[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17708-17717]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 466 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 466

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of November 18, 2011, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the joint resolution 
     (H.J. Res. 2) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States. Debate on such a motion 
     shall be extended to five hours.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may postpone further consideration of a 
     motion considered pursuant to this resolution to such time as 
     may be designated by the Speaker.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, House 
Resolution 466. The rule provides for consideration of what may be the 
very single most significant piece of legislation that I've had the 
opportunity to vote on since coming to this body over 10 months ago.
  This rule is what allows the House of Representatives to move forward 
and vote on H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget amendment to the United 
States Constitution.
  My resolution that we're considering here today suspends the rules 
and allows the House to vote on H.J. Res. 2. I'm sure that some of my 
colleagues may be concerned we're moving to consider the balanced 
budget amendment under suspension of the rules for fear it would 
somehow limit debate.
  I agree with them. Amending the United States Constitution is not to 
be taken lightly. This is why the rule provides for 5 hours of debate 
on this vital issue, because, you see, Mr. Speaker,

[[Page 17709]]

what we're doing here today is something that should be discussed, 
something that must be discussed.
  We're fundamentally challenging the way Washington works. And you 
know what? It's about time. It's about time we had real conversation 
about how our Nation spends its money. It's about time that we made the 
Federal Government budget the way I did when I was a sheriff of a 
county in Florida.
  It's about time that we balance the Federal checkbook the way 
American families do every day. It's about time. That's what I think 
and, more importantly, that's what the majority of the American people 
think.
  The mere fact that we're here today is a failure of leadership. For 
decades, Washington politicians have kicked the can down the road, 
choosing deficit spending over fiscal responsibility, choosing 
frivolous pork projects, wasteful programs, and easy answers over 
making tough decisions and cutting back. Republicans did it when they 
were in power, and Democrats did it when they were in power too. Nobody 
is blameless in getting us to where we are today.
  But the days of finger-pointing are over. We don't have the luxury of 
time to look back and play the blame game. We need to move forward and 
find a solution to get us out of the hole that we're already in. A 
balanced budget amendment is a vital part of doing just that.
  Yesterday, the United States surpassed $15 trillion in debt. Let me 
say that again: we're now $15 trillion in debt. While recognizing this 
sad landmark, I can't help but think about the fact that this didn't 
have to be the way it is.
  In 1997, the House of Representatives passed a balanced budget 
amendment. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass this amendment by 
one vote. One vote, Mr. Speaker, one vote that would separate us from a 
road towards fiscal responsibility to where we are today. So here we go 
again, 14 years later, having the same debate.
  I can't stand here today without thinking about my three sons. With a 
debt of $15 trillion, each of my boys owes over $48,000 in national 
debt. It means the children and grandchildren of each and every person 
in this room owes $48,000 to the Federal Government, $48,000 that they 
didn't spend, that they didn't ask for, and that they now are saddled 
with by a government of excesses.
  Only one Senator stood between where we are now and $15 trillion in 
debt and where we could have been. So today I stand up in support of 
this rule and support H.J. Res. 2. I stand up for my kids, my future 
grandkids, and for all Americans who are saddled with that $48,000 in 
debt from the day that they're born.

                              {time}  1310

  I stand up for giving Congress a second chance, a chance to get it 
right this time. Unfortunately, I understand the Democratic leadership 
is whipping against this.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know how else to say this. This simply baffles 
me. Thanks to the whipping efforts of the Democratic leadership, there 
are Members in the House who voted for the balanced budget amendment in 
1997 who now say they're going to oppose it. In fact, two members of 
the Democrats' three-person leadership team voted for the 1997 
amendment.
  I've only been here in D.C., like I said, for a little over 10 
months, but of all of the inexplicable things I've seen since coming to 
Congress, this just stumps me more than just about anything else I've 
seen here. What could these Members have been seeing between 1997 and 
today that makes them say, Yeah, you know what? Spending is right on 
target. Let's just stick with the status quo. It's dumbfounding.
  It's often said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing 
over and over and over again and expect a different outcome. I don't 
understand how anybody can argue that we can continue to spend the way 
we do and expect to free ourselves from this monstrous, burdensome 
debt. We need to break the cycle. We've got to hold Congress' feet to 
the fire now and into the future. A balanced budget amendment is the 
change away from the status quo and back to sanity.
  I don't think I can say it better than Congressman DeFazio said in 
his letter to his Democratic colleagues when he wrote that Democrats 
who walk away from sincere bipartisan effort will have let the American 
electorate down. If any of us walk away from this effort, we will have 
let all Americans down.
  We've been working without a budget, this greatest Nation, for over 
900 days now. Continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases are not 
the answer. Supercommittees and sequestration is not the answer. 
Enough's enough.
  Today we have a clear choice: whether you want to change the status 
quo or you don't; either you believe that the government must operate 
responsibly on a balanced budget or you don't; either you want to 
rescue our Nation, ourselves, our children, and our children's children 
from crippling debt or you don't.
  I would like to close with the words of Ronald Reagan, who once said 
this: ``The congressional budget process is neither reliable nor 
credible. In short, it needs to be fixed. We desperately need the power 
of a constitutional amendment to help us balance our budget.''
  Now, that is presidential leadership.
  With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, 
``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 
the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What we have before us today should not be called the balanced budget 
amendment. What it should be called is the unbalanced budget amendment 
because that is what this bill is--unbalanced. It upends prudent fiscal 
policies, makes a mockery of congressional authority, and does nothing 
to address the economic struggles of millions of Americans.
  This proposed amendment no more balances the budget than passing 
legislation to declare the tooth fairy as real. Saying it out loud 
doesn't make it true. What this proposal says, instead, is that 
Congress needs to enact legislation that balances the budget. It 
doesn't tell us how to do it, just what we must do.
  Well, if we could do that, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't need a 
constitutional amendment telling us to do it, would we? If Congress 
could enact legislation that balanced the budget, it could do that 
without a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Merely 
imposing a mandate within the Constitution does not mean that Congress 
will be able to fulfill it.
  With this kind of circular reasoning, we could go back and forth 
until the next election and never have to spend one more minute on 
creating jobs to improve the economy. But that is exactly what my 
colleagues on the other side want.
  They've been in the majority for nearly a year now in the House of 
Representatives and have failed to put forth any kind of plan to create 
jobs and improve the well-being of millions of Americans, unless you 
count reaffirming ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto, weakening 
the Environmental Protection Agency, or watering down gun safety laws.
  I was here in 1995 when this body passed a balanced budget amendment. 
And let us not forget that under President Clinton and, yes, Speaker 
Newt Gingrich, we did manage to balance the Federal budget and leave a 
hefty surplus for President Bush. But then President Bush and the 
Republican Party squandered that surplus on two wars. And people should 
never forget that. They squandered it on tax cuts for the richest 
Americans, and they squandered it on unpaid-for prescription drug 
benefits, leaving a big old doughnut hole that we've been talking about 
ever since.
  Now the Republicans in this body are so extremist that they refuse to 
consider any tax increases of any kind on even the best off of us in 
America. Instead, they're leaving it up to the struggling middle class 
and poor people to bear the burdens of the Republican

[[Page 17710]]

Party's free-spending ways over the last decade. And I wish I had the 
time to really lay all of that out.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party's intransigence makes this 
amendment's voting requirements particularly unbalanced. This proposal 
requires a two-thirds vote, 290 votes here in the House, to pass an 
increase in the debt ceiling. Do you know what the definition of 
insanity is, as said by my friend? Repeating the same thing over and 
over again. And real crazy insanity is just doing it over and over and 
over and over again and expecting the same result. Or as Ronald Reagan 
put it, ``There you go again.''
  The Republican majority wants to enshrine in the Constitution a 
permanent hostage crisis for our economy. This supermajority 
requirement for basic economic management will ensure that we will, on 
a regular basis, bring our economy to the brink of collapse. Just look 
at the Republican's performance over the debt ceiling vote. I don't 
have any confidence that they'll act rationally just because there's a 
constitutional amendment telling them to do so. That is why this 
proposal is unbalanced.
  By mandating so many onerous, supermajority votes, this amendment 
guarantees permanent gridlock in the budgeting process. And without the 
inclusion of a general emergency waiver, this amendment imperils our 
national security. Let me repeat that. Without the inclusion of a 
general emergency waiver, this amendment imperils our national security 
by creating a scenario in which Congress cannot agree whether or not to 
vote on funding for national emergencies such as a military conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, this unbalanced proposal does not even include a clear 
enforcement mechanism. I asked about that at the Rules Committee, and I 
got an answer that I still don't understand.
  Making the balanced budget a constitutional requirement means that 
budget disputes would be solved by America's court system. This body 
has already failed to pass a balanced budget when the power of the 
purse is already our constitutional obligation. How can we be expected 
to pass one when each and every provision is also subject to years of 
litigation?
  The Republican majority wants to hand off our constitutional 
obligations to the Federal courts that will have the power to raise 
revenue. No less an authority than Judge Robert Bork made a statement 
regarding that.

                              {time}  1320

  He opposed a balanced budget constitutional amendment, declaring 
``the result would likely be hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits 
around the country, many of them on inconsistent theories and providing 
inconsistent results.''
  Celebrated late-Professor Archibald Cox of Harvard Law School 
predicted ``there is a substantial chance, even a strong probability, 
that Federal courts all over the country would be drawn into its 
interpretation and enforcement.''
  Since my friend used President Reagan, the former Solicitor General 
to President Reagan, Professor Charles Fried, has testified ``the 
amendment would surely precipitate us into subtle and intricate legal 
questions, and the litigation that would ensue would be gruesome, 
intrusive, and not at all edifying.''
  The former Attorney General to President George H. W. Bush, William 
Barr, opined that judicial power could be invoked ``to address serious 
and clear-cut violations.''
  The Republican majority wants to hand off our constitutional 
obligations to these courts that will then have the power to raise 
revenue, impose taxes, cut spending, and reform major government 
programs.
  I guess, if that's the case, we can all just go home now, Mr. 
Speaker.
  This body has previously considered balanced budget amendments on 
numerous occasions, initiated by both Democrats and Republicans. The 
majority party has always ensured sufficient floor time for debate and 
to allow the minority to offer alternatives; but here we are in a 
situation where the proposal before us was never marked up in 
committee, never had a hearing, and, in fact, was drafted late this 
past Thursday night by some mysterious tweaking of H.J. Res. 1 that 
became H.J. Res. 2. This version was changed in secret and was filed 
with last-minute surprises that fundamentally changed the nature of the 
legislation and will come under a procedure that doesn't even allow a 
motion to recommit.
  This is no way to amend the Constitution.
  By all means, Mr. Speaker, if we want to balance the budget, let's 
not do it on the backs of the hardest hit in America. I don't need a 
constitutional amendment to tell me that balancing the budget without 
raising taxes on those of us who are best off in this country is 
unbalanced.
  Where Americans need the Federal Government to support the economy, 
Republicans are trying to strangle it. Where Americans need us to put 
politics aside, Republicans are bringing forward legislation written in 
secret. Where Americans need this Congress to focus on economic issues, 
Republicans are insisting that we vote on God and gays and guns. We 
don't need to be voting on God and gays and guns. What we need are some 
guts to tell the American people that, yes, we can do this and that we 
can't wait any longer for those who are waiting for us to create jobs.
  Now the Republican majority wants to pass a constitutional amendment 
to tell us that we have to balance the budget every year in a way that 
no individual, State or local government or business does: no 
borrowing, no trust funds, no way to plan for long-term projects like 
highway construction, national defense, and public schools.
  This amendment guarantees budgetary gridlock forever and moves budget 
decisions to the Federal courts, not to Congress. This proposed 
amendment locks into the Constitution the most far right of the 
Republican Party's policies, forcing future generations to reap the 
pain imposed by the callous disregard for the least among us--the ones 
who need the most help.
  Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, there were 273 national organizations 
that oppose H.J. Res. 2, the balanced budget amendment. It's too 
lengthy to place into the Record or to put forward, but some of them 
are among the most celebrated organizations in our country.
  I also would recommend to the membership an article written by the 
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a nonpartisan group 
that discusses how unnecessary this particular provision is, and it 
ends with the following paragraph:
  The threat a balanced budget amendment would pose to our 
constitutional order is unavoidable. Congress, of course, remains free 
to enact a balanced budget if it believes this is sound economic 
policy. It also remains fully equipped to institute effective controls 
to ensure restraint and balance in the budgeting process. Therefore, 
there is no sufficient reason to incur the dramatic risks that the 
balanced budget amendment would entail for our Constitution and our 
Nation.
  This is not a balanced budget amendment, Mr. Speaker--but it is an 
unbalanced one.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California, the chairman of the august Rules Committee, 
Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my 
appreciation to both of my friends from Florida who serve on the Rules 
Committee.
  This is a very, very important debate. It's a debate that we haven't 
had since January of 1995, which is the last time that the House of 
Representatives had a vote on the issue of a balanced budget amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution.
  Back in 1995, when we had just won our majority, Mr. Speaker, I was 
one of the enthusiastic supporters, one of the two-thirds of the House 
of Representatives who voted in favor of the constitutional amendment 
requiring a balanced budget. I felt very strongly at the time that as 
we looked at the fiscal challenges that we as a Nation faced

[[Page 17711]]

that the only thing that we could do to achieve a balanced budget would 
be to have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would call for 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I have changed my mind. I have changed my mind, and I 
will be voting against the constitutional amendment calling for a 
balanced budget.
  Now, this is not something that I have done lightly. My friend from 
Spring Hill was absolutely right when he said that looking at the tough 
challenge of amending the Constitution is something that needs to be 
addressed; but I will say that I agree with a number of the arguments 
that were put forward by my friend from Fort Lauderdale and with a lot 
of the arguments put forward by my friend from Spring Hill. At the end 
of the day, I concluded that we should not amend the U.S. Constitution 
in calling for a balanced budget.
  I said I've changed my mind, and I am reminded of a statement that 
was made by our former colleague, the mentor of our friend Jeb 
Hensarling, who is working tirelessly to ensure that we get our fiscal 
house in order with the work of the Joint Select Committee. His mentor 
was Phil Gramm--a Democrat, then a Republican--who served in the House 
and the Senate. Phil Gramm once said that ours is one job where you can 
never admit to having learned anything.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that I've learned something, and I'd like to 
take just a few minutes to explain why it is that I've come to the 
conclusion that I have.
  I said at the outset that I believed when I cast that vote in January 
of 1995 in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 
that it was the only way that we would be able to achieve a balanced 
budget. I was wrong. Two short years later, we balanced the Federal 
budget. We balanced the Federal budget, and that went on for several 
years. It went on until 2001.
  My friend was talking about the fact that we had two wars. We've got 
to remember that it took literally billions and billions of dollars to 
deal with national security issues, like establishing the Department of 
Homeland Security and many other things that were very, very costly; 
but what I found, Mr. Speaker, is that we were able to balance the 
Federal budget without touching that inspired document, the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Now, James Madison in Federalist No. 58, I believe, gave the real 
description of the power that lies here in the House of 
Representatives. He said that the power over the purse is the most 
complete and effectual weapon that can empower any group of elected 
representatives of the people.
  We in this institution, Mr. Speaker, have the power of the purse. We 
have the power of the purse, and we proved in the late 1990s that we 
have the will to balance the Federal budget without touching that 
inspired document, the U.S. Constitution. Those were the words of James 
Madison in Federalist No. 58, that the power over the purse is the most 
complete and effectual weapon that elected representatives have.

                              {time}  1330

  Now some people point to Thomas Jefferson who famously, in a letter 
to John Taylor written November 26, 1798, talked about how it was 
essential for us to have a single amendment to the Constitution that 
would call for a balanced budget. Well, I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, 
it appears that Thomas Jefferson obviously learned something as well, 
because 5 short years later, in the third year of the first term of his 
Presidency, he embarked on the largest deficit expenditure to take 
place since the Revolutionary War. It was not a war expenditure. It was 
not any kind of emergency expenditure. It was the 1803 Louisiana 
Purchase. And that was a decision that Thomas Jefferson made that most 
of us inferred led to a change in his position from the November 1798 
letter that he wrote to John Taylor.
  As we look at some of the other arguments--my friend from Fort 
Lauderdale went through the Fried, Barr, Archibald, Bork arguments on 
the court. I think it's important for us to look at not just that part 
of it, but we also need to look at the enumerated powers provision in 
the U.S. Constitution. I believe that not only could we create, as 
these brilliant jurists said, a real problem within the court 
structure, but what we create is a transfer of power from the first 
branch to the third branch of government, something that is completely 
contrary to Article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, where the 
power lies right here in the United States House of Representatives. 
Why? Because most have said that if we were to get into these 
protracted legal battles, this could end up in the court, and we could 
have, several years from now, a court deliberating over a budget that 
had passed, again, literally years before.
  So, as we look at these arguments, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that 
I will take a backseat to no one when it comes to our commitment to get 
our fiscal house in order. I do happen to believe that our former 
colleague Jack Kemp was right when he said we shouldn't have to worship 
at the altar of a balanced budget; but we all know that with this $15 
trillion figure that my friend from Spring Hill pointed to, we need to 
do everything we can to reduce that debt and our annual deficit. But 
it's important for us to focus on economic growth. And that's why I 
congratulate those on the Joint Select Committee who are working on 
that, and I believe that that's something that we need to do.
  But having a balanced budget does not guarantee job creation and 
economic growth. Yes, of course having a degree of fiscal solvency goes 
a long way towards generating a climate that can make that happen; but 
we need to have pro-growth economic policies, and fiscal restraint is 
only one of those tools. That's why I believe that, as we look at the 
challenges that lie ahead, I don't want to say to the American people 
that I'm going to protect you from your future leaders that you are 
going to elect.
  The American people deserve the Congress that they elect. I 
personally think they deserve better than some of what we have had here 
over the past several years. Right now we all know we've got a 9 
percent approval rating. But the American people cannot have 
Representatives who say, We are going to say to you that you can't have 
the leaders that you elect do what you think is right. Maybe there is 
another Louisiana Purchase out there, and that decision is something 
that should be made by leaders.
  I believe in very carefully amending the Constitution. And I will say 
that I have always been troubled by some who argue that the level of 
your commitment to a public policy issue is based only on your 
willingness to amend the Constitution to implement it. Well, I think 
that's silly. I think that's ridiculous. I think that someone can be 
passionately committed to an issue like saying we shouldn't burn the 
American flag and yet be willing to say it shouldn't be enshrined in 
the U.S. Constitution. I feel the same way about the issue of a 
balanced budget.
  I'm proud to have voted to bring about these kinds of spending cuts. 
I'm proud to have done everything possible to try to reduce the size 
and scope and reach of the Federal Government. I do think that a lot of 
work has to be done. And my friend from Spring Hill, again, correctly 
pointed to the fact that both sides have responsibility for increases 
in spending. But I think we can come together. I think we can have the 
will to do this.
  Even if we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we 
all know very well we're not going to balance the budget overnight with 
a $15 trillion debt and now multitrillion-dollar deficits. We're not 
going to do it overnight. But we have to get ourselves on that road, 
and I'm convinced that we can. And I don't think that amending the 
Constitution is going to do anything to help us get there.
  So I do support the rule, and I think the rule--by the way, I should 
say to my friend--is one that was used when the Equal Rights Amendment 
passed the House of Representatives. The argument was made that somehow 
having this done under suspension of the rules is not fair. There's 
going to be 5 hours of debate. There's going to be an opportunity to do 
this.

[[Page 17712]]

  I've had the opportunity to say my peace. I know that I'm in the 
minority in my party. I know that there's not a lot of enthusiastic 
support on my side. I know that there are many Democrats who are going 
to be supporting the amendment to this. So we are going to have a 
chance to discuss these as we move through today and tomorrow.
  I do support the rule and the work of the Rules Committee. We've 
worked long and hard on this. But at the end of the day, I have come to 
the conclusion that I have.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I wish to compliment the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  I don't want to get into any more trouble than I already have. So if 
the gentleman could withdraw his compliment, I would be very 
appreciative of that, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am delighted to withdraw the compliment.
  What I wanted you to be able to do, since you had become so 
enlightened about the balanced budget amendment, was to be equally 
enlightened with reference to the rules and allow us a motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House 
adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for 
Fair Trade Act, which will help create jobs in the United States by 
making American-manufactured products more attractive to Chinese 
consumers.
  At this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from 
the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today we have another triumph for the 
Republican public relations office. Their job is to hide the fact that 
the select committee of 12 isn't going to get anything done and their 
members are going home for Thanksgiving. But what will they talk about? 
A failure? No. They want to give them something. So this balanced 
budget amendment--that's why we're out here debating a rule on a job-
destroying, poorly thought-out amendment to the Constitution. This 
House is considering an amendment to the Constitution that did not go 
through the regular order, is not even the product of any committee 
debate. It has not been an open and thoughtful process.
  Mr. Speaker, the job of this Congress at this time should be creating 
jobs. For 11 months, the Republicans have talked about it but have done 
nothing. Now, instead of wasting the people's time with this doomed and 
irresponsible constitutional amendment, we should deal with this 
country's serious economic concerns, one of which is the Chinese 
currency manipulation and how it hurts American businesses and our 
workers. It's time for this House to vote on the Currency Reform for 
Fair Trade Act.
  The Speaker needs to stop standing in the way of this important 
legislation. We've been discussing this issue with the Government of 
China for more than 8 years. American manufacturers should not be 
forced to compete against a 28 percent discount on imports from China, 
all because of China's predatory currency practices. This legislation 
will help to provide meaningful relief to U.S. companies and our 
workers who are injured by the currency manipulation of China.
  This is a bipartisan measure. The China currency bill passed the 
House last year with a strong majority of Republicans. The majority of 
the House has cosponsored this bill, including 62 Republicans, and we 
can't get it up.

                              {time}  1340

  The Senate has already passed a similar bill with a strong bipartisan 
vote. The Speaker is the one who has his foot on it because he's got 
his foot on the Rules Committee, and they won't bring it out.
  American workers expect every one of us on both sides of this aisle 
to fight against China's predatory trade policies and to fight for 
American workers. We should be fighting for the American economy rather 
than pandering to the Republican base with this terrible attempt to use 
the Constitution as a partisan playground and a way to hide from the 
American people that we're not doing what they sent us here to do, 
which was to create jobs.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Scott), a Rules Committee member.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Let me first thank Sheriff Nugent from 
Florida. Sheriff, you're doing a fantastic job with this rule, and I 
thank you for leading this important debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a simple question of my friends who 
oppose the whole concept of a balanced budget amendment: What makes us, 
the Federal Government, any different than the State and local 
governments who have to abide under a simple balanced budget concept? 
But more importantly, what makes us any different than the 74 percent 
of Americans in a CNN poll who simply say a balanced budget amendment 
is in the best interests of the citizens of this country?
  Simply put, Washington needs to stop this runaway train of spending. 
So often, too often even, it seems that this town has lost sight of the 
fact that taxpayer dollars don't just appear from some magical piggy 
bank but rather are paid by hardworking American families. We have a 
duty to spend these dollars wisely. And, unfortunately, in this town 
that simply doesn't happen very often at all. The last 3 years, not the 
last 30 years, not the last three decades, but the last 3 years we have 
seen the largest increase in the debt of this Nation, in the history of 
this Nation, and it is very clear that a constitutional amendment is 
the strongest option we have today to ensure that this doesn't happen 
again.
  How can we expect to create a proper environment for job creation 
when we can't even keep the Federal Government's checkbook in balance? 
How does the current administration think we can continue to force 
small businesses to completely revamp their budgets under an onslaught 
of burdensome regulations while Washington does not have to do the same 
thing?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. It simply doesn't make sense. We should 
get this work done. We should get this fixed today. I will say as part 
of the majority-making class of 2010, with 86 out of the 87 freshmen on 
the Republican side supporting some form of the balanced budget 
amendment, we should move forward now. The American people demand it, 
and they should get it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my friend on the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I'm sure 
has views that are similar to mine. I yield to him 3\1/2\ minutes at 
this time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle 
claim to be about fiscal prudence; that they are here to get our fiscal 
house in order; that a balanced budget amendment is the only way to do 
so. Once again, Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle 
are wrong. The right way to balance the Nation's budget is by making 
good, solid, smart policy, something the Republicans have proven to be 
incapable of over the past decade.
  President Bush was handed a gift by President Bill Clinton. He was 
given a budget surplus. And instead of crafting a smart, long-term 
fiscal plan, he blew it in a couple of big spending sprees in the first 
few months of his term, with a lot of help from congressional 
Republicans. Let me be as clear as I can be. You don't squander a 
surplus on tax cuts for the rich, and you don't put two wars on your 
credit card. You certainly don't do those two things at the same time. 
But that's exactly what the Republicans did, and they drove this 
economy into a ditch with unpaid tax cuts and unpaid wars. And now they 
want to amend the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. You've 
got to be kidding.

[[Page 17713]]

  What's worse, the Republican leadership has decided to break their 
transparency pledge. Not only are they thumbing their nose at their own 
rules, they are actually bringing a bill to the floor that has never 
been read, amended, or voted on in a committee. That's right, Mr. 
Speaker. Despite all of their rhetoric, this balanced budget amendment 
was never marked up in committee. And, even worse, it was changed 
without a vote before it came to the Rules Committee. Even though there 
has been no official consideration of this specific bill by the 
Judiciary Committee, something this new Republican Congress promised to 
do, the sponsor of this bill had the audacity to say that this bill and 
the changes made in the dark of night were supported by the committee.
  And if this process weren't bad enough, these changes actually allow 
war funds to be exempt from the balanced budget amendment. These wars 
have gone on too long, and they should be paid for. They should have 
been paid for from day one. That's a mistake we should learn from 
instead of repeating. We have already spent $1.3 trillion on the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's $1.3 trillion that's unpaid for, $1.3 
trillion on our grandchildren's credit cards.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose these wars. I want them to end now. But if you 
support them, the least you can do is pay for them. And yet the 
Republicans are repeating their same mistakes. And I shouldn't be 
surprised. This is the party that decries government spending, but 
turns to FEMA with outstretched hands in times of need. This is the 
party that says the Recovery Act doesn't work, but shows up at ribbon 
cuttings for projects paid for by the Recovery Act. And now this is the 
party that says we should balance the budget, but we shouldn't pay for 
the wars that increase our debt.
  Mr. Speaker, the fiscal hypocrisy takes my breath away. This is a bad 
bill being brought up under a bad process. Vote ``no'' on the rule and 
vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Hastings has indicated that if we vote down the 
previous question, we will bring up H.R. 639.
  It's a fact that China's currency manipulation is hurting U.S. 
businesses and workers. According to a recent study, imports from China 
account for 25 to 50 percent of the manufacturing jobs we have lost 
over the past decade. That's 1 million to 2 million jobs, and our trade 
deficit with China continues to grow.
  An important factor in this picture is currency manipulation. 
American manufacturers are forced to compete against an estimated 25 
percent discount on imports from China due to that manipulation. That's 
on top of China's massive subsidies and other policies.
  Dr. Fred Bergsten, who heads the Peterson Institute, says that 
elimination of China's undervalued currency would create a million jobs 
mainly in manufacturing, and that manipulation is by far the largest 
protectionist measure adopted by any country since the Second World 
War--and probably in all history.
  Meanwhile, the Chinese government is pushing production of high-end 
manufacturing products that compete head on with American products--
high-tech products, solar panels, wind turbines, automobiles, aircraft, 
and others.
  This is a bipartisan measure. A majority of the House, 230 Members, 
have cosponsored the bill, including 62 Republicans. The time has come 
for action. Eight years of talk have yielded meager results. American 
workers and businesses cannot wait any longer, and the U.S. economy 
cannot wait any longer. The time is now for action.
  Defeat the previous question.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to 
tell me how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) also 
has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

                              {time}  1350

  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank my able colleague from Florida, Congressman 
Hastings, for yielding and rise in support of Congressman Critz's 
effort here to focus attention on this whole issue of Chinese currency 
manipulation. When Congress passed permanent most-favored-nation status 
with China over my objection, we were told by supporters of the 
agreement that trade with China would create jobs, more economic 
opportunity and trade surpluses for our country. Well, if you look at 
the numbers, you'll see since that was passed what's happened is we've 
got more and more and more and more trade deficits every year, totaling 
in 2010 over $273 billion. With Chinese currency manipulation, that's 
almost an inflated number because it would be cut in half, it would be 
cut substantially if goods were marked to their true value, not their 
inflated value.
  China has never opened up its market. That's why we get these huge 
trade deficits. And they aggressively use government intervention 
through currency manipulation to rig the markets. We know they're the 
largest intellectual property thief, they counterfeit their goods, and 
they use industrial policy to promote and protect Chinese industries at 
the expense of American jobs and factories. Some call these tactics 
market Leninism because we see state-managed capitalism in China 
locking down on industry after industry.
  Regions like the one I represent in northern Ohio have been 
especially hard-hit as production shifted from the coasts of the Great 
Lakes to the shores of China. We can see this draining of wealth from 
the United States. Last year, our trade deficit again was over a half-
trillion dollars globally, and with China, they had over half of that 
trade deficit.
  If you look at the trade data, we're on track to send at least as 
many jobs to China this year. You can see the jobs being shipped to 
China in every community in this country. Even scrap metal is being 
sent over there, for heaven's sake.
  Economists tell us that every trillion dollars in trade deficit 
translates into 14,000 lost American jobs. If we could get the currency 
manipulation issue solved, we could bring some of those jobs back to 
this country.
  It's time for China to play on a level playing field.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that everybody that 
may be watching this at home understands we are talking about a 
balanced budget amendment.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would have my friend to know that we also 
are talking about the previous question, for which at this time I am 
pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).
  Mr. CRITZ. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I had prepared remarks that I was going to talk about to 
defeat this previous question so that we could bring the Chinese 
currency manipulation bill to the floor. But we've been talking about 
this on a weekly basis. We've been talking about this on the floor of 
the House on a weekly basis. And I think back to 10 months ago when 
Speaker Boehner made the statement that the House works best when it's 
allowed to work its will.
  This same bill passed the House last year overwhelmingly. A similar 
bill passed the Senate earlier this year overwhelmingly. This bill has 
broad bipartisan support. Sixty-two Republicans are cosponsors of this 
bill. Four months ago, I brought a discharge petition, which is now 
just 30 signatures shy of forcing this bill to the floor. It

[[Page 17714]]

needs Republican help. I'm imploring the Speaker to bring this bill to 
the floor of the House.
  This is so important. As Congressman Levin said earlier, we're 
talking about jobs. I did a telephone town hall last evening. The topic 
of discussion was jobs. Everyone wants to know when are we going to put 
our heads together and work to get this country back to work? Milling 
jobs. Manufacturing jobs. This is an issue that everyone knows about 
and everyone can agree on. We just want to level the playing field. 
This is giving this country the teeth it needs to go after countries 
such as China that manipulate their currency and hurt American 
manufacturing companies.
  This is about locking arms with the American public and moving 
forward. So I urge those Republicans, those 62 that are on H.R. 639, 
anyone can see those names, anyone can call and say, you need to 
support this bill. You need to support the discharge petition, get on 
it, let's talk about this. You can't hide behind the Speaker any 
longer. We're going to continue this fight day in and day out, week in 
and week out. I urge defeat of the previous question so that we can 
talk about jobs for the American people.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution has to do with a balanced 
budget amendment, which most Americans might say ``yea'' to, but this 
is a deja vu because we debated this so many years ago, and it was 
found that a balanced budget amendment for the Federal Government will 
not work with all of the restraints and necessities of serving the 
American people.
  But Mr. Critz's bill and the idea of correcting the currency 
manipulation of China will work. It will create jobs. The World Trade 
Organization cannot help. All the negotiations with China will not 
help. I would love for them to stand up and be counted in the world 
family so that we can continue to churn the economy, which all of us 
would benefit from. But as the euro crumbles and possibly the dollar 
will step in--I opposed the euro many years ago--we've got to get a 
currency that responds to all of us. Decent pay for a decent day's 
work--that does not happen when you have a manipulation of product cost 
so that some products are so much cheaper than the ones made by 
Americans.
  We are not envious, and we are not jealous, but this resolution or 
Mr. Critz's bipartisan effort can move forward if we vote ``no'' on the 
previous question, and then we can begin to help create jobs. And we 
might say to the supercommittee that we thank you for your service, but 
we can go into 2012 deliberatively and thoughtfully looking at a plan 
that raises revenue and cuts the areas that do not leave the vulnerable 
along the highway of despair.
  I support Mr. Critz's effort. I want to move beyond the 
supercommittee and fund this government and create jobs in the way that 
the people elected us to do.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from 
Florida that I am going to be the last speaker, and if he is ready to 
close, I will go forward doing same.
  Mr. NUGENT. Yes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this unbalanced amendment does not belong in our 
Constitution. It enshrines far-right ideology and makes a mockery of 
congressional authority to set forth the Nation's fiscal policy. This 
hardly belongs in the same company as freedom of speech, the abolition 
of slavery, and a woman's right to vote. This proposal does not balance 
the budget; it only demands that Congress do so, and yet it does not 
provide a mechanism to enforce that rule.
  So in a situation of partisan gridlock, the Federal budget might very 
well end up in the courts. This is no way to govern. If this Congress 
could balance the budget, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment 
to tell us to do so. But the fact remains that the Republican majority 
has steadfastly failed to set forth legislation that will create jobs 
and grow this economy.
  Given their inflexibility, a balanced budget constitutional amendment 
hardly seems like the magic wand Republicans claim it will be. This 
Congress needs to be serious about the real causes of economic hardship 
in this country. Focusing on God, gays, and guns and not having the 
guts to tell people we're not doing anything to create jobs, that isn't 
going to keep people in their homes, and it isn't going to help 
Americans obtain quality health care and education.
  These are the critical issues facing our Nation. Wasting our time--
and that's exactly what this is, it's going nowhere fast--wasting our 
time with political gimmicks like an unbalanced constitutional 
amendment is just that, wasting our time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment to the rule in the Record along with extraneous material 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass real 
jobs legislation today, not little old stuff that is appealing to the 
right wing of the people who are pushing nothing more than symbolism 
and talking about it being in our United States Constitution. I urge a 
``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Florida 
for a lively debate. The issue, though, that has sort of gotten muddled 
is about a balanced budget amendment, not about anything else that 
you've heard about on the floor. It is about a balanced budget 
amendment.
  But just to remind everybody, when we talk about jobs, we've passed 
over 21 jobs bills that are currently sitting idle in the Senate. So I 
don't know what else you can do, except it gets kind of frustrating 
that we send great pieces of legislation over to the Senate and nothing 
happens.
  We've heard a lot of debate here about a balanced budget amendment, 
pros and cons. You're going to hear 5 hours of debate in the very near 
future about the pros and cons of a balanced budget amendment.
  This Congress has done things that are amazing. We used emergency 
funding to fund the census. Now, I know the census probably snuck up on 
everybody around here, but I don't understand why you had to use 
emergency funding to do that.
  You know, we talk about the Clinton years. We talk about budget 
surpluses and how quickly they disappeared. But remember one thing: 
Part of the Clinton surpluses also hollowed out our force, which 
required us to put our servicemen and -women at risk for way too long. 
Some of them weren't allowed to retire through stop-loss, and others 
had to serve 15 months in combat positions because we had hollowed out 
our force.
  Patrick Henry once said the Constitution is not an instrument for the 
government to restrain the people; it's an instrument for the people to 
restrain the government. Today we start building upon those restraints. 
A balanced budget amendment is more of an instrument to check bloated 
government, a government that wants to be everything to everyone.
  Today we're borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend. We're 
writing checks that we can't cash, hoping future generations will be 
able to figure out how to get out of this mess on their own. This 
spending is just unsustainable.
  I wasn't happy with the Budget Control Act, but I voted for it simply 
so we

[[Page 17715]]

could vote today on a rule to allow us to vote on a balanced budget 
later this week so we can fundamentally change where we're going.
  After 10 months in Congress, I'm convinced that there are not enough 
people in Washington with the determination, the dedication, nor the 
fortitude to make the tough decisions for the good of this country. The 
Constitution has saved us in the past, and it can save us in the 
future. A balanced budget amendment would give Americans a reason to 
believe that more efficiently and effectively than any other proposal 
I've heard of.
  One of the things I hear consistently back home is that you all have 
made decisions in Congress that have put us so far into debt. Our 
unborn children are facing a debt of $48,000 for every child who's born 
this year. How can we stand up and look at people and say this Congress 
can fix it on its own? How can we look people in the eye and say, You 
know what. Just give us another chance; we've done so well over the 
last 30 years.
  I don't believe that the American people believe that we can do that, 
and I think that's why they're asking for fundamental changes. I think 
it's why they're asking us to step forward and do the right thing, Mr. 
Speaker, not kick the can down the road anymore.
  I have the utmost respect for our chairman and for my good friend 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), but I adamantly disagree. I think that 
we've had a change in government because there's a necessary need for a 
change in government. I think that you can't continue to do the status 
quo, because if we do, we're just going to wind up $15 trillion in debt 
today, $20 trillion in debt 2 years from now. When does it end, Mr. 
Speaker?
  So I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this strongly bipartisan legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:


     An Amendment to H. Res. 466 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     639) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify 
     that countervailing duties may be imposed to address 
     subsidies relating to a fundamentally undervalued currency of 
     any foreign country. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        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 opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on the adoption of House Resolution 466, if 
ordered, and adoption of House Resolution 467.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 173, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 854]

                               YEAS--243

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler

[[Page 17716]]


     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--173

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bachmann
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Giffords
     Hirono
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Napolitano
     Paul
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Shimkus

                              {time}  1430

  Messrs. HEINRICH, ROTHMAN of New Jersey, CLARKE of Michigan, and Mrs. 
MALONEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HULTGREN, PETERSON, and Mrs. NOEM changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 854, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 
854 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the 
Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of motions to 
suspend the rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248, 
nays 169, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 855]

                               YEAS--248

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--169

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)

[[Page 17717]]


     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bachmann
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Courtney
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Hirono
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Napolitano
     Paul
     Roskam
     Shimkus
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1439

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 855, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 
855 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 466--Rule providing for 
consideration of motions to suspend the Rules.

                          ____________________