[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11387-11398]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2560, CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE ACT OF 
                                  2011

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 355 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 355

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2560) to cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Georgia is 
recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page 11388]]


  Mr. WOODALL. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I would like to yield the customary 
30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 355 provides a closed rule 
for consideration of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. 
The rule provides for 4 hours of general debate on the underlying bill 
and grants the minority party a motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at a seminal moment in our Nation's history. When 
I turn on the television, when I read the newspapers, I get a lot of 
advice. Folks say act: act to raise the debt ceiling, act to cut 
spending, act to balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are here to do all of those things--cut, cap, 
balance, and with it increase the debt ceiling in order to allow this 
country to continue its good line of credit.
  But, Mr. Speaker, that line of credit is not something we can take 
for granted. Too often, I hear folks come to the floor and say, Just 
raise the debt ceiling. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we've had that vote. 
We brought a clean debt limit vote to the floor. I would say for the 
sake of all the young people we're blessed to have here in the gallery 
with us today, Mr. Speaker, we voted ``no.'' We defeated that clean 
debt ceiling to say, no, we cannot simply extend America's line of 
credit. We must take action to bend that curve of debt. Now that was 
this House acting, Mr. Speaker.
  Last week, America's credit rating agencies joined in that debate. I 
read to you from Moody's last week:
  ``While the debt ceiling has been raised numerous times in the past 
and the issue has sometimes been contentious, bond interest and 
principal payments have always been paid on time. If the debt limit is 
raised again and default is avoided, a AAA rating would likely be 
confirmed.''
  That's what we hear all too often, Mr. Speaker. What we don't hear is 
this second sentence:
  ``However, the outlook assigned at that time would very likely be 
changed to negative unless a substantial and credible agreement is 
achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To 
retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit 
trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratio of 
the Federal Government debt to GDP.''
  Mr. Speaker, that may be a lot of bond analyst speak, but what that 
means in simple terms is, if we do nothing as a Nation, our credit 
rating will be downgraded, and if we simply raise the debt limit and do 
nothing to get a handle on our debt, our credit rating will also be 
downgraded. That's Moody's, Mr. Speaker.
  S&P writes the same thing last week:
  ``We view an inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium-
term fiscal consolidation policy as inconsistent with a AAA solvent 
rating, given the expected government debt trajectory noted above.''
  Mr. Speaker, that's what we're talking about today. Just cutting 
doesn't get it done. We've got some debt limit issues that we've got to 
deal with. Just capping doesn't get it done. We've still got some debt 
limit issues that we've got to deal with. Just balancing doesn't get it 
done. We've still got debt limit issues that we have to deal with. But, 
Mr. Speaker, just raising the debt limit doesn't get it done either.
  It requires cutting, it requires capping, it requires balancing, and 
it requires raising the debt limit.
  We have brought that resolution to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, 
while so many other folks in this town are content to talk, to 
pontificate, to share their wisdom with absolutely any television 
camera who will listen, this House moves forward legislation that 
describes line by line by line, in painful detail, what we will do to 
restore America's fiscal house.
  I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I'm proud to be a 
member of the Rules Committee that has reported this rule to the floor 
today. I rise in strong support of this rule, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia, my friend, Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and in 
even stronger opposition to the underlying bill. This is a closed rule.
  My friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) was on the floor last week 
telling us how excited he was as we debated a modified open rule for a 
flood insurance bill. My friend talked about how proud he was of the 
open process that allowed Members to offer germane amendments to the 
bill. But here we are today considering legislation that would 
fundamentally transform the United States economy, gut many of the 
programs like Social Security and Medicare that millions of Americans 
rely upon, and make radical changes to the Constitution, and the 
Republican majority of the Rules Committee has brought it to the floor 
under a closed rule. No hearings. No witnesses. No markups. No nothing.

                              {time}  1250

  This bill was cobbled together last Friday night and rushed to the 
floor just a few days later. I wonder if my friend from Georgia is just 
as excited about this process, because I'm sure not.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered my friends on the other 
side of the aisle the opportunity to put their votes where their 
rhetoric is and support an open rule. They chose to vote ``no.'' Every 
single Republican member on the Rules Committee voted ``no.''
  As for the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, I can't quite figure 
out if this is a meaningless exercise in political theater or an actual 
expression of Republican values. Frankly, I can't figure out which is 
worse. If it's theater, it would get lousy reviews. Both the White 
House and the Senate have made it very clear that they have no interest 
in supporting this bill. It's not going anywhere. Maybe it's just a 
rotten piece of red meat that the leadership is throwing to their 
right-wing base in anticipation of an actual agreement to raise the 
debt ceiling and cut the deficit. If so, it's a complete waste of this 
body's time. But if the Republican leadership means what they say, that 
they would like this bill to become the law of the land, it's a 
frightening prospect.
  This legislation would result in staggering cuts to programs like 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, medical research, and 
infrastructure, all while protecting tax cuts for the very wealthiest 
Americans and corporations. The bill would require us to cut Federal 
spending as a percentage of GDP to a level not seen since 1965.
  And we had a very interesting discussion in the Rules Committee last 
night about the significance of that date. One of my Republican 
colleagues noted that 1965 was a time when we enacted some of our ``so-
called anti-poverty programs.'' And she's exactly right, Mr. Speaker.
  Apparently, the Republican leadership would like to take America back 
to a time before Medicare, before Medicaid, before food stamps and 
school lunches, before Meals on Wheels and Head Start and Pell Grants. 
If that's their vision for America, Mr. Speaker, they should have the 
guts to stand on the floor and say so. But it's not my vision. It's not 
the vision of the people I represent in Massachusetts. It's not the 
vision of the American people who believe that in the richest society 
in the history of the world we have an obligation to make sure that the 
most vulnerable among us don't fall through the cracks.

[[Page 11389]]

  At the same time, this bill would go out of its way to enshrine in 
the Constitution of the United States to protect tax cuts and loopholes 
for the richest 1 percent of Americans. Under this bill, Congress would 
need a mere majority to slash Medicare, but would need a supermajority 
to close a loophole that gives preferential treatment to owners of 
corporate jets. Talk about picking winners and losers, Mr. Speaker.
  In the ongoing budget negotiations, the Republican leadership of this 
House have said that they will absolutely not consider raising any 
revenue to address the deficit and the debt, but listen to this: 
According to news reports, they're willing to force seniors receiving 
Medicare home health care to fork over new copays. So if an elderly 
woman in Worcester with diabetes has to pay more for a visiting nurse, 
the Republicans say so be it. But heaven forbid that oil companies 
making billions and billions of dollars in profits have to pay their 
fair share. Maybe they'll call those new copays ``user fees'' so that 
Grover Norquist and the Club for Growth will give them a pass. But tell 
the woman in Worcester who will be forced to go into a nursing home 
that her taxes didn't go up.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an awful, awful bill brought to the floor under 
an awful, awful process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to reject this cynical effort and get back to work and 
meaningfully address the budget issues facing this Nation. Time is 
running out. We need to get to work to seriously resolve this crisis. 
Reject this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm confused about whether time is running 
out or about whether we're moving too quickly here today, but to 
clarify that, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from the 
Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
  Mr. NUGENT. I thank my fellow Rules Committee member, the gentleman 
from Georgia.
  I rise in support of both the rule, H. Res. 355, and the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 2560.
  Mr. Speaker, there's no way to get around it: Washington has a 
spending addiction. The unchecked, out-of-control spending has gone on 
for decades. Regardless of what party controlled the White House or 
Congress, Washington spent, spent, and spent some more. And although 
throughout his campaign President Obama promised a ``net spending 
cut,'' that hasn't happened. In fact, he's kept on spending and adding 
trillions of dollars to our debt, and that's why we're in the situation 
we are today, debating raising our debt ceiling once again.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't want to raise the debt ceiling. Instead, I want 
our Nation to get real with the spending and make some changes. H.R. 
2560 isn't the easy choice, but it's the right choice, and that's why 
I'm cosponsor of this critical piece of legislation.
  H.R. 2560 raises the debt ceiling, something I'm willing to say most 
of my Republican colleagues and I decidedly do not want to do. In 
return, though, H.R. 2560 implements spending cuts for this year and 
caps for the next 10 years.
  But we all know statutory budget cuts from past Congresses don't mean 
an awful lot, which is why H.R. 2560 also calls for Congress to pass 
and send to the States a balanced budget amendment. Such an amendment 
would really hold Washington's feet to the fire. It would mean the U.S. 
Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from spending more than 
it collects.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. NUGENT. Now that, Mr. Speaker, is a balanced budget amendment to 
the United States Constitution. That's real action. It's the real 
change and accountability in government that America needs and 
deserves. Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced budget amendment.
  The President has yet to send to this body anything in writing. All 
we've received is a speech and rhetoric. We need to move this country 
forward. We need a balanced budget amendment. We need to pass H.R. 
2560.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill 
before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I support a balanced budget amendment, but what the 
majority has brought before the House is not even close to a balanced 
budget amendment. This is a political exercise designed to soothe the 
feelings of the most radical conservative elements in the House and 
debase our Constitution and our democracy in the process.
  Cut, cap, and balance is simply an attempt to slash, burn, and deny 
responsibility for the deficit and debt limit crisis and distort the 
nature of our democratic Republic, reducing the ability of Congress to 
represent the will of the voters of this country and rendering 
elections and the public will meaningless.
  If we're going to enact a balanced budget amendment, it should be 
pragmatic. It should be modeled after the type of approach that most 
States have. States have to balance their budget. Families have to 
balance their budget. Why shouldn't the United States Congress? Like 
many people on my side of the aisle, I could support language that 
would require and enshrine that total outlays do not exceed total 
receipts. That's what it means to balance a budget, as families and 
businesses across America know.
  Instead, the proposal before the House is a recipe for tying the 
Nation's budget policy in knots and handing power over the budget 
process to a minority of the House Members or unelected Federal judges. 
It would make the entire Congress cease to function as a representative 
body by locking them into arbitrary percentages that were set without a 
single hearing or any process in our United States Constitution as a 
public expenditure share of GNP.
  If you require a supermajority for even the smallest possible 
increase in revenue, you've essentially ensured that all the major 
pieces of legislation that Congress has passed would never have passed. 
If this amendment were in place in 1965, Congress never would have 
passed Medicare. In 1993, we wouldn't have passed President Clinton's 
deficit reduction plan and balanced the budget, or the 1997 balanced 
budget agreement under President Bush.
  Furthermore, the spending caps that this bill sets for spending are 
completely arbitrary. They're pulled out of thin air. They bear no 
relation to our national needs now or in the future.
  A balanced budget amendment must treat outlays and revenues equally, 
not bias one or the other in the Constitution itself, our fundamental 
governing document.
  The majority is not only ignoring the realities of basic math, 
they're turning their backs on the pledges of an open process. This 
bill was brought to the floor rapidly through the Rules Committee 
yesterday, without a markup, without hearings, without witness 
testimony, and without allowing amendments from Republicans or 
Democrats.

                              {time}  1300

  A bill of this magnitude with such far-reaching consequences for our 
democracy itself should be treated more seriously than this. The 
concept of enshrining a particular percentage of public expenditures as 
a percentage of GDP is contrary to the concept of a democratic republic 
in which Congress is elected by the people of this country to govern 
this country.
  For these reasons and others, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule and the bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a 
gentleman who held a very persuasive Special Order on this topic last 
night, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, all financial budgets will eventually balance. No 
individual, no family, no business, and no government can indefinitely 
continue to

[[Page 11390]]

spend more money than they take in without someone having to make up 
the difference. Mr. Speaker, that includes the Federal budget of the 
United States.
  Neither Mr. Obama nor congressional Democrats can repeal the laws of 
mathematics. The Federal budget of the United States Government will 
eventually balance. The question is whether the White House and those 
of us in this body will balance this budget ourselves by wise policy or 
whether national bankruptcy and financial ruin will do it for us.
  From the day Barack Obama walked into the White House, his 
breathtakingly arrogant policies have absolutely ignored economic and 
financial reality. It took America the first 216 years of its existence 
to accumulate the debt that Barack Obama has accumulated in the short 
2\1/2\-year span of his Presidency. He rammed a nearly $1 trillion 
government takeover of health care down the throats of the American 
people, and he spent another nearly $1 trillion on a failed government-
based boondoggle for economic stimulus. During his short time in 
office, he has increased our Federal debt by nearly $4 trillion in new 
debt, and now he says we will have $1 trillion-plus deficits ``for 
years to come.''
  Then, when speaking of the effort to reduce the deficit, the 
President has the hubris to tell conservative Republicans to take a 
balanced approach and to eat our peas. To that, I would just say to the 
President: Please pull up a chair, sir. We are ready to eat our peas, 
and we need help.
  This Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is actually a solution to America's 
problem. It does not cut Social Security. It does not cut Medicare. It 
does not cut compensation to our men and women in uniform by one dime; 
but the balanced budget amendment it proposes does give us an honest 
chance of reforming and saving those programs and our country from 
bankruptcy in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the Democrat Congress of last year that gave 
a standing ovation to a $2 trillion increase in our debt limit. This is 
the Congress that was sent here by the American people to turn things 
around--and the American people are awake, Mr. Speaker. They are 
watching us, and they are tired of Democrats telling them that 2+2=13. 
If Democrats and the President are not willing to give the American 
people this chance by helping Republicans pass a balanced budget 
amendment in this Congress, the resulting consequences will be theirs 
alone, and I believe the people will hold them accountable.
  By passing this Cut, Cap, and Balance bill along with the balanced 
budget amendment, we can restore confidence in the American economy in 
markets here and across the world. We can see more revenue come into 
these coffers than has ever happened in the history of the Nation, and 
we can set this country on a new road to the brightest days it has ever 
seen. It is something that is truly an opportunity beyond our dreams. 
This is the time to do it, and by the grace of God, that's exactly what 
we intend to do.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Under the Republican plan, 
they will cut Social Security and Medicare by $6,000 per senior 
citizen. Talk about a tax increase.
  At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding.
  I am just overwhelmed with the words ``breathtakingly arrogant 
policies.'' I am literally shocked, and let me tell you why.
  When you want to understand, my Republican friends, why we're in the 
position we're in, what about the 37.5 percent of the debt being the 
Bush-era tax cuts of which this bill and any of your negotiations don't 
in any way suggest revenue?--which the American people understand.
  Arrogant policies by the President? The Recovery and Reinvestment was 
only 5.2 percent, creating 3 million jobs. Let me say that again: 3 
million jobs. The economic downturn came about with the Iraq war and 
others.
  So, today, my friends come on the floor of the House with the Cut, 
Cap, and Balance. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, let me 
suggest to you that the amendments that were put in the bill have 
destroyed any sense of balance to the balanced budget amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have a new name for the bill, the bill 
which tap dances around the question of revenue and lifting the debt 
ceiling, which was done 60-plus times over America's lifetime with 
Reagan, Carter, President Bush and President Bush, and Clinton. So it's 
the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club and Bust the benefits bill.'' The losers 
are seniors and young people and those who need Social Security and 
those who are disabled. Then, finally, instead of the balanced budget 
amendment, it is the bust the benefits of those who are in need and of 
the young people who are looking forward to a prosperous future and 
expanded opportunities in this Nation.
  What do we need?--not the Cut, Cap, and Balance. It in no way invests 
in America. It in no way ends the tax loopholes that are part of our 
increasing debt. It will block the United States Congress from closing 
the loopholes of those who make billions of dollars every 3 months. We 
need innovation, infrastructure and education. That equals jobs.
  Parents, I don't want to see the end of your children's opportunities 
by closing elementary and high schools and by disallowing them from 
going to college. That is what this bill is--not to cut, not to cap, 
not to balance. It's the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club, and Bust the 
Benefits of the American People bill.'' Let me suggest to you that 
these are the losers of this bill. Don't support a bill that will cause 
the American people to lose the American Dream.
  I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2560, the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance 
Act of 2011,'' which attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by 
authorizing an increase in the debt limit while implementing spending 
cuts, caps on future spending, and requiring an amendment to the 
Constitution. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt 
limit, I cannot support a bill that is a clear attempt to enact the 
policies embedded in the Republican budget resolution and to then 
enshrine the Republican budget in our Nation's Constitution.
  This bill should be called the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust 
Bill.'' It tap dances around raising our debt ceiling and acting in a 
responsible manner to pay our Nation's debt obligations. Our Nation 
will be joining the losers club by threatening to eliminate important 
social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Pell 
grants. There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting 
programs for the most at need and ignoring the need to focus on job 
creation. This bill busts the hopes and dreams of our children, 
seniors, and military families. It busts the hopes to grow our Nation 
in the future. H.R. 2560 has earned the name the ``Tap Dance, Loser 
Club, and Bust Bill.'' I will call it that from this point forward, 
because that is what it is . . . when something walks like a duck, 
quacks like a duck and looks like a duck . . . Call it a duck!!!! This 
bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused 
on paying our Nation's bills and resolving our differences!
  I stand here today to state firmly that increasing the debt ceiling 
is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and 
approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my 
Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold 
the American people hostage to their extreme agenda. They know that the 
``Tap Dance Loser Club, and Bust Bill'' is not a realistic proposal.
  The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of 
political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to 
raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament 
to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, 
this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse 
based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I 
understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with 
respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in 
order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over 
pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will 
begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not 
raised.
  This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is 
perilous, as increasing the

[[Page 11391]]

debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by 
the Federal Government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows 
the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt 
holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both 
past and present.
  Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it 
not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy 
Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to 
finance the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, as well as 
the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that 
fund.
  If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the 
stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time 
in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in 
American history has the country's full faith and credit been called 
into question.
  Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance 
our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. 
Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince 
banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its 
debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend 
money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the 
United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt 
less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the 
part of the investors.
  Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury 
bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the 
increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance 
of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require 
the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the 
loan worth the risk for investors to take on.
  Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As 
we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market 
hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but 
small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments 
tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, 
will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American 
people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement 
accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to 
default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of 
citizens.
  As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market 
would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a 
housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause 
a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity 
families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. 
Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in 
the housing market.
  Republicans are attempting to place into our constitution the 
requirement that we balance the budget every year. In reality, 
achieving a balanced budget is not something that should automatically 
be required every year. For example, during economic downturns, the 
government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and increasing 
spending. A constitutional amendment requiring us to cut spending to 
match revenue every year would limit our ability to respond to changing 
fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal responses to 
high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food and medical 
assistance.
  As it stands, H.J. Res. 1 requires spending cuts even deeper than 
those in this bill; in fact, it requires that spending be cut to the 
levels in the Republican Study Committee budget, levels that were so 
extreme that fewer than half of House Republicans voted for that 
budget. Finally, requiring a two-thirds vote to approve revenue 
increases creates a barrier to fixing inequities in our tax code by 
protecting more than $1 trillion in spending through the tax code--
spending that often benefits special interests, like owners of 
corporate jets--and well-to-do Americans.
  H.R. 2560 cuts $111 billion in FY 2012, places firm caps on future 
spending, and is contingent upon House and Senate passage of a Balanced 
Budget Amendment.
  H.R. 2560, is yet another attempt to enact the policies that 
Republicans approved with their budget resolution this spring--to end 
the Medicare guarantee while continuing tax breaks for special 
interests and the wealthy. It requires immediate and steep spending 
cuts starting this October that will put more Americans out of work 
while the country is still recovering from the worst recession since 
the Great Depression. It caps total spending--including mandatory 
spending programs, such as unemployment benefits, that are designed to 
grow when the economy is bad--for fiscal years 2013-2021 at lower 
percentages of the economy (Gross Domestic Product, or GDP).
  While it is clear that the country cannot continue on an 
unsustainable fiscal path, the bill limits spending to a percentage of 
GDP that the country has rarely achieved in the past. For example, the 
bill limits total outlays to 19.7 percent of GDP in 2018; outlays were 
at or below that level in only 12 of the last 43 years (from 1997 
through 2004, and from 1969 through 1972).
  Enforces the Republican budget resolution by limiting total federal 
outlays--including Social Security and Medicare--at the Republican 
budget's percentage of GDP in fiscal years 2013 through 2021. Automatic 
sequestration again would occur if the levels are breached. More 
immediately.
  H.R. 2560 requires passage of a specific type of a so-called 
``balanced budget'' constitutional amendment by both the House and the 
Senate before the debt limit can be increased. This new hurdle makes it 
even harder for Congress to increase the debt limit by August 2, which 
it must do to avoid fiscal calamity and higher interest costs for 
consumers and the government alike.


                      STEEP SPENDING CUTS FOR 2012

  H.R. 2560 limits fiscal year 2012 discretionary and entitlement 
spending to the levels in the Republican budget. If spending exceeds 
these limits there would be an automatic sequestration that makes an 
across-the-board cut to most programs to bring down spending. Spending 
in 2012 is to be cut by a net total of $111 billion below current 
services.
  Discretionary Cap--The bill's authors say they intend to cut non-
security discretionary spending for next year by $76 billion (a roughly 
one quarter reduction in budget authority), to below the 2008 level, 
and increase security spending, matching the President's request. 
However, the bill does not provide separate discretionary caps except 
for war funding, so Congress could cut where it chooses.
  Entitlement Cap--The bill exempts veterans' benefits, Medicare, 
Social Security, and net interest from its entitlement (or direct 
spending) cap. These programs comprise roughly two-thirds of all 
entitlement spending. The bill cuts the remaining direct spending by 
$51 billion (7 percent) in 2012, down to the levels in the Republican 
budget. The cuts will fall on programs like school lunches, student 
loans, food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, and unemployment insurance--some 
of the very programs designed to automatically increase when the 
economy is down in order to lessen the impact of job losses and 
associated economic hardship.
  As with the discretionary cap, there would be an automatic 
sequestration if direct spending is not sufficiently cut. Past 
sequestration provisions exempted specific programs, including low-
income programs, but this bill repeals the broad list that has been the 
basis for sequestration in the past. Instead the bill exempts a smaller 
range of programs (but comprising about half of the budget): military 
personnel accounts, TRICARE for Life, military retirement, veterans 
benefits, Medicare, Social Security, and net interest.


   Holds Debt Limit Increase Hostage to Passage of Specific Type of 
                Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment

  This bill will add a new obstacle to increasing the debt limit before 
the August 2 deadline by mandating that the House and the Senate first 
pass a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. The bill 
specifies that the Constitutional amendment has to be H.J. Res. 1 or a 
``similar amendment'' that (1) limits total outlays to no more than 
total receipts; (2) limits spending as a percentage of GDP; and (3) 
requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both 
Houses of Congress.
  Moreover, the Constitutional amendment itself is merely a ploy to 
make tax cuts for the wealthy and tax loopholes for big corporations a 
permanent fixture of American governance. It would make any revenue-
raising measure unconstitutional unless a two-thirds supermajority 
approves it. This is simply unprecedented and unacceptable.
  An alternative plan, put forth by Senate Democratic and Republican 
Majority and Minority Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, 
respectively, deals with the debt ceiling crisis in a way that is less 
controversial for Democrats. Although still in the negotiation stages, 
the plan has a few emerging ideas and general bipartisan support in the 
Senate. However, House Republicans have expressed their dissatisfaction 
with the proposal.
  Tentatively, the Reid-McConnell Debt Ceiling Proposal would allow the 
President to raise the debt ceiling 3 times in the next year in an 
amount totaling $2.5 trillion. Furthermore, it permits Congress to vote 
on a resolution of disapproval of each increase of the debt ceiling, 
essentially assigning blame to

[[Page 11392]]

President Obama for each increase. It includes a plan to reduce the 
deficit in the amount of $1.5 trillion over 10 years through cuts to 
domestic programs, while avoiding cuts to entitlement programs or 
raising new taxes.
  Moreover, the Reid-McConnell debt ceiling proposal would create a new 
Congressional Panel tasked with coming up with, by the end of the year, 
a way of reducing the deficit by another $2.5 trillion or more through 
cuts in entitlements and other yet-to-be identified steps. The proposed 
committee would be comprised of 12 lawmakers who would issue a report 
to Congress on how to achieve this. While I am still not convinced that 
the cuts for this proposal will not unfairly harm our seniors and other 
beneficiaries of domestic programs, I anticipate the product of these 
negotiations, as they appear to be far more realistic than the bill 
before us today.
  I urge my Colleagues to oppose H.R. 2560 which I have called the 
``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill,' for it will send our Nation in 
the wrong direction. This detour into a spending debate is as 
unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not 
obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. 
Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay 
existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already 
agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present. We must 
protect Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants and a plethora of other 
programs that are aimed at helping our citizens. I will not stand by 
any bill which threatens to eliminate Medicare.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the 
gentlelady that there is only one bill in this Congress that abolishes 
every single corporate loophole in the entire United States Tax Code. 
That's H.R. 25, the Fair Tax. I would welcome the gentlelady on that 
bill because I too share a desire to see those loopholes eliminated.
  I now yield 2 minutes to a cosponsor of the Fair Tax, the gentleman 
who has cosponsored bipartisan tort reform legislation here in the 
House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, of course, in strong support of this bill and 
rule, that of cut, cap, and balance.
  The gentlelady from Texas just stood up and said she would call it 
the ``Tap Dance'' bill. Quite frankly, what the President has in mind I 
would refer to as the ``Whistling Past the Graveyard'' plan. This cut, 
cap, and balance approach to this problem is just that within the first 
provision of cutting spending, Mr. Speaker, of $111 billion and with 
$35 billion of that, by the way, for mandatory spending, yet not one 
dime--not one dime--from Social Security or Medicare. We protect our 
seniors.
  But as to this spending problem, I mean, it's just like the problem 
in this country with drunk driving. Are we going to solve that problem 
by raising the blood alcohol level? Absolutely not. Are we going to 
solve this problem of runaway spending by just simply raising the debt 
ceiling without these caveats of cut, cap, and balance? Absolutely not. 
That's why we have to do this--to rein in this spending and to bring it 
down to historical levels of 20 percent of GDP.
  Then the final part of cut, cap, and balance, Mr. Speaker, is the 
balance part. The President is asking for a balanced approach. That's 
exactly what this is. This is the balanced approach that makes sense 
because every other pledge in the past with regard to reining in 
spending, whether we're talking about Pay-As-You-Go--the Democrats like 
to tout that plan--never has worked because we don't abide by these 
pledges; we continue to spend.
  The only way to make sure that future Congresses rein in this 
spending on a permanent level is to have a balanced budget amendment 
that calls for a supermajority to raise taxes. There are 49 out of 50 
States that have a balanced budget amendment. Why in the world wouldn't 
Democrats join with Republicans in calling for a balanced budget 
amendment? Then to think that the President would issue a statement of 
administrative policy in opposition to this is absolutely ridiculous.
  Support this commonsense bill. Stand strong for our country. This is 
the land of the free, but it has to be the land of the strong before it 
can become the land of the free.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I just want to say to the gentleman from Georgia the reason why the 
President issued a veto threat is because he doesn't want you to 
destroy Social Security and Medicare, two of the most important social 
programs in this country that benefit millions and millions of seniors.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and 
the extreme ideological bill before us today.
  The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, or as it should be more appropriately 
called the ``cut, cap, and end Medicare act,'' is one of the most 
radical bills to come before this body.
  But perhaps I should not be surprised. I've already seen the majority 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle vote to end Medicare, 
slash Medicaid, and now they want to cut Social Security benefits, too.
  Instead of listening to the American people, the House Republican 
leadership continues to advocate for the elimination of Medicare, all 
while continuing to protect tax loopholes and subsidies for Big Oil and 
Wall Street executives. This bill is actually more extreme than the 
Republican budget passed in April calling for deeper cuts and more 
hardships for the middle class and older Americans.
  In fact, this bill does nothing to create jobs nor invest in the 
roads, bridges, clean energy technology, and job training that would 
really get our economy moving.
  In short, H.R. 2560 will stifle growth, hurt middle class families, 
and undercut America's seniors. In my district there are over 93,000 
Social Security beneficiaries and over 85,000 Medicare enrollees.
  On behalf of my constituents and for future generations, I stand in 
strong opposition to this bill and the rule. I know that there are 
those on the other side of the aisle who want to support a reasonable 
plan to reduce the deficit. This is not the plan.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this 
dangerous proposal.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and urge strong support of my 
colleagues for the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, H.R. 2560.
  I really believe if you owe debts, pay debts. We must find a way to 
honor the full faith and credit of the United States of America. But 
even more important than that, we must find a way to restore the faith 
and confidence of the American people and the world community in the 
fiscal integrity of the United States of America. That is our dual 
challenge.
  After years of runaway Federal spending by both political parties, 
after failed economic policies by this administration, we find 
ourselves at a place of unprecedented fiscal crisis--more than a $14 
trillion national debt, $1.65 trillion deficits. We now borrow more 
than 40 cents of every dollar that we spend here in Washington, D.C.
  The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act applies commonsense principles and 
fiscal discipline to the challenges of spending restraint today, but it 
also introduces a new element--and that is a balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution. Yes, we cut spending by $111 billion next year, 
about $5.8 trillion over 10. Yes, we cap Federal spending to back under 
20 percent of GDP. But I think the time has come to make any increase 
in the debt ceiling contingent on sending a balanced budget amendment 
to the States. And here's why.
  Washington, D.C., is not only broke, it's broken. Let me say again. 
After more than a decade here seeing my party in power in Congress and 
in the White House, seeing another party in power in Congress and the 
White House, I am convinced that Washington, D.C., is not only broke, 
it's broken.

[[Page 11393]]

  And the American people know in their heart of hearts there is 
something missing in the equation. It's in the guardrails in the 
Constitution of the United States of America. It is the guardrails that 
say it must be the objective of the Congress and of this and of future 
administrations to live within our means.
  Thirty-one States have a balanced budget requirement in their 
constitution. Indiana has a prohibition on incurring debt. Forty-nine 
States require a balanced budget.
  The time has come to cut, the time has come to cap spending, but the 
time has come to make any increase in the debt ceiling contingent on 
sending a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to the States 
for ratification. And this we must do.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to use the 30 
seconds, but I wanted to ask the distinguished gentleman from Indiana a 
question with my 30 seconds if he would be willing.
  Will the gentleman engage in a brief question and answer?
  As I understand it, under your balanced budget amendment, in the 
event that Congress is unable to achieve a balanced budget, a lawsuit 
could be filed forcing the Federal judiciary into the budget process. 
In effect, your balanced budget amendment would reverse the 
constitutional relationship by legalizing the legislature and 
politicizing the Judiciary. Is that your expectation, that a Federal 
judge could ultimately have the final say over budget matters in the 
House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. PENCE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. PENCE. It would be my expectation that we would not yield the 
jurisdiction of constitutionality exclusively to the judiciary. 
Throughout American history, it has mostly settled there, but we 
contain it as well. But ultimately it would put the American people in 
charge----
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. At this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another 
cosponsor of the Fair Tax, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, today the House is honoring a pledge that 
we made to America in the largest landslide election in 70 years last 
November when the people of America spoke clearly and elected a new 
majority to govern the House to take America down the path to a 
balanced budget to restore prosperity, to restore jobs that had been 
lost under this President.
  The American people spoke decisively last November and asked this new 
constitutional conservative majority in the House to cut spending, to 
cap spending, to enact a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, 
to shrink the size of the government, to get the government out of our 
lives and out of our pockets and put us back on a path of prosperity, 
which this legislation does.
  I am very proud to be a coauthor of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 
the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which has worked so 
well in Texas. Texas is a beacon for other States. We have demonstrated 
in Texas when you live within your means, when you cut taxes, when you 
limit litigation, when you limit regulation, when you get the 
government out of our pockets and off our backs that American 
ingenuity, American entrepreneurship will thrive and the economy will 
grow.
  People have been voting with their feet to move to Texas, and we in 
this new constitutional conservative majority in the House are doing 
today what we promised America we would do last November. We are 
cutting. We're reaffirming the Ryan budget which, by the way, does not 
affect--anyone over the age of 55 is unaffected by the Ryan budget, is 
unaffected by this Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, but if we do nothing, if 
you are under the age of 55, you will be affected because Medicare is 
on a path to bankruptcy, as is Social Security.
  So we're taking decisive action today, Mr. Speaker, to put America 
back on a path to prosperity, to grow jobs, to get the Federal 
Government back within the bounds of the Constitution with a balanced 
budget amendment. I am very proud today, Mr. Speaker, to be here in 
support of this legislation, which will honor the promise we made to 
America.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Honda.
  Mr. HONDA. I rise today to oppose this ridiculous cut, cap, and 
balance proposal.
  By walking away from every negotiation--from the Deficit Commission 
to the Biden Commission to direct talks with the President--Republicans 
have made it clear that they place petty politics above responsibly 
solving the country's budget challenges. This is the first budget bill 
or deficit reduction plan in the past quarter century that fails to 
specifically protect programs for the most vulnerable Americans from 
across-the-board cuts.

                              {time}  1320

  The ``duck, dodge, and dismantle act'' will butcher Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, child nutrition, the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, nutrition for Women, 
Infants, and Children, Planned Parenthood, supplemental income for the 
elderly, public schools, teachers, and pay for firefighters and cops--
all so that the Republicans can protect tax breaks and tax subsidies 
for the wealthy and powerful by erecting a constitutional barrier to 
any measure that would raise any revenue.
  This bill is as extreme as it is unprecedented. It is not a serious 
response to months of good faith negotiations by the Democrats. I call 
on the House Republicans to stop the games and the posturing and do the 
responsible thing for the American people, and I urge my colleagues to 
reject this bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Our country is at a pivotal point in its history. Economists would 
call this an inflection point. But for those of us who are not 
economists, it's a critical time; it's a pivotal time. We have to 
decide, are we going to compete in the 21st century and see this 
country prosper and lead in the 21st century? Or will we sink in a sea 
of red ink? That's what it's come down to.
  I think we need to move forward with a bold plan. We haven't seen 
anything from the President. He hasn't put anything on the table. We're 
coming forward with a plan that's credible. It lays out a path, a 
credible path to get us back to fiscal sanity. $46,000 for every man, 
woman, and child is what the debt stands at today, and that does not 
include the unfunded liabilities going to the future, which takes us 
well north of that figure. We have a lot of work to do. It's time for 
this Congress to get serious about its responsibility, its 
responsibility to bring fiscal sanity and fiscal balance back.
  We have a spending problem. There is clearly a spending problem. But 
if you look at the two fundamental problems facing the country, it's 
our unsustainable debt, but it's also the lack of economic growth to 
create private sector jobs. Now if we take the path that our friends 
want to take, they're going to raise taxes. They're going to raise 
taxes across the board. And what you're going to see is a worsening 
economic situation. We're not going to see the kind of job growth--in 
fact, we very well could go back into a recession with that type of 
plan.
  Our plan puts us on a sustainable path. Coupled with tax reform, 
coupled with an energy strategy which we have, and moving forward with 
an aggressive export-oriented trade policy,

[[Page 11394]]

you will see a competitive America; you will see job growth in this 
country. But we have got to get spending under control.
  And today is the day we can cast that vote. Today is the day we can 
decide we're going to restore American competitiveness, we're going to 
restore American credibility, and we're going to restore American 
confidence.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from 
Louisiana that we can't compete without investments in innovation and 
infrastructure and education, and the bill that my Republican friends 
have brought before us today on the floor would devastate this economy. 
It would absolutely devastate the American economy.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise today to speak against this rule and this bill. This will not 
solve our Nation's problems but, instead, will devastate our economy 
and the most vulnerable in our society.
  Our Nation has run into fiscal problems for three reasons, none of 
which are addressed by this bill: the Bush tax cuts, foreign wars, and 
the recession.
  When the fiscal situation of the government was better, I warned that 
their spending on tax cuts and foreign wars would cause fiscal problems 
which Republicans would then balance on the backs of social programs. 
But when the times were good, Republicans ignored these valid concerns, 
saying that ``tax cuts pay for themselves'' and, famously, ``deficits 
don't matter.'' They were wrong, and working families are suffering.
  Now we get the explanation that by cutting government jobs and 
spending, you will create jobs and revive the economy. However, it is 
clear that what we really need are good, stable jobs and stimulus in 
order for the economy to grow again. My constituents never got the 
benefits of the Bush bubble. They worked the jobs that were available 
and paid their taxes. Now the jobs have evaporated, and the social 
safety net that they paid into is under severe threat.
  I will vote against this bill on behalf of my constituents and the 
people like them across this Nation. I will be casting a vote for 
fairness and economic growth, against the Bush policies that the 
Republicans are seeking to extend, and for a better future for our 
children.
  Our Nation became great by making investments in our people and 
infrastructure and by creating a stable middle class and a robust 
social safety net. It became great through Americans supporting one 
another and paying their fair share of the taxes. Today, we watch as 
the Republicans continue to turn their backs on that history and 
continue their push towards a ``me first'' economic system. I want no 
part of that bleak future, nor should our Nation.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that that 
competing vision of trillions more in stimulus and more in government 
jobs and more in government spending is one idea of how to revive this 
economy. It's just not one that I share.
  I yield at this time 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Brooks), who also I do not believe shares that opinion.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, back home in my district, one of the things 
I am understanding and communicating with people is the difficulty in 
their understanding the difference between millions in debt, billions 
in debt, and trillions in debt. So I heard an analogy the other day 
that I thought was appropriate, that hopefully will help the American 
people better understand the financial situation in the United States 
of America.
  Imagine that you are a family and you haven't been keeping track of 
your finances for a good while. Finally, you decide to sit down at your 
kitchen table, the two spouses get together, and they accumulate their 
income, they accumulate their expenses, and they accumulate their debt. 
And as they go through their income, they discover that they have about 
$50,000 that they can spend--that's their income--for the upcoming 
year. And then they look at their expenses, and they put all the bills 
together and how they spent over the past year. And they discover that 
last year, they spent $80,000, meaning that they have spent $30,000 
more than their income. And then finally, they pick up their Visa card 
bill, and that Visa card bill is $320,000.
  Well, those are the exact same ratios that we're talking about with 
the United States Government and the debt that we face. We have got a 
budget that's around $3.5 trillion. We have got an income that's a 
little over $2 trillion, and we have a deficit that is $14.3 trillion. 
All of that is unsustainable. It is a financial house of cards. And we 
have to take a tough but reasonable course, and that's what cut, cap, 
and balance is all about. Cut, cap, and balance, that is the way we 
score financial security for the United States of America, and that is 
the way to create jobs.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the 
legislation before us today.
  If we do not act in 2 weeks, the United States will, for the first 
time in history, default on its debt. With the economy in a vulnerable 
position right now, we should be working to create jobs. Instead of 
acting responsibly and in a bipartisan way to raise the debt ceiling, 
the Republican majority has decided to make this a form of hostage-
taking to press their agenda.
  Congress has always paid for its past financial commitments with 
Republican majorities agreeing to raise the debt ceiling seven times 
during the Bush administration. Everyone understands the long-term 
challenge posed by budget deficits, and President Obama and Democrats 
support a balanced approach to addressing that challenge.
  Yet the ideological and extreme bill before us today does not address 
the number one concern of the American public, jobs, but rather seeks 
to implement an agenda that will, in fact, destroy jobs and the social 
safety net, ends Medicare, and reduces the Social Security benefits 
that our seniors have earned and deserve. Rather than making 
investments to create jobs and economic growth, the Republican majority 
is proposing cuts which will lead to a loss of hundreds of thousands of 
jobs, even as we are mired in unacceptably high unemployment.
  With this bill, the Republicans choose to put in place a spending cap 
that will cement in law the Republican budget that chooses to end 
Medicare, places the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of the 
middle class and the most vulnerable. And, finally, the Republican 
majority is choosing to hold hostage an increase in the debt ceiling to 
the approval of an amendment that will make it impossible to raise 
revenue.
  What do I mean? It will make it impossible to end the subsidies to 
Big Oil, make it impossible to close the loopholes that allow 
corporations to ship their jobs overseas, or abuse tax havens that 
allow them to pay almost nothing in Federal taxes. To achieve deficit 
reduction, they will end Medicare, implement deep cuts to Social 
Security and other programs that are critical to the middle class.

                              {time}  1330

  Instead, what they need to do is to go after the 12 largest 
corporations in this Nation. The Citizens for Tax Justice has said that 
those corporations pay a negative 1\1/2\ percent tax on $171 billion in 
profits and about $64 billion in tax subsidies.
  You want to do something to balance the budget and make a deal with 
deficit reduction? Go after those corporations that are paying zero in 
taxes instead of going after middle class Americans or seniors who rely 
on Medicare and who rely on Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican agenda undermines America as a country 
where middle class American families have an opportunity for a decent 
retirement.
  Oppose this outrageous piece of legislation.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a colleague who is a 
great

[[Page 11395]]

leader on this issue, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, this is quite an interesting debate that 
we're having, and I think it is an historic day. It is a time when we 
have the opportunity to do something about the out-of-control, reckless 
Washington spending. It's long overdue.
  I had an email from a constituent a few minutes ago. They're watching 
the debate and, I would offer to my colleagues, I think lots of 
Americans are watching this debate. They're waiting to see if we have 
the courage, if we have the political will to actually do something 
about spending money we don't have for programs our constituents don't 
want.
  Amazingly, my constituent could not believe that there are people who 
would actually come to this floor and say that they opposed cutting 
what the Federal Government spends because we're borrowing 40 cents of 
every dollar that is spent. They were amazed that people would oppose 
placing a cap over what that government can spend. And they were quite 
amazed that they would actually stand and oppose a balanced budget 
amendment, something that is long overdue for our country.
  This problem has been years, decades in the making. I think we all 
agree with that. But I also think there's one thing that we will all 
agree with: The past 3 years has seen such a rapid rate of accelerated 
spending that it has added $3.4 trillion, this administration has added 
$3.4 trillion to our debt. Unprecedented.
  And, indeed, included in that was the passage of the President's 
health care bill, PPACA, or Obamacare, which spent another $1.2 
trillion. And, by the way, to my colleagues, you all made the choice 
and the decision in that bill to cut $575 billion out of Medicare. I 
just remind you of that.
  The time has come for fiscal responsibility. It is time to pass Cut, 
Cap, and Balance. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and to 
support the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, I just would like to respond to the gentlelady from 
Tennessee.
  When she talks about the need for political will, what we need is the 
political will to stand up to Big Oil and to end subsidies that amount 
to corporate welfare.
  The bill that my Republican colleagues are bringing to the floor 
today let's them off the hook and, instead, goes after the poor and the 
most vulnerable and our senior citizens. That's why this bill is so 
outrageous, because they are so unfair.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Americans today are getting an up-close view of 
Republicans' misguided plans, misplaced priorities, and massive assault 
on the middle class. It's not, as they call it, ``Cap, Cut, and 
Balance.'' It's really a ``Cash Cow for Billionaires.''
  The Republicans are pushing Grandma and middle class families 
overboard while protecting the superrich and the powerful.
  Will Republicans protect Grandma's Medicare and Social Security 
checks? No. Grandma is being pushed overboard.
  What about programs that help low-income children visit their doctor? 
No. They are getting pushed overboard.
  What about programs that ensure that veterans benefits are paid on 
time? No, veterans are being pushed overboard.
  But the massive Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the tax subsidies for 
Big Oil? They're too precious, the Republicans say. They have to be 
kept on board. So billionaires will not see their undeserved tax breaks 
taken away. The oil industry will not see their unjustified tax 
subsidies, as consumers are tipped upside down at gas stations, taken 
away from them. No, those subsidies, they have to be kept on board. 
And, ladies and gentlemen, that's not fair. That's not balanced.
  Grandma, kids, veterans, they should not have to contribute to 
balancing the budget, but billionaires and Big Oil are exempted by the 
Republicans. This is the face of their party--Big Oil and billionaires. 
That's who they are protecting.
  They have deficit attention disorder. If there were such a thing as a 
Nobel Prize in economics in reverse, they would be the first winners of 
it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a mentor of mine, the 
gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. After a 3-year spending spree in which the President 
drove up the national debt by 56 percent, the President has the nerve 
to tell the American people that they have to eat their peas. This from 
a President who has had the Federal Government on a supersize me diet 
since the day he was sworn in. Marie Antoinette would be proud of such 
arrogance.
  One must ask, where has the President been? He owns this economy. 
It's his policies that have left 15 million Americans without work. 
It's his policies that have stifled business growth and investment. 
It's his policies that have given us more deficit spending than any 
other administration in history.
  The President talks about entitlement reform but offers no plan, no 
legislation. The President talks about his budget fairness, and yet 
this very budget was rejected by the Harry Reid Senate Democrats by a 
vote of 97-0.
  The President denounces the Bush tax cuts yet personally extended 
them a few months ago. In 2006, the President voted against increasing 
the debt ceiling citing a lack of leadership, now he offers none.
  But today, the House Republicans will lead with a plan. That plan is 
cut, cap, and balance. And on the back, we have the President's plan. 
This is it: speeches. That's what we get after 3 years and the largest 
deficit in history from the President of the United States, speeches 
and admonishments.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to my friend from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Is it the gentleman's opinion that under the Republican cut, cap, and 
balance program----
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, you've got to go fast because I'm 
willing to answer your question but I can't----
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the gentleman prepared to turn the 
balancing aspect of this program over to the Federal judiciary?
  Mr. KINGSTON. The President has backed us up against the wall. If we 
don't do something serious and, yes----
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is the gentleman prepared to turn the 
balancing aspect over to the Federal judiciary?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I agree with you. By law we need to have a balanced 
budget amendment so that Congress' hands will be tied from increasing 
the deficit.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will it be the responsibility of the Federal 
judiciary?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. 
Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  For months our colleagues on the other side have known of the need to 
avoid a default crisis and meet our Nation's obligations. But instead, 
today they move with lightning speed to the floor a sham bill that is 
nothing more than a way to score political points at a time that we 
need, the markets need, and the world needs seriousness.
  It's time to meet our obligations for seniors, retirees, and 
veterans, for Social Security and Medicare, and to create jobs and grow 
this economy. Those on the other side of the aisle know that the bill 
that's on the floor today would do nothing like that. The underlying 
bill would in fact reap catastrophic consequences for our Nation's 
economy and our most vulnerable communities, and that's the truth.
  What kind of majority wants to throw our economy into another 
tailspin by having us default on our obligations? Well, I'm going to 
tell you it's

[[Page 11396]]

the irresponsible kind. They have been unrelenting in their quest to 
eliminate Medicare and cut Social Security, and this bill is no 
different.
  The American public needs to understand what is at stake here: It's 
the default on our Nation's obligations that will throw out of whack 
Social Security, Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, everything that 
we know in this economy because of the foolishness that's going on here 
in this Chamber.
  I ask my colleagues to please be responsible. Protect our future; 
protect our children's future; invest in our roads and our bridges and 
our infrastructure; create jobs; but please stop this foolishness.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill and a ``no'' vote on the 
underlying rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm 
going to try to speak as quickly as I possibly can.
  Under the balanced budget amendment, the sole responsibility for 
interpreting the Constitution of the United States is the Federal court 
system, a Federal judge. And I wanted to ask the gentleman if he would 
join me in just an answer to the question--since it's on my time--what 
would qualify a Federal judge to cut a Federal program? What would 
qualify them? Would we take them through a process in the Senate, 
asking them what programs they support? Are we politicizing the 
judiciary?
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The answer is there's absolutely nothing different from this 
amendment than any other amendment to the Constitution that relies on 
the judiciary to interpret it.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, so instead of the 
Congress of the United States making a judgment about programs and then 
answering to the people in an elective political process, we are 
shifting the responsibility to a Federal judge to make a cut in the 
program; is that correct?
  Mr. WOODALL. That is not correct. The responsibility lies here, as my 
colleague knows. But as is true with every word in the Constitution, it 
relies on the judiciary to interpret it.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, the responsibility for 
interpreting the Constitution is a Federal judge. Under a balanced 
budget amendment, a Federal judge would be responsible for cutting 
these programs; is that correct?
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman 
from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I have the sponsor of the legislation right here to 
answer that very question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Does 
the gentleman have additional speakers?
  Mr. WOODALL. I don't, though I do have the bill's sponsor here to 
answer any questions you all might have.
  Mr. McGOVERN. He didn't answer any of them last night; so I'm not 
sure whether we will get many answers here today.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will not take a minute. I will just ask the sponsor of the bill, as 
I did last night in the Rules Committee, do you genuinely believe that 
this particular measure is going to become the law?
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I genuinely hope it does become the law. I think the 
American people deserve this Federal Government to live within the 
confines of a balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I heard the word that 
you ``hope.'' Let me tell you what I told you last night; I'll bet you 
cash money that it ain't going to become the law.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. If the gentleman will yield, I don't take cash bets. 
But you know what? You also talked about bouncing; and the only thing 
that's going to bounce is the government's check.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has yielded back 
his time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I'm sorry. I thought he yielded to me. I apologize.
  Mr. WOODALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, once again I stand in strong opposition to this closed 
rule and to the underlying bill.
  It's time for a grown-up moment, Mr. Speaker. It's time for the 
Members of the House, Republican and Democrat, to come together to 
address the looming crisis over the debt limit. We are exactly 2 weeks 
away from the possibility of the United States defaulting on its 
obligations of not paying its bills. This is not an acceptable outcome.
  I know that there are some on the other side of the aisle--in fact I 
talked to one just this morning--who will not vote for anything that 
raises the debt ceiling. That's unfortunate. Default would result in 
collapsing markets and skyrocketing interest rates. It would deal a 
devastating blow to the full faith and credit of the United States. It 
would throw even more Americans out of work. The bill before us does 
nothing to prevent that outcome.
  Slashing Medicare and Social Security while protecting tax cuts for 
the wealthy is not a responsible solution. I think the American people 
have made it clear in poll after poll after poll. They have said to my 
Republican colleagues, keep your hands off of Medicare and off of 
Social Security.
  What my Republican colleagues are trying to do with this legislation 
is lower the standard of living for our senior citizens. They deserve a 
hell of a lot better. The fact of the matter is our senior citizens 
have built this country, they have worked hard to make this country 
what is today. They deserve better from this Congress. They should not 
have to pay to balance this budget because they did not cause this 
economic crisis.
  It is just simply unfair to protect all this corporate welfare, all 
these tax loopholes to protect corporations with jets and to protect 
corporations so they don't have to pay taxes, and they can incorporate 
overseas in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. It is just wrong. It is 
wrong to continue these subsidies to Big Oil that have made billions 
and billions and billions of dollars. Why aren't they paying their fair 
share?
  And Mr. Speaker, it is just wrong to radically alter the Constitution 
of the United States of America. We need to focus on jobs, and 
innovation plus infrastructure plus education equals jobs. We have to 
invest as well as cut. This bill would slash the investments we need to 
put people back to work and to grow our economy. It cuts Pell Grants. 
It would cut education at every level. It would cut monies for roads 
and bridges. It would cut money that would help this economy grow that 
can help put more people back to work so we can start reducing the debt 
in a responsible way.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, I will ask the House to 
defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I 
will offer an amendment that will ensure that this bill does nothing to 
impede job increases and economic growth. So a vote in favor of the 
previous question is a vote to increase unemployment and to threaten 
our economic recovery.
  Given the fact that you gave us a closed rule, I don't think it's too 
much to ask that we have at least some language in here that protects 
jobs and that would protect the American worker.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.

[[Page 11397]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, reject this closed rule that is unfair, and reject the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it was 224 years ago that the Constitutional Convention 
was wrapping up that summer in 1787. Ben Franklin walked out of the 
front door and a woman asked him, ``What did you create?'' And he 
famously responded, ``A republic, if you can keep it.'' That's what the 
debate is about here today, Mr. Speaker--our Republic, and can we keep 
it?
  Mr. Speaker, the last time we debated a balanced budget amendment was 
back in 1995, 16 years ago. At that time, now-Minority Leader Steny 
Hoyer said this: ``This country confronts a critical threat caused by 
the continuation of large annual deficits. I am absolutely convinced 
that the long-term consequences of refusing to come to grips with the 
necessity to balance our budget will be catastrophic. And those who 
will pay the highest price for our fiscal responsibility, should we 
fail, will be those least able to protect themselves and the children 
of today and the generations of tomorrow.''
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is about those who are least able to protect 
themselves, and this is about the vision that we have chosen for 
ourselves as Americans.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. Speaker, 223 years ago, in a letter written in November, Thomas 
Jefferson said this: I wish it were possible to obtain a single 
amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that 
alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the 
genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article 
taking from government the power of borrowing.
  Our Founding Fathers, 223 years ago--folks talk about a bill being 
rushed to the floor. This is a debate that has been going on since the 
founding of our Nation, since the founding of our Nation. We had this 
discussion in 1995. We had this discussion in 1994. Every Congress for 
the 10 years between 1985 and 1995, we discussed a balanced budget 
amendment. Apparently, there was no need to discuss it any longer, and 
look where we are.
  I was down in Chinatown the other day, Mr. Speaker, where, 
conveniently enough, our United States debt auctions were held, right 
downtown in Chinatown. We sold $36 billion of debt in Chinatown the day 
I was down there at 0.0005 percent interest. But hear this--I will 
close as I opened, Mr. Speaker--from our friends at S&P: ``We view an 
inability to timely agree and credibly implement medium-term fiscal 
consolidation policy as inconsistent with a AAA sovereign rating.''
  Mr. Speaker, this isn't about raising the debt limit; this is about 
preserving the Republic. Go ahead and raise the debt limit; Moody's 
says that's not enough. Go ahead and raise the debt limit; S&P says 
that's not going to get you anywhere. Inconsistent with a AAA rating is 
the borrowing and spending that this Congress has brought to the House.
  Now, we talked about rushing a bill to the House floor, Mr. Speaker. 
I'll say this, and some of my Democratic colleagues have said it, and I 
associate myself with their comments: This reflects the priorities of 
this House. What we're working on today is exactly what we were working 
on when we worked on H.R. 1 in February, one of the most open and 
brilliant moments in this House's history in terms of debate. Well, the 
priorities we are setting today are the same priorities we were setting 
when we had that very open budget debate earlier this year in April 
where we brought every budget to the House and said: What can we agree 
on as a House? And you know what we agreed, Mr. Speaker? We agreed on 
the priorities that are set forth in Cut, Cap, and Balance.
  Now, there has been a lot of talk about who is willing to compromise. 
Mr. Speaker, I can't find a single colleague on this side of the aisle 
who is enthusiastic about raising the debt limit, not one. But folks 
are willing to do it if we can preserve the Republic for our children 
and grandchildren, which we can do with cut, cap, and balance.
  Mr. Speaker, there's all of this talk in Washington about default on 
the national debt. That is a serious conversation, a serious 
conversation.
  I want to talk about defaulting on the promises of our Founders. I 
want to talk about defaulting on our Republic. One wish Thomas 
Jefferson had, one wish: If it were possible to obtain a single 
amendment to our Constitution, it would be an additional article taking 
from government the power of borrowing.
  I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there's a lot of reluctance to do 
that. There are lots of great things that folks have, priorities that 
they would like to spend on. This isn't about those spending 
priorities. We'll still have that conversation. H.R. 1 was about those 
priorities. Our budget discussion was about our priorities. Today, it 
is about the future of our Republic. You need read no further, Mr. 
Speaker, than the credit rating agencies telling us that August 2 is 
not the date we have to fear. Today is the day that we have to fear 
because, if we fail to pass this bill, our Republic stands in peril.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this rule. I am grateful to 
the Budget Committee for bringing forward this resolution, and I ask 
for a unanimous vote of support as this resolution comes to the floor.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as 
follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 355 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       (1) Strike ``the previous question'' and all that follows 
     and insert the following:
       The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget; (2) the amendment 
     printed in section 2, if offered by the Minority Leader or 
     her designee, which shall be in order without intervention of 
     any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       (2) At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of 
     this resolution is as follows:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

           TITLE IV--PROTECTIONS FOR JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

     SEC. 401. PROVISIONS OF ACT INEFFECTIVE IF RESULTING IN JOB 
                   LOSSES OR SLOWER GDP GROWTH.

       No provision in this Act or amendment made by this Act 
     shall apply if it would result in a reduction in private 
     payroll employment or a slower growth of GDP.
                                  ____

       (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,

[[Page 11398]]

     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. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 235, 
nays 175, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 603]

                               YEAS--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     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
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     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 (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     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
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     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
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--175

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     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
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bachmann
     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Castor (FL)
     Cravaack
     Doggett
     Ellison
     Filner
     Giffords
     Graves (MO)
     Hinchey
     King (IA)
     Loebsack
     McDermott
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Rush
     Schrader
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1419

  Messrs. ISRAEL, GUTIERREZ, and KILDEE changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GUINTA, BARTLETT, and FRANKS of Arizona 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:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 603, I was unable to vote due to 
previous commitments in my district. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''

                          ____________________