[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 117 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6767-H6775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3393, STUDENT AND FAMILY TAX 
SIMPLIFICATION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4935, CHILD 
                   TAX CREDIT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2014

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 680 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 680

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the

[[Page H6768]]

     House the bill (H.R. 3393) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 to consolidate certain tax benefits for educational 
     expenses, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4935) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make improvements to the 
     child tax credit. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
     Print 113-54 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 3393 the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) add the text of H.R. 4935, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 3393;
       (2) conform the title of H.R. 3393 to reflect the addition 
     of H.R. 4935, as passed by the House, to the engrossment;
       (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (4) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 4935, as passed 
     by the House, to the engrossment of H.R. 3393, H.R. 4935 
     shall be laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Black). The gentleman from Oklahoma is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), 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. COLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for consideration of two measures, H.R. 3393, the 
Student and Family Tax Simplification Act, and H.R. 4935, the Child Tax 
Credit Improvement Act of 2014.
  The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of these two 
measures, as is customary with tax legislation. In addition, the 
resolution provides for 60 minutes of debate equally divided between 
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means for 
both H.R. 3393 and H.R. 4935. And it provides for a motion to recommit 
on each bill.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, the rule combines both H.R. 3393 and H.R. 
4935 before sending it to the other body.
  Madam Speaker, with tuition prices continuing to climb, more 
Americans are struggling to plan for and afford higher education. 
Today's broken Tax Code makes it even harder to pay for college, with 
15 complicated, overlapping education provisions that take the IRS 90 
pages to explain.
  We need to simplify education tax benefits so families can actually 
use them, and we need to get our economy back on track so students and 
families are earning enough to afford a good education.
  H.R. 3393 takes a good first step. It consolidates four current tax 
benefits for higher education, the American opportunity tax credit, the 
Hope Scholarship credit, the lifetime learning credit, and the college 
tuition deduction into a new, simplified and, most importantly, 
permanent tax credit.
  In addition, H.R. 3393 also includes strong antifraud provisions 
requiring taxpayers to include on their tax return the name and 
taxpayer identification number of the student and the employer 
identification number of the applicable higher education institution.
  In addition, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4935, which 
modernizes and improves the child tax credit. Originally created in 
1997 to help ease the financial burden that families incur when they 
have children, this credit has failed to keep pace with the cost of 
raising a child. Initially, it provided a maximum credit of $400 per 
child. However, under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, this credit was 
expanded to $1,000 per child, was made partially refundable, and was 
indexed for inflation.
  Unfortunately, some of these good changes expired in 2010. I would 
note for my colleagues that even with these increases, since 1960, the 
cost of raising a child has increased by approximately 4.4 percent a 
year.
  H.R. 4935 would index the child tax credit for inflation, eliminate 
the marriage penalty, and would require an individual to include their 
Social Security number on their tax return to claim the refundable 
portion of the child tax credit.
  Current estimates suggest that at least $13 billion in improper 
refundable tax credit payments are made each year. This provision would 
help to combat that growing problem.
  Madam Speaker, the cost of raising children increases every year, but 
the current child tax credit fails to take these increased costs into 
account. In addition, the current tax credit penalizes married couples.
  By making these commonsense changes, we can ensure that the credit 
truly serves its intended purpose.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation, which continues our targeted approach to 
updating, improving, and modernizing the Tax Code.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlewoman for recognizing the great State of 
Colorado, where we hope to have you visit my district and ski in Vail, 
or perhaps enjoy the comfortable, temperate summer weather in our 
mountain resort area.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bills, H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 
2014, and H.R. 3393, the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act.
  These two so-called extender bills, which are among several that this 
body has considered, are all unpaid for.
  Instead of allowing amendments on these bills, they are brought 
before us under an entirely closed process that blocks efforts by 
either Democrats or Republicans to come up with new and better ways to 
improve the effectiveness of these tax cuts, or to provide offsetting 
cuts to expenditures or closing other revenue loopholes that would pay 
for these tax cuts. So, essentially, this is not a real proposal before 
us today.
  I think that the child tax credit and Student and Family Tax 
Simplification Act are widely popular on both sides of the aisle, but 
real policy discussion is how we pay for them. That is the real 
discussion. That is what the House and the Senate will need to 
negotiate. That is what the President will need to negotiate.
  I am happy to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
to come up with corresponding cuts so that these can be paid for. But, 
under this closed rule, we are not even able to have a discussion of 
that. We are considering yet another set of unpaid-for tax extender 
bills that will add to our deficit.
  Now, at the beginning of this year, Chairman Camp put forward a true, 
revenue-neutral comprehensive tax reform bill. That was a real attempt 
to not add to our ballooning deficit and reduce taxes. To be clear, 
this is not.
  While I oppose this bill, I certainly support the intention of the 
American Opportunity Tax Credit, which is to provide incentives for 
people across the

[[Page H6769]]

country to pursue higher education, and I look forward to the real 
discussion of how we pay for it. Money doesn't grow on trees.
  Students can receive a maximum annual credit of $2,500 for pursuing 
college, vocational school, or a university to help them pursue their 
dreams of achieving a postsecondary education, which is more important 
than ever to have a chance at succeeding in the 21st century workforce.
  I am pleased the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act authorized 
the AOTC to help both undergraduate and graduate students pay for their 
studies. I am thrilled the Republicans now support extending provisions 
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That is a positive 
development for families across our country.
  In my home district of Colorado, I am pleased to have two flagship 
research universities, Colorado State University and the University of 
Colorado at Boulder, which are leading the way in undergraduate and 
graduate education and research that benefits our communities and our 
health.

  Students at these universities shouldn't have to spend their time 
wondering how the Tax Code will affect their ability to pay for books 
and tuition. They should be learning. They should be engaged in 
research and innovation to grow our economy, and not have to play the 
guessing game about what Congress does, which this bill, unpaid for, 
only furthers.
  Now, while this legislation would extend the AOTC to help more 
traditional students, unfortunately, it would take away educational 
benefits from the majority of students today.
  By replacing the Hope Scholarship Credit and eliminating the Lifetime 
Learning Credit, we will harm adult learners and those who might have 
lost their jobs in one sector and are trying to get training to go into 
another growing sector so that they can improve their life station.
  Many students who use the Lifetime Learning Credit, which has no 
limit on the number of years it can be claimed for each student, are 
low-income Americans, out-of-work Americans, folks who we want to get 
back to work so they are not reliant on government programs.
  Madam Speaker, why would we remove a tax credit that provides 
incentives for adults to learn throughout their lives at a time in our 
economy where it is more important than ever to do so?
  We need to recognize the changing demographics and ensure that our 
tax system aligns with the real needs of 21st century learners.
  That is why the major higher education associations, including the 
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American 
Council on Education, and the Association of American Universities all 
oppose this legislation. These colleges and universities want to make 
higher education more affordable, not just for traditional students but 
for lifelong learners as well.
  I applaud my colleagues for recognizing the challenge of college 
affordability. I applaud my colleagues for basing a program around 
expiring provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  I was thrilled that just yesterday the House passed H.R. 3136, the 
Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project Act, which I 
coauthored with Representative Salmon, by a vote of 414-0. How 
wonderful the Democrats and Republicans were able to come together 
around a practical method to reduce costs and improve the quality of 
college.
  While this legislation would provide much-needed relief for some 
students, it is far from making college more affordable for everybody. 
Unfortunately, the legislation called forth under this rule would 
actually increase our Federal deficit by approximately $96.5 billion 
over 10 years.
  Let's have a real discussion about making college more affordable. 
Let's have a real discussion about paying for it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my friend. We do agree 
conceptually on quite a bit in terms of the Tax Code. I think both of 
us individually, and both sides collectively, honestly want to do 
things that make it easier for people to pursue a higher education.
  Certainly, I think we are all interested in eliminating the marriage 
penalty as well. So I think we are moving broadly in the same 
direction, even though we have some disagreement.
  I will point out to my friend that it is not unusual that tax 
legislation would come to the floor in a closed rule. As a matter of 
fact, that is almost always the way it is done, simply because you have 
to be able to score the items, and you have to understand what the real 
cost of tweaking is.
  So whether Republicans or Democrats are in control, a closed rule is 
usually the order of the day on any tax legislation.
  I appreciate my friend's concern about the deficit, and in that I am 
quite sincere.
  Now, I do also always like to point out to my friends that when they 
were in the majority, for 4 years in a row the deficit got greater each 
year. And since we have been in the majority the last 4 years the 
deficit has gotten smaller each year.
  So I actually think that we not only have a rhetorical concern about 
the deficit, we have demonstrated over and over again that certainly 
this current majority is very, very serious about dealing with it and 
will continue to do that by reining in spending and putting forward 
thoughtful reform proposals, which I believe we have done.
  I would also point out to my friend, and I think he would agree with 
me on this, this is a vehicle. This is not going to be the final 
product. My friend is exactly correct when he says there will be a 
negotiation.
  Our concern has been, watching what has been going on on the other 
side of the rotunda, so to speak, is that there hasn't been very much 
serious work. We think they are going to look at the extenders package 
in terms of tax relief and basically just try and jam that through 
without any thoughtful pruning and without making elements of it which 
have been approved over and over and over again, and which are clearly 
popular on a bipartisan basis, permanent.
  So that is what we are trying to do. I think we are constructing a 
platform to go into negotiation with the Senate. And I suspect what 
emerges will be somewhat different than what either side goes in with. 
That is pretty normal in the legislative process.
  But I think the concepts here that we are moving forward on are 
correct and, I think, have broad popular appeal and bipartisan support. 
These are provisions--and we have done this over several bills now--
that both parties have approved overwhelmingly, time and time again on 
a sort of yearly basis. And we want to take those things and make them 
permanent.
  I suspect, in that process, some things that are less popular might 
be jettisoned. But again, that is for the negotiators to decide. We are 
simply trying to get to that conference.
  We are marking out what our position is. We recognize the Senate will 
have to do the same thing, and from there we will move and, perhaps, at 
a later point in this process we can find ourselves actually on the 
same side.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from the State of 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my fellow Rules Committee Member and RSC 
president now, rapid ascent, to make whatever remarks he cares to.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee has a tough job, but it is 
interesting to hear folks down here talking about both their agreement 
on tax reform and deficits and their agreement about what a rule ought 
to look like.
  I have kind of gotten a little bit of both of their passions with me 
today, Madam Speaker, because Ways and Means bills do have to come to 
the floor under a closed rule.
  The way the rules work, if you have an open rule, anything that is 
relevant to the underlying bill, you can discuss, so when you bring a 
tax bill to the floor, suddenly, the entire Tax Code becomes available 
for amendment, and you can imagine what a brouhaha that would be. I 
would enjoy that debate. I would thoroughly enjoy that debate, but it 
would never, ever end.

[[Page H6770]]

  That is not so with our spending bills. When our spending bills come 
to the floor, they come under a completely open process, so that we can 
examine the underlying spending.
  Just to take folks through the Rules Committee process a little bit, 
Madam Speaker, what we did here is we waived the CutGo provision in the 
rules. There are a lot of focus groups going on around the Chamber 
right now about how we should change the rules to make the system work 
better.
  Sometimes, in the Rules Committee, we end up waiving some of the 
rules to make the system work better. Some folks think it makes it work 
better, some folks think it makes it worse, but we should have that 
conversation as a body.
  We had to waive CutGo in this rule, Madam Speaker, because it 
increases mandatory spending. I have a bill beside me--and it really 
drives this point home. In fact, I think it was the gentleman from 
Colorado who was making this point.
  We voted on the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill this year. It 
was a $3 billion spending bill. We had eight amendments on the floor of 
the House. It passed. We voted on the Financial Services spending bill. 
It was a $21 billion spending bill. We had 51 amendments on that bill. 
We passed it out of the House.
  We voted on the Energy and Water spending bill, a $34 billion 
spending bill, with 78 amendments on the floor of the House. We voted 
on the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, a $51 billion bill, with 84 
amendments on the floor of the House. It goes on: Transportation, $52 
billion, with 68 amendments; Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs, $71 billion, with 24 amendments.
  It brings us to one of the underlying bills today, a bill that I 
think touches the heart of absolutely every man or woman in this 
Chamber, our constituents back home, trying to help our children access 
the higher education services that they need, but in this case, it is 
going to increase mandatory spending by $73 billion--more than any of 
the appropriations bills we passed this year, except for our Defense 
Department Appropriations bill--and it is not going to be able to allow 
a single amendment on the floor of the House.
  Now, that is just the process. That is the process that we have when 
we are dealing with tax bills, but my question for my colleagues is: 
Does mandatory spending deserve some additional scrutiny, the kind of 
scrutiny that we give to appropriated spending, to discretionary 
spending? I will tell you that it does. I am so proud of what this 
House does on discretionary spending.
  My friend from Oklahoma happens to be an appropriator. He is an 
appropriations cardinal, in fact, which means he has leadership 
responsibilities over there. This committee comes to the Rules 
Committee--and my friend from Colorado recognizes this--they come to 
the Rules Committee, and they ask for an open rule every single time.
  They say: We have done the best we can do to give the House our 
proudest work, but if anybody else has ideas about how to improve it, 
come to us. We want this to be a collaborative product.
  We can't do that with this bill before us today, and it increases 
mandatory spending by $73.7 billion. I cannot count the number of times 
I have heard my colleagues in this body say it is not the 
appropriations spending that is the problem. It is the mandatory 
spending that is the problem.
  We are moving awfully fast in the body this week to appropriate $73.7 
billion in new mandatory spending. I know people's hearts and heads are 
with these young people that we are trying to help get ahead, that we 
are trying to help access higher education, but there is only one place 
we are going to find this $73.7 billion, and that is in the pocketbooks 
of those very same young men and women when we borrow this money today 
to spend it on them and ask them to pay it back, with interest in the 
future.
  I caution my colleagues today, spending is a constitutional 
responsibility that we have. It is a constitutional responsibility that 
we have placed in the Appropriations Committee, where things are 
scrutinized line by line by line.
  Never before this year has so much money gone out the door in so 
little amount of time, with so little input from the very capable 
Members on both sides of the aisle.
  With that, again, I encourage my colleagues to read this rule. You 
will support this rule, but examine the underlying legislation 
carefully.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, I am trying to take all this in. I certainly agree with 
his premise that we need to talk about mandatory spending. I think that 
there is a bipartisan desire to do that, and several years ago, there 
was a thoughtful Bowles-Simpson proposal that began to take on some of 
those issues.
  I think that it is a discussion that--particularly when 
nondiscretionary spending is the vast majority of Federal spending, you 
can only do so much on the discretionary side, so it is very important 
to do that.
  Clearly, all of these tax extenders and tax expenditures and 
mandatory spending through outlays and Social Security and Medicare, 
that is what that discussion is about. It is a very important one. This 
bill is yet another one that kicks the ball down the road, doesn't deal 
with any of those issues, and doesn't allow for any consideration of 
those issues.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer an 
amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider the Bring 
Jobs Home Act. This bill creates a new tax credit to provide an 
incentive for U.S. companies to move jobs from overseas back to America 
and will end the tax deductions for companies that outsource jobs.
  Instead of considering two tax bills that hurt American families and 
bloat the deficit, let's consider one that brings American jobs home.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I urge 
my colleagues to defeat the previous question, so that we can offer an 
amendment to consider my legislation, H.R. 851, the Bring Jobs Home 
Act. Yesterday, it passed in the Senate 93-7.
  Now, there is something fundamentally wrong if we can't get a boost 
here, and it passes 93-7 across the board, Democrats and Republicans.

  So what are we talking about here? An ``aye'' vote for the previous 
question is a vote to keep giving corporate America a tax break for 
every job they ship overseas to China. Let's start there.
  Over the last few weeks, I heard a lot about corporate welfare in 
reference to the Export-Import Bank, before we debate it next week. It 
costs the government not one dime to help out the businesses. In fact, 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) has 255,000 jobs in jeopardy in 
Oklahoma.
  The Bring Jobs Home Act ends taxpayer writeoffs that pay moving costs 
when companies ship jobs abroad. We, as a body, have supported in the 
past giving money to businesses and corporations that send jobs 
overseas. That does not make sense.
  What we want to do is to help those companies to come back because 
these are good-paying jobs. That is how manufacturing jobs primarily 
left this country.
  Over the last 10 years, 2.4 million American jobs have been shipped 
overseas, and U.S. taxpayers have helped foot the bill. That, to me, is 
insanity. It is like paying someone for the rope they are going to hang 
you with.
  Economists estimate that across the country, over 21 million jobs are 
at risk of being outsourced, 500,000 of them in my own home State of 
New Jersey.
  At a time when we are trying to create good-paying manufacturing jobs 
in the United States, it quite simply makes no sense for the U.S. 
taxpayers to help foot the bill for companies that want to outsource 
jobs instead. My bill ends this taxpayer subsidy once and for all.
  Instead, the Bring Jobs Home Act would provide a new 20 percent tax 
credit for companies that bring jobs back to the United States of 
America. This will provide a substantial incentive for more and more 
companies to create jobs and invest right here in our own country.
  We are already seeing a trend towards insourcing. Manufacturing 
employment is up by 600,000 jobs since the

[[Page H6771]]

end of the Great Recession, and for the first time, in 2013, companies 
were reshoring jobs at the same rate that they offshored them. We have 
still got a big hole to dig ourselves out of from 2003, with up to 
150,000 jobs being offshored each month. We are still out of balance by 
about 1 million jobs.
  Companies like Master Lock, Caterpillar, Ford, GE, and Walmart even--
which is not one of my favorites--are starting to see the value in 
bringing manufacturing back to this country. We have got the R&D, the 
infrastructure, the educated workforce, and we have got the consumers, 
and, again, we have the most productive workers in the world.
  It is not just the big guys. More than 80 percent of companies 
bringing work back have $200 million or less in sales, so let's give 
these companies a little extra incentive to make it in America by 
providing them with this tax credit to help our manufacturing economy 
continue its rebound.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. A robust manufacturing-based economy will lead to 
widespread prosperity for businesses and the people who work there. 
Manufacturing jobs pay 23 percent more than workers in other parts of 
the economy, and every $1 in manufacturing sales creates $1.40 worth of 
economic impact.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop the shortsighted policies that stifle 
investment here in America and focus on what we can do to incentivize 
investment and job creation. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question.
  Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have opened quite a range of things to talk about 
with Mr. Woodall's remarks and Mr. Polis' response and my good friend 
from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell's proposal. Let me sort of take some of 
them up in order.
  My friend from Colorado, who I know is sincere, talked a little bit 
about the need to reform entitlements, and I couldn't agree with him 
more, and that is a discussion I think we really, seriously need to 
engage in as a body.
  I would invite my friend, if he has an opportunity, to look at a 
bipartisan bill that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney)--from 
his side of the aisle--and I have on Social Security reform.
  It doesn't really deal with a lot of the reform, but it is a process 
bill. It would send us down the road to have a bipartisan proposal 
which, I can assure you, would have things that your side doesn't like 
and things that my side doesn't like, and then we would have to vote on 
it up or down.
  I think it is a thoughtful way to try to begin to deal with some of 
these, and it is genuinely bipartisan, so I would hope my friend from 
Colorado would look at that.
  My friend from New Jersey mentioned the Ex-Im Bank. I couldn't agree 
with him more. I support it. I have consistently supported it, and I 
know there is a disagreement on our side of the aisle, I think, largely 
about that.
  I hope that it is resolved in regular order--that is, that the 
committee votes on it and it comes down to the floor. When that 
happens, I look forward to working with my friend to enact that 
legislation.
  I am intrigued by what my friend from New Jersey had to say about his 
tax proposal because I think, at the minimum, he has certainly put his 
finger on an important problem which is a real loophole that we ought 
to consider.
  Now, I don't consider myself an expert on tax legislation. I am like 
my friend in the chair. I am an appropriator. That is the world I know. 
So I would hope that my friend's proposal would get appropriate 
consideration in our Ways and Means body and move through regular order 
because I think this is an area that we can cooperate on.
  Frankly, we have got some bipartisan proposals in terms of stranded 
profits overseas that I think both sides could work together on, 
perhaps, and bring some investment back to our shores, but we do have 
to defend the process whereby we move legislation--that is it needs to 
come through the appropriate committee, we duly consider it, and it 
reaches here.
  Again, while I may oppose the process by which my friend is moving, I 
am not at all prepared to say I oppose his product. I just simply 
haven't had a chance to look at it, but I think he is addressing an 
important issue.
  The last area I do have to disagree with my friend on a little bit: I 
do like Walmart. I am a shopper at Walmart, and I am a stockholder at 
Walmart, and I think they are a great American company, but we live in 
a great country. My friend can shop where he chooses to, and I can shop 
where I choose to, and we will get down the road.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I don't have a Walmart near where I live, so 
I don't have that same choice.
  I would add that I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  I think the frustration around the process is we are open to any 
process of bringing forward the ideas that Mr. Pascrell talked about to 
the floor, and we are presenting them in this context. There is a 
growing frustration on a number of issues, whether it is fixing our 
broken immigration system, whether it is extending unemployment, or 
whether it is how we are paying for these tax cuts. We want to avail 
ourselves of every procedural opportunity for this House to consider 
the items that matter to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Enyart).
  Mr. ENYART. Mr. Speaker, today I rise for American jobs and good 
government. I rise to support the Bring Jobs Home Act.
  Our current corporate tax law is broken. Today, companies that move 
American jobs overseas are able to take tax deductions for relocating 
jobs outside the United States. Let me say that again. Companies 
located here in the United States are able to take tax deductions for 
moving American jobs overseas.
  Don't we have that backwards? Shouldn't we give tax deductions to 
those moving jobs back home, back to America? The Bring Jobs Home Act 
will provide for not only an end to company rewards for shipping jobs 
overseas, it will also provide companies an incentive to restore jobs 
in America.
  Right in my home State of Illinois, over 690,000 jobs are at risk of 
being sent overseas. At a time when we are desperately trying to grow 
the job market in our country, we simply cannot, in good conscience, 
let the American taxpayer foot the moving bill for megacorporations.
  When I was a young man, I worked the assembly line at Caterpillar, 
just like my father did. We put in a hard day's work for an honest 
day's pay. Caterpillar understood the importance of keeping jobs here 
in America. In the last few years, Caterpillar has been bringing jobs 
back to the U.S., back to my home State of Illinois, just like GE and 
Ford have. Let's give them the incentive they deserve for doing the 
right thing.
  Join me in supporting this bill so we can bring jobs home.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I care to consume.
  Again, I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, I frankly have no objection 
to my friends' using the process to bring these ideas up for debate and 
discussion. I actually think that is helpful and that moves the process 
forward, and I applaud them for that. I don't disagree necessarily with 
what they are talking about in terms of tax deductions for jobs that 
are exported as opposed to jobs that could be imported. I think that is 
something we ought to consider.
  But, it is not the subject of the legislation that is in front of us 
today. Those subjects are, one, what can we do to modernize the Tax 
Code and give students permanent certainty in terms of tax deductions 
that are available to educate themselves and give their families the 
ability to deal a little bit with the mounting cost of college. That is 
a good idea. Both sides can broadly agree at least in principle. And 
what can we do to make sure the marriage penalty disappears and that we 
can target appropriate tax relief to families with

[[Page H6772]]

children at least up to a certain level of income, I believe $150,000, 
to give them a little break with the cost of raising children.
  Those, to me, are modest steps, but they are important programs 
because they affect the daily lives of American workers. I am not 
suggesting that what my friends are proposing doesn't do the same 
thing. I just think this vehicle, we probably ought to work within the 
bounds of what Ways and Means has sent us.
  I will say, I sense some of my friend's frustration in terms of 
moving legislation. We have got 321 bills sitting in the United States 
Senate that haven't been acted upon that this House has sent over 
there, so I know a lot about feeling shut out. I think if our friends 
on our side of the aisle in the upper Chamber were here, they would 
tell you that they have had fewer amendments this year than Democrats 
in this Chamber have gotten on any appropriations bill that we have 
brought forward. We don't have a broken Congress. We have a broken 
United States Senate, in my view.
  But, having said that, we have got a chance, I think, here to take a 
step in the right direction, to thoughtfully consider things that have 
worked their way through the Ways and Means Committee, to position this 
Chamber to sit down at a later point and negotiate with our friends--
Republican and Democrat alike--in the other Chamber and perhaps 
produce, toward the end of this year, some good and permanent changes 
in the Tax Code that, if an agreement is reached, I suspect we could 
have overwhelming bipartisan support for.
  So, we are just at that point in the process where we need to develop 
and put forward our proposals. We would hope that our counterparts in 
the United States Senate do the same thing, and that we can sit down 
and again find common ground in between. We have done that on some 
occasions before. If we will just operate the way our procedures are 
set up, I am confident we can do that again.
  So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I would like to 
inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. COLE. I am certainly prepared to close whenever my friend is.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and this bill here before us today are yet 
another symbolic bill, and when this House only has another week in 
session before September, we are passing a bill that doesn't move here 
or there on the actual renewal of these tax credits, doesn't deal with 
the deficit or entitlement spending, and doesn't deal with immigration 
reform. It is a bill to presumably show the public that Republicans 
care about this particular tax credit as do, of course, Democrats.
  But there is no real effort to figure out how we are going to pay for 
it. We would all love to cut every tax. Why not cut every tax down to 
zero and not tax anybody? But where is the money coming from?
  It is the same with this. It is a feel-good, meaningless gesture that 
I, frankly, think the American people see through, which is why this 
body's approval rating hovers around 12 percent.
  The bill makes in order the child tax credit improvement and costs 
$115 billion over 10 years. Un-offset costs of this cost each taxpayer 
$2,600.
  Aside from the significant cost this imposes on the American people, 
there are also some substantive concerns that we talked about. While 
the bill would give some families a permanent tax break, it would 
actually harm our most vulnerable women and children. Specifically, the 
bill fails to extend a critical provision of CTC, which has helped low-
income, working families lift themselves out of poverty.
  The bill also indexes the current maximum credit of $1,000 per child 
to inflation, which only benefits those with incomes high enough to 
receive the maximum benefit. Further, the bill extends the child tax 
credit up the income scale on a permanent basis, allowing only families 
who make over six figures to benefit.
  Ironically, on the same day that Representative Paul Ryan is 
unveiling his antipoverty plan, this particular proposal before us--
which we are not allowed to offer our suggestions to amend under this 
closed rule--would actually push 12 million more people, including 6 
million children, into poverty.
  Unfortunately, there has been a provision added to this bill at the 
Rules Committee that would bar children who are American citizens but 
have immigrant parents from receiving the tax credit. This bill 
includes a provision that only allows the tax credit to be claimed if 
the taxpayer has a Social Security number, even if they are claiming 
the credit for children who have a Social Security number and are full 
American citizens.
  This impact is huge. It would deny 5.5 million poor American children 
from being able to receive this tax credit, deny millions of U.S. 
citizens much-needed assistance for being able to afford their rent, 
clothing, and food just because of who their parents are. That is not 
right and that is not just.
  It is no wonder that groups that care about this from across the 
ideological spectrum, including the National Women's Law Center, First 
Focus Campaign for Children, Half in Ten, Children's Defense Fund, 
National Immigration Law Center, and the National Council of La Raza, 
have all come out in strong opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be disgraceful if one of the only votes we took 
on immigration this year was to roll back benefits for U.S. citizens 
who happen to have parents who violated our law. With 1 week left 
before the August recess, Republicans, unfortunately, have little time 
to introduce and pass a bill that actually deals with immigration and 
addresses the crisis at our border.
  President Obama sent a request to Congress to address the increased 
flow of families and unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras, 
and Guatemala across our border. As you know, these families that I had 
the opportunity to visit with this last weekend in McAllen, Texas, in 
San Antonio, at Lackland Air Force Base, are fleeing horrific 
situations, often including gangs, rape, murder, trafficking, and 
extreme poverty, and are seeking refuge in this great country just as 
my own great-grandparents did, as well as that of many of my 
colleagues.
  This problem with the crisis at the southern border is only one of so 
many symptoms about our dysfunctional immigration system, which is why 
Congress needs to bring forward the bipartisan H.R. 15 bill for a vote 
and allow that to proceed to the Senate and President Obama's desk to 
resolve this crisis.
  It is unconscionable to think that the only immigration-related 
legislation that the House actually may pass in the 113th Congress 
could be one aimed at cutting off benefits to American children or 
deporting children. We continue to fail to move any immigration reform 
bills to the floor this entire Congress. This body has already had the 
opportunity to act on legislation that passed the Senate by a 
bipartisan vote of more than two-thirds and that the President would 
sign.
  H.R. 15, our House bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, 
which I am a proud sponsor of, would create American jobs, ensure we 
are more competitive in a global economy, lower the deficit, reflect 
our values as Americans, unite families, secure our border, and restore 
some sense of normalcy and law to the chaos that now surrounds our 
immigration system.
  The American people overwhelmingly support immigration reform, but, 
unfortunately, House Republicans continue to not allow a vote on reform 
and have failed to bring forward a bill to address the dire 
humanitarian crisis at our border. And here in this bill, we have 
another bill to cut off benefits to American kids just because of who 
their parents are.
  I cannot support this closed rule and these underlying bills. They 
will add to our deficit. They fail to address some of the most critical 
issues of our time, and they have significant policy flaws that make 
these particular programs worse for some of our American families that 
need the credits the most.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?

[[Page H6773]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me address a number of remarks my friend made in passing. Let me 
begin by reminding anybody who happens to be listening or following the 
debate this isn't an immigration bill. This is actually a tax bill, and 
it is really about trying to make some things that have had bipartisan 
support permanent.
  We all agree that we need to, insofar as we can, help people that are 
educating themselves or members of their family and provide appropriate 
tax relief. That is what this bill does. It is simply that simple.
  Number two, we all think that you shouldn't have a tax penalty for 
being married, and if we can do things to help you with the cost of 
raising a family, we ought to try and do those things because it has 
been tough. That is what this bill does.
  Now, we can disagree about the merits, but I think the general thrust 
is something we probably broadly agree on. Making those items permanent 
within the Tax Code is important so people can actually get used to 
using the benefits, understand them--sort of internalize them--and make 
them permanent and predictable for families. So that is our goal with 
this legislation.
  Finally, we would like to get, eventually, to a conference with our 
friends in the Senate who I suspect would share some of my friend from 
Colorado's concerns that might be in their legislation. He knows how 
the process works. We will sit down at that point and see if we can 
find common ground. If the two negotiating teams can, then I suspect we 
will come back with something that a great number of us on both sides 
of the aisle can support.
  What my friend, Mr. Camp, the chairman of Ways and Means, is trying 
to do is actually make permanent some very good bipartisan ideas that I 
think we can rally around.
  Now, my friend also mentioned the deficit, and I want to, again, laud 
his concern for that. I appreciate that. I genuinely do. I recognize 
this is a work in progress, not a final product, but I will point out 
again for the record, when my friends were in the majority, the deficit 
got worse every single year. It has gotten lower every single year 
since then. So I think we are serious about dealing with the deficit.
  I would invite my friend, and I know he would seriously engage in 
this, let's find some areas on the part of the budget that I think need 
addressing--the entitlement area--where perhaps we can find some common 
ground.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. There is no doubt that it takes both parties working 
together to dig the country into this much debt.
  Mr. COLE. I do want to disagree with my friend on a couple of points.
  Number one, this isn't a symbolic piece of legislation. It is 
legislation in progress, but it is not feel-good. I know Mr. Camp and 
his committee are anxious to actually change many aspects of the Tax 
Code.

                              {time}  1430

  I know Mr. Camp wants to make at least some of these things 
permanent. We may succeed or we may not, but it is certainly not meant 
to be anything other than serious.
  Also, my friend mentioned and talked at considerable length about the 
issue of immigration and the border crisis, two issues that I regard as 
somewhat distinct. We do have a border crisis, and I suspect we will 
see legislation to deal with that. There is a difference in philosophy. 
I think the administration just wants resources to manage it. I think 
we would like to change some of the root causes and address it, and 
hopefully stop the massive flow and all of the human tragedy that goes 
with it.
  There is a huge debate about what do we do with unaccompanied 
juveniles or minors who arrive, and that is an important debate to 
have. But we ought to stop and think: Is there something that we are 
doing that is encouraging that flow? Because, believe me, everything 
that is coming out of this is bad. It disrupts the societies from which 
these people are coming. We are treating children from Mexico different 
than we are treating them from Guatemala. We have people now pouring 
money into criminal cartels and strengthening them. And finally, the 
children themselves, the juveniles themselves, are confronted with a 
thousand-mile long journey where they are breaking not just the laws 
here but also in Mexico. They are at great risk. They are traveling 
with criminals. There is a lot of abuse. Some of them are undoubtedly 
forced into sex trafficking and perhaps others to the drug trade. There 
are plenty of opportunities for abuse. Nobody should want that to 
happen.
  We are going to try to offer some serious proposals. I am very 
pleased with my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, Kay Granger 
from Texas, who has put together a working group and some very 
thoughtful proposals. We have tried to scrub them on the Appropriations 
Committee. Hopefully we will be able to address that issue.
  Finally, let me just end with this. In closing, I believe it is 
important, Mr. Speaker, to continue this deliberative approach towards 
fundamental tax reform. The child tax credit has existed since 1997, 
and the reforms contemplated in this legislation are important. In 
addition, the consolidation of four separate education credits into one 
simplified credit will result in much less taxpayer confusion.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 680 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     851) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage 
     domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. 
     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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 851.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page H6774]]

     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. COLE. Mr. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 191, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 442]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     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)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--191

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     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
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bass
     Beatty
     Bishop (UT)
     Campbell
     Carney
     DesJarlais
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Honda
     Jackson Lee
     Kingston
     Lewis
     Nunnelee
     Rogers (MI)

                              {time}  1501

  Messrs. McNERNEY, GARCIA, and Ms. KUSTER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. WOODALL and COFFMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately on July 24, 2014, I missed 
rollcall vote No. 442 on Ordering the Previous Question. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 189, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 443]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford

[[Page H6775]]


     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     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)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--189

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     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
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bass
     Bishop (UT)
     Campbell
     Capito
     DesJarlais
     Edwards
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Honda
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Kingston
     Lewis
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Rogers (MI)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1508

  Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________