an endeavor this budget 
utterly fails to meet.
  Can ``general welfare,'' a constitutional obligation of Congress, be 
defined as a budget that places the heaviest burden on the vast 
majority of Americans, while bestowing the greatest benefits on the 
wealthiest?
  What is the appropriate level of shared sacrifice that ought to be 
required? One percent of Americans take home over one quarter of all 
income every year, and have seen those incomes rise 18 percent in the 
last decade. But those in the middle have seen their incomes fall. Why 
do you think that those who have suffered most severely under this 
recession should bear the greatest burden of hardship? What does this 
budget do to help those people, as opposed to the wealthy who will be 
fine no matter what we do with this budget?
  In your budget you say, ``The first job of the federal government is 
securing the safety and liberty of its citizens from threats at home 
and abroad.'' Why is the only threat to the American Dream that the 
Republicans deem worthy of funding the one that comes from abroad? 
While this budget increases defense spending above pre-sequester levels 
over the next decade, it ignores the very real threat to the American 
dream at home, by increasing inequality, and removing any hope for 
struggling families to move up to or stay in the middle class.
  How will deep spending cuts in service-oriented Federal programs help 
citizens weather the economic crisis? How will huge tax breaks for the 
wealthiest enable the poor and middle class to obtain jobs? With 
individual income and payroll taxes comprising 82 percent of revenue 
resources, and corporate taxes making up only 9 percent, how does this 
budget anticipate growing the economy when the burden falls 
disproportionately on those who need the most help right now?
  Which specific tax provisions will you target in order to make the 
``broadening'' savings claimed in this budget? The biggest four are (1) 
the home mortgage interest deduction, (2) the exclusion of employer-
provided health benefits, (3) charitable deductions, and (4) state and 
local tax deductions. What specific tax loopholes do you propose to 
close?
  Where, specifically, does all the projected revenue come from? This 
budget cuts the top marginal income tax rate to 25 percent, the lowest 
the rate has been since Herbert Hoover. Yet the budget also predicts 
that federal tax revenues will increase by nearly $600 billion by 2021. 
President Reagan used a similar model which has since been discredited 
as unworkable, and which, on his watch, drastically increased the 
deficit and national debt.
  How will Americans receive the health care they need if their 
Medicare premium and out-of-pocket costs become unaffordable under this 
proposed privatized system? Is the value of the vouchers linked to 
health care cost growth?
  Americans already pay more than twice as much per persons for health 
care as other wealthy countries with the same or longer life 
expectancies.
  Since the government pays for about half of this country's health 
care, almost all of which is actually provided by the private sector, 
future health care costs are increasing because of private sector 
costs, not the government.
  Is it your contention that eliminating government support will 
suddenly render health care affordable? Or does this budget foresee the 
government washing its hands of the need to ensure quality health care 
for its citizens?
  How does converting Medicaid into a block grant bear relation to the 
actual need for Medicaid services? When two-thirds of participants are 
seniors and persons with disabilities, when half of long-term care is 
covered by Medicaid, and when 70 percent of people over the age of 65 
will require long-term care services at some point, how will cutting 
$732 billion benefit these Americans?
  Is the goal to control costs or to shift costs? The CBO says that 
privatizing Medicare will shift costs onto seniors. In 2030, 
traditional Medicare costs would be less than the private costs 
envisioned by the GOP budget. Under this plan seniors will be out of 
pocket for about two-thirds the cost of privatized care, as opposed to 
about one-quarter under traditional Medicare.
  Isn't it true that rising costs and financial risk simply would 
migrate from the Federal budget to seniors' household budgets? Wouldn't 
that

[[Page H3014]]

mean seniors would face higher premiums, eroding coverage, or both?
  How do you propose to provide relief to millions of homeowners in 
this housing crisis? This budget dramatically cuts funding for public 
housing assistance, foreclosure mitigation programs, and neighborhood 
development activities. How do you anticipate that communities will be 
able to meet the housing needs of their most disadvantaged residents?
  The Republican budget resolution will cut housing aid to 10,000 
veterans each year, approximately one-third of the total number of 
homeless vets. How does the Republican budget plan on taking care of 
newly homeless veterans? Is cutting these services a fair reward for 
those who risked their lives in service to our country?
  If students can no longer rely on Pell grants and other Federal 
assistance for their college education, how do you propose to increase 
the number of students going to college and improve America's system of 
education? This budget reduces Pell grants to the 2008 level and 
eliminates the grant increases that Democrats achieved previously, 
bringing the maximum grant award back down to $5,000. But the budget 
does not seem to provide even enough funding for that amount.
  In this budget, Republicans slash transportation investment in 2015 
by $52 billion. Do Republicans think that our infrastructure will 
magically fix itself, like they apparently do the rising inequality 
that this budget perpetuates? How many bridges have to collapse, and 
how many schools have to remain un-built so that we can provide another 
increase to our already bloated defense budget?
  Madam Speaker, I am asking a lot of questions, because this budget 
does nothing but raise them, and provides no answers. It provides no 
answer for how we will help middle class families as they continue to 
struggle on Chairman Ryan's road to ruin. It provides no answer for how 
we will help low income families send their children to college. It 
provides no answer for how we will provide quality healthcare to our 
seniors and those who are one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. 
It provides no answer for how we will provide housing assistance to 
those who have served their country and need a helping hand getting 
back on their feet. The fact that we have to even debate these measures 
is outrageous.
  Madam Speaker, we can do better. Not only can we do better, we have 
an obligation to the American people to do better. This budget utterly 
fails to meet that obligation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An amendment to H. Res. 544 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That 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. 
     4415) to provide for the extension of certain unemployment 
     benefits, and for other purposes. 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 Ways and Means. 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. 2. Immediately upon disposition of H.R. 4415 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. 
     377) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 
     more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the 
     payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes. 
     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 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4415 or H.R. 377.


        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. McGOVERN. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________