[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3014-H3021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BASELINE REFORM ACT OF 2013
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 539, I call
up the bill (H.R. 1871) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Pursuant to
[[Page H3015]]
House Resolution 539, the amendment recommended by the Committee on the
Budget, printed in the bill, is adopted. The bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1871
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Baseline Reform Act of
2013''.
SEC. 2. THE BASELINE.
Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 257. THE BASELINE.
``(a) In General.--(1) For any fiscal year, the baseline
refers to a projection of current-year levels of new budget
authority, outlays, or receipts and the surplus or deficit
for the current year, the budget year, and the ensuing nine
outyears based on laws enacted through the applicable date.
``(2) The baselines referred to in paragraph (1) shall be
prepared annually.
``(b) Direct Spending and Receipts.--For the budget year
and each outyear, estimates for direct spending in the
baseline shall be calculated as follows:
``(1) In general.--Laws providing or creating direct
spending and receipts are assumed to operate in the manner
specified in those laws for each such year and funding for
entitlement authority is assumed to be adequate to make all
payments required by those laws.
``(2) Exceptions.--(A)(i) No program established by a law
enacted on or before the date of enactment of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 with estimated current year outlays
greater than $50,000,000 shall be assumed to expire in the
budget year or the outyears. The scoring of new programs with
estimated outlays greater than $50,000,000 a year shall be
based on scoring by the Committees on the Budget or OMB, as
applicable. OMB, CBO, and the Committees on the Budget shall
consult on the scoring of such programs where there are
differences between CBO and OMB.
``(ii) On the expiration of the suspension of a provision
of law that is suspended under section 171 of Public Law 104-
127 and that authorizes a program with estimated fiscal year
outlays that are greater than $50,000,000, for purposes of
clause (i), the program shall be assumed to continue to
operate in the same manner as the program operated
immediately before the expiration of the suspension.
``(B) The increase for veterans' compensation for a fiscal
year is assumed to be the same as that required by law for
veterans' pensions unless otherwise provided by law enacted
in that session.
``(C) Excise taxes dedicated to a trust fund, if expiring,
are assumed to be extended at current rates.
``(D) If any law expires before the budget year or any
outyear, then any program with estimated current year outlays
greater than $50,000,000 that operates under that law shall
be assumed to continue to operate under that law as in effect
immediately before its expiration.
``(3) Hospital insurance trust fund.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund shall be included in all
calculations required by this Act.
``(c) Discretionary Spending.--For the budget year and each
of the nine ensuing outyears, the baseline shall be
calculated using the following assumptions regarding all
amounts other than those covered by subsection (b):
``(1) Estimated appropriations.--Budgetary resources other
than unobligated balances shall be at the level provided for
the budget year in full-year appropriation Acts. If for any
account a full-year appropriation has not yet been enacted,
budgetary resources other than unobligated balances shall be
at the level available in the current year.
``(2) Current-year appropriations.--If, for any account, a
continuing appropriation is in effect for less than the
entire current year, then the current-year amount shall be
assumed to equal the amount that would be available if that
continuing appropriation covered the entire fiscal year. If
law permits the transfer of budget authority among budget
accounts in the current year, the current-year level for an
account shall reflect transfers accomplished by the
submission of, or assumed for the current year in, the
President's original budget for the budget year.
``(d) Up-to-Date Concepts.--In calculating the baseline for
the budget year or each of the nine ensuing outyears,
current-year amounts shall be calculated using the concepts
and definitions that are required for that budget year.
``(e) Asset Sales.--Amounts realized from the sale of an
asset shall not be included in estimates under section 251,
251A, 252, or 253 of this part or section 5 of the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 if that sale would result in a
financial cost to the Government as determined pursuant to
scorekeeping guidelines.
``(f) Long-Term Budget Outlook.--On or before July 1 of
each year, CBO shall submit to the Committees on the Budget
of the House of Representatives and the Senate the Long-Term
Budget Outlook for the fiscal year commencing on October 1 of
that year and at least the ensuing 40 fiscal years.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) and
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous materials on H.R. 1871 in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I am pleased to be down here with the ranking member of the Budget
Committee, the gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman whose opinion and
counsel I have respect for.
What I love about the Budget Committee is that we have a chance to
talk about issues that are defined by numbers in committee, but whose
outcome is a difference in people's lives back home.
After all, the reason the gentleman from Maryland is the highest
ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee is not because he cares about
math, it is because he cares about people. That is who the Budget
Committee consists of, Madam Speaker.
The bill that is before us today is a bill first conceived in this
House by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert). I happen to be on the
Budget Committee, I happen to have passion on this issue, so my name
exists to carry this bill forward; but it has been an idea that has
been around in this institution, and it says this.
We have all seen it. We have all been in townhall meetings, Madam
Speaker, where you say: this is what we have done to spending for next
year.
And somebody is going to raise their hand, and they are going to say:
Rob, is that Washington math, or is that real math? Is this one of
those things where you raise spending by $10, but you call it a cut
because you predicted you would raise spending by $20 instead?
How sad is that? How sad is that, that in a country run by the
American people, that they have to ask their representatives: Is this
real math, or is this Washington math?
This bill, Madam Speaker, puts a stop to Washington math forever. It
says this: don't assume you are going to spend more money next year
than you spent last year unless the law requires it.
Social Security is a good example of that. We raise Social Security
each and every year. Why? Because the law of the land requires it, but
not so in Federal budgeting rules.
In the crazy world of Federal budgeting, Madam Speaker, you raise
spending next year just because. The assumption is: well, of course,
they are going to spend more money than they did last year. Are they
getting more bang for their buck?
I don't know. Is the crisis still there? Does it still need to be
funded? I don't know, but we are going to assume more dollars go out
the door.
My bill asks one thing and one thing only, Madam Speaker, that is to
justify the American people's tax dollars when they are spent. If you
need more money next year, come to Congress and say so.
If it is a priority for my constituents back home, I promise you, you
will get my ``yes'' vote, but gone are the days of assuming Congress
will always spend more, irrespective of the merits.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for kicking off
this debate.
As he indicated earlier, as we debate the budgets, there will be
differences of opinion and differences of philosophy, but when it comes
to math, there is not a Republican math, and there is not a Democratic
math. When you run a math equation, you get the same result whether you
are a Republican or a Democrat.
[[Page H3016]]
What this bill attempts to do is to legislate away inflation. Gee,
that would be so nice if we could pass a law and inflation would go
away. What is worse is this bill then says that we are going to put
together budgets on the assumption that there is no inflation, on the
assumption that the price of goods and services doesn't change over
time, and if you do that, you will get very misleading results in your
budget.
Now, the gentleman talked about Washington math. Madam Speaker, I
would just like to show you the change in the cost of a hamburger from
the last 10-year period. We do our budgets in 10-year windows. The
price of a hamburger in 2004 was $2.71. The price of that same
hamburger 10 years later, in 2014, is $4.62. That is not Washington
math. That is reality-based math.
Here is what this Republican proposal would do.
It wants to take that fantasy land math and apply it to our budgets.
Here is the chart. If you applied that idea in the budgets that we had
from 2004 to today, you would assume that the price of that hamburger
or of any goods and services that we bought as the Federal Government
would remain the same--no inflation, no change--but that is not the
reality. The reality is, between 2004 and 2014, we had inflation, and
the costs of goods and services went up. The good news is that we did
not have this proposal in effect from 2004 to 2014, so we didn't have
this detachment from reality. Yet what our Republican colleagues want
to do is say, from now on--from 2014 on--when the Congressional Budget
Office puts together its estimations of future budgets, it has got to
assume away inflation. Presto. As you can see, over time, that would
become further and further detached from reality, not Washington
reality but economic reality.
Here is what would happen if you budgeted that way.
For $2.71 today, you don't get as big a hamburger, right? So apply
that idea to an aircraft carrier. We have 10-year budgets. The
gentleman's proposal is to pretend that, over the next 10 years, there
will be no increase in the price of the inputs to making that aircraft
carrier. Just assume it away. Inflation. Do you know what? If you plan
that way, at the end of the day, you are going to have half an aircraft
carrier in your budget just like you would have a half a hamburger in
your budget.
Imagine a business that was planning ahead for the next 10 years,
trying to do a profit and loss statement, and it had to calculate what
it was going to cost it to buy inputs to its manufacturing process--
energy inputs, oil and gas, other inputs of material it has to
purchase. Then let's say that, today, it miraculously assumed there was
no increase in the costs of those inputs. Boy, that would be nice, but
do you know what? That private business would go under, and that
business would be sued for malpractice by its shareholders.
Why would we do something to the Federal Government that we would
never allow to happen in the private sector that would result in a
private sector business's going belly up?
I would just say, Madam Speaker, that the reason the Congressional
Budget Office projects the budgets as they do today--the reason they
include the estimated costs of inflation--is not that they do
Washington math. It is that they can go out and go to McDonald's and
find out that--do you know what?--the price of a Big Mac is not the
same today as it was 10 years ago. It would be misleading to pretend,
as we put together our next 10-year budgets, that the price of aircraft
carriers and the price of education and the price of providing health
care to our veterans will be the same. If you assume that, at the end
of the day, you shortchange those veterans, you shortchange that
defense policy, you shortchange our kids because, just like you can
only buy a half a hamburger today for what you could have in 2004, you
are not going to be able to buy the same education for kids and the
same military 10 years from now.
We are not talking about Washington math. This is a case of basic
math. As I said, it shouldn't be a Republican math or a Democratic
math. We would all love to repeal inflation. That is not the real
world. Let's stick with real-world budgeting. If we get away from that,
we are going to be in a world of trouble here in the United States
Congress.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the control of the
balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), a
terrific new member of the Budget Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds.
I think I have got one of the best chart teams on Capitol Hill. I
will say to my friend from Maryland that that is a great Big Mac chart,
and I think it drives home my point exactly, which is that Federal
Government math assumes that, if you bought a Big Mac 10 years ago, you
are still buying a Big Mac today. I just wonder if that is true. I have
switched to the value menu. I get the McDouble from time to time for 99
cents. The Spicy McChicken is now a part of what I do. I have to get
into my wallet and justify the expense, and when prices double,
sometimes we, as Americans, have to substitute.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. As you know, the value meal on that McDonald's menu
10 years ago cost more than the value meal today. This is just to get
about math and budgeting in a transparent way.
Mr. WOODALL. In reclaiming my time, absolutely, inflation is not
going to go away, but we have to make tough choices, and this bill
requires us to make those choices in a transparent way for the American
people.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who first said that we must be
transparent in this way, that we must be fair and honest in this way.
He is the original author of the Baseline Reform Act.
Mr. GOHMERT. I am immensely grateful to my friend Rob Woodall.
Madam Speaker, it was back in the 1990s when I heard what apparently
was a loveable, old fuzzball who turned out to be Rush Limbaugh. He was
talking about the absurdity of the United States Government doing
something that no person, no family, no business, no charity in all of
America could do.
With due respect to my friend who just spoke, Mr. Van Hollen says
businesses would go out of business. I would challenge anybody in this
room to show me a business, to show me a family, to show me an
individual, to show me a charity that has an automatic increase in
every year's budget, because America can't do that. I was shocked that
this was going on. I mean, in the Army, I helped with the budget. In
the private sector, I prepared budgets. As a district judge, I prepared
a budget. It had to be approved. We never got an automatic increase.
You had to justify any change in anything. If you needed an increase,
you had to show why that was important.
I got to Congress, never dreaming that that would not have been taken
care of when Republicans took the majority, but in my freshman term in
2005 and 2006, the Republican chair of the Budget Committee said we
have to do the automatic increases. I said, Why? He said, Because it is
the law. I was shocked. We make the law. We can change the law. Then,
of course, our friends across the aisle took the majority, and for 4
years, there was no chance of eliminating the automatic increase in
every Federal department's budget, but then we got the majority back.
For all of the disagreements I have had with the Speaker, Speaker
Boehner agreed that if Paul Ryan passed a zero-baseline budget--ending
the automatic increases--out of committee, then he would bring it to
the floor. It meant we would have to have the right guy marshaling this
bill. Some tweaking was done, and I will be forever grateful to my
friend Rob Woodall, who is as brilliant as his predecessor, a dear
friend, John Linder. He took this bill, and he marshaled it through.
Paul Ryan kept his word, and I will be forever grateful for that. It
came to the floor, and we voted it through, and the Senate wouldn't
take it up.
For those who want to talk about the children, I am not hearing a lot
of that
[[Page H3017]]
talk today because, when I talk to college students, high school
students, junior high students, they are wondering why they are going
to have to pay the debts that we were not responsible enough to pay
ourselves. There is not a good answer. It is absolutely immoral and
negligent--it is self-indulgent--to say that one generation like ours
is so much more important that we have to spend future generations'
money. Yes, if there is inflation, let's deal with it that year, but I
have heard enough stories from people who are talking about, gee, this
department is apparently out there, saying, Spend all your money. Don't
leave any because, if you don't, you won't get as much next year. Of
course, they get automatic increases every year, so they have got to
spend their money. That is no way to run a country. It is not right.
There are some issues I have with the budget, but I know the heart of
the man who was behind that, and I know he wants future generations not
to be burdened with our negligent handling of our money. So it is time
that we end the automatic increases in every Federal budget. When my
friend across the aisle was talking about, gee, you could end up with
half an aircraft carrier--good grief--we have lost aircraft carriers
because of those automatic increases every year for decades now. There
are aircraft carriers that won't be there because we couldn't control
ourselves as we had to automatically increase everything we spent.
Madam Speaker, it is time we did the responsible thing and ended the
automatic increase in every single Federal budget for next year, and I
will be continuing in my gratitude to my friend Rob Woodall.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In response to the gentleman from Texas, I think it is important that
we be careful in the rhetoric we use on these subjects. It is incorrect
to say that, by law, there is an automatic increase in the Federal
budget and that that applies to the discretionary budget. That is
absolutely incorrect.
What we are talking about here and what this bill concerns is the CBO
baseline that is used. The CBO reflects inflation in that baseline as
does every serious budgeting professional and forecaster and economist
in the real world, but they don't do it because the law has told them
they have to or because Democrats have told them they have to; they do
it because that is what serious budget forecasters do. They know that
inflation is a reality, and they believe that the baselines they use
and the projections and forecasts they use should reflect that reality.
I think that is an important clarification. We choose to budget and to
spend at the level that we choose to do so each and every year. What
the CBO does as a matter of baseline projections is a different matter.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a distinguished member of the
Education and the Workforce Committee.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank my colleague from California for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, the Baseline Reform Act does nothing to address the
economic challenges facing American families. It does not create a
single job. It does not renew expired unemployment compensation for the
millions of workers and their families who are struggling right now. It
does not raise the minimum wage to a living wage. What it would do is
essentially impose sequestration on steroids in our budgetary baseline,
and we all pretty much agree that sequestration was a terrible idea
that was holding the country back.
The bill in front of us today simply establishes an unrealistic and
misleading benchmark against which to measure changes in government
spending.
{time} 1400
Requiring the CBO and the OMB to construct budget baselines without
adjusting for inflation will serve only to weaken fiscal discipline and
result in wildly inaccurate long-term spending projections.
Madam Speaker, inflation is an accepted part of a growing economy. In
fact, the United States has seen year-to-year increases in the prices
of goods and services over every calendar year but one since 1956, the
notable exception being 2009 when our economy was mired in the Great
Recession. On average, inflation has hovered near 4 percent annually
over that nearly six-decade window. It is simply inevitable that goods
and services become more expensive over time and the purchasing power
of the dollar will be weaker in 10 years than it is today.
Although 2 to 3 percent annual inflation may not appear to be
significant at first blush, rest assured that even such a modest
inflationary rate will produce considerable price differences over the
long term. Using the Federal Reserve's targeted 2 percent annual rate
of inflation, an item that costs $100 today will cost $122 just 10
years from now. At 3 percent annual inflation, that same $100 good will
cost almost $135 10 years from now. In total, the price of goods and
services in the United States have increased by more than 1000 percent
since World War II.
Under longstanding budget rules, CBO and OMB assume that future
discretionary appropriations at the account level will be at the same
dollar levels but adjusted for inflation. Why do they do this? They do
it because it represents a more accurate analysis of our Nation's
actual spending habits. The aggregate total of defense and nondefense
appropriations are then adjusted down to the spending cap levels set in
law, but even those spending caps are higher than the freeze mandated
by this bill.
The CBO's current projections for the next 10 years assume that
discretionary spending will be at the caps imposed by the Budget
Control Act through 2021, rather than the inflation-adjusted levels.
But changing the definition of the budget baseline will have an
outsized impact on future budget projections.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman such additional
time as he may consume.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Discretionary appropriations are responsible
for many of the programs that Americans hold sacred, including
education, veterans' benefits, defense, disease research and control,
food safety, transportation projects, and the list goes on. By
eliminating inflation adjustments and freezing discretionary spending
over 10 years, the baseline would be a benchmark that builds in real--
and deep--cuts in Federal programs.
The so-called ``reforms'' contained within this bill are nothing more
than efforts at constraining future Federal spending through budget
trickery. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a
champion for budget transparency and a member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, our Constitution assigns the principal
responsibility over the public purse to the House of Representatives.
Under that constitutional doctrine, a dollar can't be spent by this
government unless the House says it gets spent. Yet today, spending
increasingly seems to be out of our hands, driven automatically by a
variety of provisions and practices that thwart the very design of the
Constitution. Roughly two-thirds of our spending is for entitlements,
over which we have lost any direct control in the appropriations
process. That is the big problem.
But there are other reasons for this problem as well that this bill
addresses. One of them is the current process by which we calculate the
baseline from which we begin our annual budget negotiations. Any family
would begin its budget process by asking, for example: What did we
spend for groceries last year? Once it has that baseline, then it would
begin to adjust for changing circumstances. The price of milk is going
up. Should we cut back or look for substitutes? Or should we cut back
on something else to afford that increase?
That is the rational process known to every reasonably well-managed
family. This process gives budgeters, whether they are a household or
the House of Representatives, the ability to adjust for changing
priorities, needs, and conditions. Yet the Federal budget process
[[Page H3018]]
builds in a variety of spending increases above and beyond what we had
previously agreed we could afford--before our budget deliberations even
begin.
That same family doesn't begin its budget process by building in
assumptions of how it might change its spending in the future. For
example, if it took vacations the last several years, it doesn't
automatically budget for a vacation next year until it has met its
other needs, that is, it doesn't budget for decisions that it has not
yet made. But we do, quite routinely.
Thus, we begin the budget process with a baseline that hides the many
tough decisions that a budget requires: How do we cope with price
increases? Should we continue to deviate from our spending plan next
year just because we did last year?
The current budget process denies us the perspective that any family
has when prices go up or conditions change. It often prevents us from
asking the questions that a family would ask under these circumstances.
Instead, we sweep these issues under the rug--or, more precisely, we
sweep them into the baseline.
Does this bill make our job harder? Yes, because it requires us to
figure out how to cope with changing conditions. Right now, we start
our budget by assuming that we are hostages to our spending. This
measure makes us the masters of that spending. That is a harder job,
but that is our job.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), chairman of the Budget Committee.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I want to thank Mr. Woodall for all of his hard work on
this issue, as well as Mr. Gohmert, who was here a moment ago, for
raising this issue, for keeping focus and attention on it, and for
bringing this much-needed reform through the House Budget Committee and
to the House floor.
This bill basically fixes a real quirk in our budget process. Under
the current law, the Congressional Budget Office assumes every
discretionary spending account gets an increase every year to keep up
with inflation.
What does that mean? This means that this increase is built into the
baseline, and the baseline is our starting point of spending. It is our
starting point of budgeting. So every year, Congress moves the line
forward. It assumes that there is always going to be an increase in
every one of these programs, regardless of the facts on the ground.
There is no consideration to whether a program is working or not or
even whether it is still necessary.
Under this bill, the baseline would just show the previous year's
funding level. That is basically what we are saying. If we are spending
X amount of dollars today, when we write next year's budget, we will
start with X, and then we will make a decision here in Congress: Should
it be more or less or the same?
That is not how it works today. We spend X today, then there is an
automatic increase, and then we decide how to budget after that
automatic increase.
We should write the Federal budget just like families write their own
budgets. They don't get an automatic increase. They don't get to decide
like that.
We have got record deficits. We have got an unprecedented debt. Our
job here in Congress is to make decisions. It is to set priorities. It
is to look at the hardworking taxpayers that are working so hard to pay
their taxes, to raise their families, and tell them we are going to
watch their money more closely than just assuming automatically each
and every year we can just take more from them and then decide how to
spend more on top of that. It is no way to run a budget. It is no way
to run a government budget or a family budget or a business budget.
So that is all we are saying. This, I think, is an inflated baseline
which is a smoke-and-mirror move. What we are saying is take away the
smoke and the mirrors, start from scratch, and then make informed
decisions from there. That is why I want to thank the gentleman from
Georgia for all of his hard work on this. That is why I encourage all
Members on both sides of the aisle to support this much-needed reform.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I think this may be one of the more oversold bills we
have heard in a while.
We keep hearing references to autopilot spending in mandatory
programs. This bill doesn't have anything to do with them.
We keep hearing references to automatic annual increases in spending.
We don't have such automatic annual increases.
This is about the budget baseline that the CBO assumes for purposes
of helping us make our decisions.
We keep hearing about families and how they budget. I would submit,
Madam Speaker, that any family that has reason to believe that some
part of their budget is going to increase in the coming year had better
reflect that in the reality of their budget or else they are not going
to be able to meet their needs.
If they have reason to believe their rent is going up, if they have
reason to believe that their utilities are going to cost more, if they
have reason to believe that anything that they spend money on is going
to cost more, in the real world of America, families do include that in
their budget. That is called reality, and that is what the CBO does.
I would love to face a future in which Big Macs cost the same thing
10 years from now as they do today. I wish I were still paying $2.71
for a Big Mac, as Mr. Van Hollen's chart showed. But the truth is, in
the real world, we know that is not how it works. We know that
inflation is reality. If we were in a deflationary or a zero-inflation
environment, then I suspect the CBO would create its baselines
differently. But we are not, and no one is arguing that we are.
They are just asking us to suspend disbelief and try to legislate
away the reality of inflation. Why? So that the budget-cutting,
government-reducing agendas that we hear in this House year after year
might appear to be a little less draconian in the outyears. That is not
a very compelling argument when you think about it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend from California
that I do not have any further speakers remaining. I am prepared to
close.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This bill does not create any jobs. It doesn't save one dime. It
doesn't reduce spending. It simply asks the CBO to pretend that the
reality of inflation does not exist. It is not a serious proposal. It
is a bill that was heard and passed largely on party lines in the last
Congress. It didn't go anywhere. It is not going to go anywhere this
time either. This is political theater at a time when we really need to
be talking in this institution about the real needs of America.
With that, I request a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I brought down a chart that takes us from 2006 out to
2044. For almost everyone here in the Chamber, that it going to get
into the meaty part of our lifetime.
What it shows with the green line, Madam Speaker, is what revenues
have been in this country, historic revenues going backward and
projected going forward, not in dollar values but as a percent of our
economy. What it shows us is that revenues going forward will continue
to be historically normal at just under 20 percent of GDP.
But the red line, Madam Speaker, represents projected spending. This
is the projected spending if we do nothing at all. We don't need to
show up for work another day in this Chamber. We don't need to come
down here and pass one new law, spend one more dollar. The spending on
autopilot, Madam Speaker, is represented by the red line. You see it
rising off the top of the graph.
Spending is the problem. For decades, since 1974 and the passage of
the Congressional Budget Act, there has been an assumption that
spending was going to rise each and every year. My friends on the
Democratic side of the aisle called it inflation. Inflation existed
before the Congressional Budget
[[Page H3019]]
Act was passed. It is going to exist after the Congressional Budget Act
is modified or repealed. Inflation is an economic certainty, and that
is not the topic of discussion today.
The topic of discussion today is who makes decisions when it comes to
America's budgeting. If spending is the problem, if it is spending that
is rising faster than revenues, if it is spending that has changed over
the past decade, who should make those determinations?
Here is the thing, Madam Speaker. I will go back to that Washington
math that I talked about coming from townhall meetings, because I know
everyone here has been a part of that. I know everyone here has had
that hand go up when we talk about cutting spending and they say: Is
that a real cut or is that a Washington cut? When you say ``cutting
spending,'' Rob, do you mean cutting spending or do you mean that you
are only going to increase it by $10 and the projection was it is was
going to go up by $20?
Only here is increasing spending by $10 considered a cut. There is no
family in America that considers that a cut.
{time} 1415
Think about your budget back home, Madam Speaker, whatever that is. I
remember buying milk for $1.99 a gallon. I am a big milk drinker. Skim
is my favorite. But $1.99 I was comfortable paying. Today I am prepared
to pay more--I am. There has been inflation. I am prepared to pay $4 a
gallon for a gallon of milk.
I didn't assume that I was going to drink the same amount of milk
every day going forward. In fact, I confess, I found powdered milk,
Madam Speaker. It was on the discount shelf at Giant. I got two gallons
of powdered milk for $2.25 total. That is $1.12 a gallon for that
powdered milk. I am not paying $4 a gallon. I am paying $1.12 because I
have to make choices.
American families don't get unlimited dollars to spend. Though, the
Federal Government pretends like it does.
We are borrowing from future generations every time we make a
decision. So this bill says one thing and one thing only: Who makes
decisions for America? Is it going to be the Congressional Budget
Office? Is it going to be a statutory baseline, or is it going to be
the men and women in this room who put themselves up for election every
2 years?
Madam Speaker, for me, the answer is clear. I have got a Constitution
that lays it out fairly clearly here in my pocket. I don't think I need
to read it to folks here to get them to understand because I think we
all share that view.
We share the view that difficult decisions are not supposed to be
made by unelected bureaucrats in a back room. Difficult decisions are
supposed to be made by us, right here in this Chamber.
If you have a project back home in your district, if you see a
national priority, and you want to spend a penny more than we spent
last year, come to the floor of the House and make your case. Make your
case. For Pete's sake, I am a huge supporter of Federal research. The
work that goes on at the CDC down in Atlanta, the work that goes on in
Maryland at NIH, it is amazing. Nobody else is going to do that if we
don't come together and do it here in this body.
I have got to tell you something. I don't need a baseline. I don't
need a bureaucrat. I don't need any Washington math to come and make
the case that we ought to spend more at NIH next year than we did last
year. Why do I not need them? Because I believe it. Because my
constituents elected me to stand up for Federal research. We came here
to make these tough decisions.
Back in the day, before the class of 2010, before the class of 2012--
back in the day, there is good reason to assume that Federal spending
was going to go up every year because every year since the end of the
Korean war that is exactly what happened. I watched it. Every year, we
spent more than we did in the last.
Something has changed in this town, Madam Speaker, and I think the
thing that has changed in this town are the people that the folks back
home are sending to this town. I think the town's actually the same. I
think the folks back home are sending new folks, folks like the
gentleman from California, folks like the gentleman from North
Carolina. Sending people to town with the direction of not trading away
their children's future because they are afraid to make tough decisions
today.
So, what does that mean? That means in the 4 years I have been in
this institution, Madam Speaker, we have spent less money in these
discretionary accounts that this bill would affect every single year
than we did the one before. Think about that.
In the absence of this legislation that I am proposing, we are going
to go assume that spending goes up every year, but the reality that my
friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about, the reality
of inflation, the reality of congressional decisionmaking, the reality
of our budget is that that spending has gone down, not just from 2010
to 2011, though it did; not just again from 2011 to 2012, though it
did; not just again from 2012 to 2013, though it did; and not just
again from 2013 to 2014, but it did that too. Four years in a row we
spent less the following year than we did the year before.
When are we going to get back to that 2010 level of spending? Is it
going to be next year? No, it is not. Is it going to be the year after
that? No, not by the budgets that we will be passing on the floor here
this week. What about the year after? No, not then either.
So, the opponents of this legislation suggest that we should create a
process in Federal law that assumes that spending goes up every single
year, and yet the reality of this institution, as it exists today, not
as it existed 10 years ago, not as it existed 20 years ago, not as it
existed in 1974, when this legislation was first enacted, but as it
exists today, is the responsible men and women in this Chamber who are
prioritizing taxpayer dollars in such a way that for the entire 10-year
window we won't spend a penny more than we did on day one. That is the
reality.
Could we spend more each and every year? Of course we could. Could we
borrow more and more from our children and grandchildren and ask them
to pay it back tomorrow with interest? Of course we could. Did our
constituents elect us to come here and make difficult, difficult,
difficult discussions? They did.
I was in the Rules Committee last night, Madam Speaker. My colleague
from Massachusetts said, Some of these decisions have real consequences
for folks back home. I disagree. I think every decision has real
consequences for folks back home. Every single one.
This legislation simply asks that before we spend another penny from
folks back home that we come to the floor of this House, to the
committee chambers around this institution, and make the case for why
it is worth doing. I challenge you to look in the eyes of young people
whose future we are mortgaging and suggest that they deserve anything
less.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 539, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mrs. BUSTOS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. BUSTOS. I am opposed to it in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Bustos moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1871 to the
Committee on the Budget with instructions to report the same
back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 3. PROHIBITING CUTS IN EDUCATION, HEALTH, AND SAFETY
PROTECTIONS.
The amendment made by section 2 shall not apply to the
following:
(1) Student loans or available per-pupil expenditures for
the education of children with disabilities under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400
et seq.).
(2) Benefits, payments, or funds to expedite unprocessed
claims for veterans who have
[[Page H3020]]
pending disability compensation or education claims.
(3) Programs to protect the safety of patients in nursing
homes and other places of care to ensure compliance with the
law and best health care practices.
(4) Air traffic safety control, food safety inspectors, or
law enforcement officers under the COPS program.
Mr. WOODALL (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Mrs. BUSTOS. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
and it will not delay or kill the bill or send it back to committee. If
adopted, the bill will proceed immediately to final passage as amended.
Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, the Baseline Reform Act,
would politicize what is otherwise a simple, straightforward method of
accurately measuring changes and spending policies. It is misguided.
Here is why. It mandates that the Congressional Budget Office assume
current discretionary spending is frozen indefinitely in its baseline
projections rather than adjusted for inflation. This change would
undermine the usefulness of the CBO's baselines.
It would make it more difficult to measure the real-world impact of
changes in discretionary spending at both the program and budget
function levels. Were this bill to be enacted into law and inflation
remained at current projections, the CBO's baseline projections by the
end of the budget window, or 10 years out, would purchase about one-
fifth less than in the current year.
My amendment would blunt the damage this bill could cause, and it
would protect many of our hardworking and most vulnerable constituents.
Specifically, my amendment would protect programs that help students
and help families afford the skyrocketing costs of higher education. It
would protect children with disabilities from being kicked out of the
classroom. It would protect our brave veterans and the benefits they
have earned and deserve through their valiant service to our Nation. It
would protect vulnerable seniors in nursing homes. It would protect our
air traffic controllers who keep us safe when we travel, our food
safety inspectors who help protect us from disease, and first
responders who help keep our communities safe.
Madam Speaker, when I am home traveling in my district every weekend,
I hear from people who this bill would harm: young people who are
trying to better themselves through higher education but struggling to
afford the rising cost of college; veterans who are caught in the VA
backlog and trying to just get the care that they need; seniors who
worked hard and played by the rules their entire lives, who deserve to
live out their golden years in dignity; and law enforcement officers,
like my husband, Gerry, a captain with the Rock Island County Sheriff's
Department and commander of the Quad Cities Bomb Squad, who rely on
programs like the COPS program to help keep our community safe.
Madam Speaker, my amendment would help protect the smart investment
we have made in the future of our country: in our seniors, in our
veterans, and in those who fight to protect us and keep us safe.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I hold in my hand a copy of the motion to
recommit. I will read from line 1. It says: Section 3: Prohibiting cuts
in education, health, and safety protections.
I said something that generally speaking here on this floor we agree
on, but it makes the case of why this bill is so necessary. Because
this bill has nothing to do with cuts in any account, no cuts in
education, no cuts in health, no cuts in safety protections.
This bill does one thing and one thing only, and that is to say,
let's spend next year what we spent this year, unless someone makes the
case to do more.
I thought the gentlewoman from Illinois made a powerful case for why
it is important to pay close attention to these accounts and focus the
dollars on those accounts that we can do the most good. But to solve
this misunderstanding that there are cuts in baseline budgeting, to
solve this misunderstanding that prevails across the conversations
across America, let's support H.R. 1871. I reject this motion to
recommit.
I support the underlying bill, Madam Speaker, and I ask that we can
bring fairness and transparency to the budget again for the first time
since 1974.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. BUSTOS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; ordering the
previous question on House Resolution 544; and adoption of House
Resolution 544, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 191,
nays 221, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 167]
YEAS--191
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--221
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
[[Page H3021]]
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--19
Bass
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Carter
Fincher
Frelinghuysen
Hanna
Keating
Lewis
McAllister
Miller, Gary
Moran
Neal
Perlmutter
Runyan
Schwartz
Stewart
Stockman
Visclosky
{time} 1456
Messrs. SHIMKUS, GRIFFIN of Arkansas, and MICA changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. COHEN, HASTINGS of Florida, GARAMENDI, and Ms. McCOLLUM
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HUFFMAN: Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 185, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 168]
AYES--230
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--185
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Brown (FL)
Campbell
Carter
Fincher
Hanna
Keating
Lewis
McAllister
Miller, Gary
Neal
Perlmutter
Runyan
Schwartz
Stewart
Stockman
{time} 1503
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________