[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6556-6566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5652, SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 648 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 648

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     5652) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 
     of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2013. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112-21 shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) two 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 with or without instructions.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you coming in early to be with 
us early this morning. This is a big day. This is the reconciliation 
bill.
  I serve on both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Speaker. As you know, we've had some tremendous successes in the 
appropriations process. This week, we've been working through the 
Commerce-Justice-Science bill. It's a bill that's reduced spending to 
those levels that we had in 2008, doing those things that the voters 
sent us here to do.
  We're going to vote on that bill today in final passage. But that 
appropriations process that we have control over here in the House, 
that process where we reduced spending from 2010 levels down to 2011 
levels, down to 2012 levels, and are going to go down again to 2013 
levels to be responsible stewards of taxpayers' dollars, those are only 
one-third of the taxpayer dollars.
  Two-thirds of the taxpayer dollars that are spent in this town--and 
by spent I really mean borrowed and then spent--come on what they call 
mandatory spending programs. Mr. Speaker, as you know, mandatory 
spending programs are dollars that go out the door whether Congress 
acts or not. Appropriation bills require Congress to act affirmatively, 
but mandatory spending goes right out the door without any oversight 
from this body until you get to reconciliation.
  Reconciliation is that process that Democrats put in place wisely 
years and years ago to allow the House and the Senate to come together 
and begin to reduce, restrain, do oversight on those mandatory spending 
dollars. This is a rule that brings that bill to the floor.
  That bill is going to be coming under a closed rule, Mr. Speaker. 
We're talking about a bill that has been put together by almost every 
committee of jurisdiction here in this House and then assembled by the 
Budget Committee and brought here to the floor. It's been the subject 
of countless hearings already. We looked at whether we'd be able to 
bring a Democratic substitute to the floor. None was submitted that 
complied with the rules of the House.
  So we have one bill on the floor today, an up-and-down vote, on 
whether or not we're willing to engage in the first serious 
reconciliation process on this floor--I would argue--since 1997. Some 
folks might say 2003. I say 1997. Why, Mr. Speaker?

                              {time}  0920

  I'll tell you, it's the right thing to do anyway. It's the right 
thing to do anyway as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. But in 
this case, these aren't reductions for the sake of reductions. These 
are reductions for the sake of complying with what I would argue is a 
very good deficit-reduction agreement between the President and the 
Senate and the House last August. And as a part of that agreement, we 
put in some blanket cuts to national security, some blanket cuts to 
national defense. And some commentators have described these cuts, Mr. 
Speaker, as being intentionally so crazy that they would never happen 
but would be used only as a tool to get the Joint Select Committee to 
act.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Joint Select Committee did not succeed 
last fall. It's a source of great frustration for me and is also a 
source of great frustration for the Members who served on that 
committee. They had an opportunity to bring an up-or-down vote to both 
the House and the Senate floor on anything they came up with, Mr. 
Speaker. They didn't have to get the whole $1.2 trillion. They didn't 
have to get $1.5 trillion. They could have gotten $1 trillion. They 
could have gotten $500 billion. They could have gotten $250 billion, 
and we would have brought that to the floor for an up-or-down vote. But 
they got nothing.
  So where are we? Well, in the words of Secretary of Defense Leon 
Panetta, he says:

       We are at a place where, if these cuts were allowed to go, 
     the impact of these cuts would be devastating to the Defense 
     Department.

  I happen to share his concerns. Again, these were across-the-board 
cuts put in place to be so intentionally crazy that Congress would 
never allow them to occur, and it would spur the Joint Committee to 
action.
  I happen to have supported an amendment offered by Chris Van Hollen 
of Maryland, the ranking member on the Budget Committee. When we were 
going through the Budget Committee process last year, he offered an 
amendment that said, dadgummit, everything's got to be on the table, 
and that includes the Defense Department. I agree with him. The Defense 
Department does need to be on the table. And in fact, the Defense 
Department is undergoing $300 billion worth of reductions today.
  This bill does nothing to change that. There is $300 billion being 
reduced from the Defense Department, as well it should. It's not easy, 
but it should happen, and it is happening. This isn't dealing with 
that. This is dealing with even additional cuts. Again, in the words of 
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, a former Democratic Member of this 
House:

       The impact of these cuts would be devastating for the 
     Department.

  So we have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to do what, I would argue, 
you and I came here to do--and not just you and I, but my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle--to do those things not just that happened 
year after year after year, those things that have 12 months of 
efficacy and then go away, but the things that can be set in permanent 
law to change the direction of spending and borrowing in this country. 
And, candidly, Mr. Speaker, it's more about the borrowing than it is 
about the spending.
  There are priorities in this country that we need to focus on, and I 
would argue that we've done a great job of focusing on those 
priorities. But when you are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar from 
your children and your grandchildren, we have to redefine what 
responsibility is because, I will tell you, that is irresponsible.

[[Page 6557]]

  And this bill then takes a step in two directions: one, turning back 
this second round of Defense Department cuts--not the first round but 
the second round, the round that Leon Panetta describes as devastating 
to the Defense Department--and then setting us on a path to bend that 
cost curve going forward by tackling mandatory spending programs for 
the first time in almost a decade.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly support 
this rule.
  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 such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule. It is 
totally closed, and it denies Democrats, led by the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the substitute.
  We're not asking for dozens of amendments or something that hasn't 
been done in the past with regards to reconciliation bills. All we are 
asking for is one vote on our substitute, one vote on what we believe 
is a better alternative to the Republican bill. Last night in the Rules 
Committee, every single Republican--every single one of them--voted to 
deny Democrats that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, as one who does not believe in arbitrary and thoughtless 
across-the-board cuts as a way to balance our budget, I want to support 
Mr. Van Hollen's substitute in order to avoid the implementation of the 
Budget Control Act's sequester. In my opinion, to allow this sequester 
to go into full effect would be bad for the country.
  We are here in this awful mess because a so-called supercommittee 
failed to reach agreement last fall on a comprehensive and balanced 
deficit-reduction plan due in very large part to the absolute refusal 
of Republicans to put revenues on the table. Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin-
Domenici, and the Gang of Six all had deficit-reduction proposals that 
sought to be balanced with both spending cuts and revenues. They sought 
to be fair. They realized that you cannot solve our long-term fiscal 
problems by slashing and burning the last century of social progress in 
America.
  But, today, my Republican friends have brought to the floor a 
reconciliation bill that actually makes sequestration look good. What's 
going on here is very simple--very troubling, but very simple. They are 
protecting the massive Pentagon budget and demanding no accountability 
by exempting it from sequestration and finding even deeper cuts in 
programs that benefit the people of this country.
  The bill before us would create a government where there is no 
conscience, where the wealthy and well connected are protected and 
enriched, and where the middle class, the poor, and the vulnerable are 
essentially forgotten. I have never seen anything like this. It is 
outrageous. It takes my breath away.
  My friends won't cut billions in subsidies for Big Oil at a time when 
oil companies are making record profits and gouging Americans at the 
pump. They won't address the inequities of the Tax Code, which allows 
billionaire Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. 
The revenues from fixing these two unjust policies alone would result 
in billions and billions and billions of dollars in deficit reduction. 
But the Republicans have protected Big Oil, and they've protected the 
billionaires. However, my Republican friends take a meat-ax to SNAP, 
formerly known as food stamps. This is a program to help poor people 
afford food.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle should heed the words of 
President John F. Kennedy:

       If a free society will not help the many who are poor, they 
     cannot save the few who are rich.

  Mr. Speaker, we are one country. We should care about one another, 
especially those who are most vulnerable. That's not a weakness or 
something we should be ashamed of. Rather, it's something that makes us 
strong and great.
  As my friends know, I have spent a lot of time and effort in Congress 
on the issues of hunger, food insecurity, and nutrition. Tens of 
millions of our fellow citizens don't have enough to eat, and every 
single one of us--Democrats and Republicans alike--should be ashamed. 
And that's why I am so outraged by the $36 billion in SNAP cuts.
  This notion that SNAP promotes a culture of dependency, that SNAP is 
a golden ticket to prosperity is just wrong. Some on the Republican 
side have even claimed that SNAP enslaves Americans. Give me a break. 
In fact, even in 2010, when unemployment was close to 10 percent and 
jobs were scarce, the majority of SNAP households with a nondisabled 
working-age adult were working households--working households.
  Working families are trying to earn more. No one wakes up in the 
morning dreaming to be on SNAP, but these are tough economic times. 
Some people have no choice. But we know that SNAP enrollment and 
spending on SNAP will go down as the economy improves, as families see 
their incomes rise and no longer need SNAP to feed their families. 
Don't take my word for it. This is directly from the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  Of course, last night in the Rules Committee, we heard the tired line 
that there's a lot of abuse in the SNAP program. We heard that there 
are countless numbers of people receiving benefits who do not deserve 
them. That, Mr. Speaker, is simply not true.
  It's a common and unfortunate misconception that SNAP is rife with 
fraud, waste, and abuse. Many have decried SNAP as a handout that can 
be sold or traded for alcohol and other items that shouldn't be 
purchased with taxpayer funds. It cannot. And to the extent that there 
is abuse, the USDA is cracking down on it.
  SNAP is both effective and efficient. In fact, the error rate for 
SNAP is not only at an all-time low, but it has among the lowest--if 
not the lowest--error rate of any Federal program. If only we could 
find a program at the Pentagon that had such a low error rate.
  Last night we also heard about categorical eligibility, a process in 
which a low-income person is automatically eligible for food stamps if 
they are already enrolled in another low-income assistance program.

                              {time}  0930

  Categorical eligibility--and I think it's important to state this 
because there's such misconception here. Categorical eligibility makes 
it easier for poor people, those people who are already approved for 
low-income assistance programs, to receive SNAP benefits. But it also 
makes it easier on the States that have to administer these programs. 
This saves time and money and paperwork, because the people who are 
already eligible for similarly administered benefits do not have to 
reapply for SNAP, and States do not have to waste workers' hours 
processing paperwork for people who are already eligible based on their 
incomes.
  Categorical eligibility does not mean that people who don't qualify 
for SNAP get those benefits. To the contrary, people still have to 
qualify for the program to receive food. Any claim that this is a 
fraudulent practice or that it is rife with abuse is just another 
falsehood and smear against one of the most efficient Federal programs.
  The demonization of SNAP and other food and nutrition programs by my 
Republican friends must come to an end. We have an obligation in this 
country to provide a circle of protection for the most vulnerable.
  Cutting $36 billion means that more than 22 million households will 
see a cut in their benefit. This means 22 million families will have 
less food tomorrow than they do today. In fact, 2 million people would 
be cut from the SNAP program altogether. Another 280,000 kids will lose 
access to free school meals.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle don't like to hear this, 
but sometimes the truth hurts. If this bill before us becomes law, it 
will take food out of the mouths of children in America, all in the 
name of protecting tax cuts for

[[Page 6558]]

the wealthy and increased Pentagon spending. The Republican 
reconciliation bill threatens Medicare, it threatens children's 
programs, it threatens educational programs, as well as programs that 
support our infrastructure. In short, if this were to be adopted as 
law, it would threaten our economy as a whole.
  And the bill not only protects the Pentagon budget, it increases it 
by billions of dollars. Does anyone here honestly believe there's not a 
single dollar to be saved anywhere in the Pentagon? If you do, you're 
not reading the newspapers. It's there in front of us every single day, 
the abuse that goes on. No-bid defense contractors. I can go on and on 
and on.
  We have, and will continue to have, the strongest military on the 
face of the Earth. But at some point national security must mean more 
than throwing billions of dollars at unnecessary nuclear weapons or at 
pie-in-the sky Star Wars programs that will never actually materialize.
  But national security has to mean taking care of our own people. It 
means educating our children. It means an infrastructure that isn't 
crumbling around us. It means clean air and clean water and a health 
care system that works. Those should be our priorities. But sadly, 
those are not the priorities in the bill before us today.
  Of course, Senator Reid says the bill is dead in the water in the 
Senate. At a press conference yesterday, the Senate Majority Leader 
said:

       As long as Republicans refuse to consider a more reasonable 
     approach, one that asks every American to pay his fair share 
     while making difficult choices to reduce spending, the 
     sequester is the only path forward.

  That's a pretty clear statement that the Senate will not consider 
this bill. Quite frankly, it's the right thing to do.
  A reasonable approach is what the American people want. Yes, they 
want us to get our fiscal house in order. They want us to reduce the 
deficit in a fair way so that the wealthiest among us pay their fair 
share. But mostly the American people want jobs, something the House 
Republican leadership continues to ignore.
  The American people know that the best way to bring this deficit down 
is through job creation. They want the economy to improve. They want 
their lives to get better. This bill does not do that.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by quoting President Dwight Eisenhower 
in a speech he made in 1953:

       Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every 
     rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those 
     who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not 
     clothed.

  I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that President Eisenhower wouldn't recognize 
today's Republican Party.
  We should reject this closed rule and the underlying bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I say to my friend, as the Republican Budget chairman said to him 
yesterday, I appreciate his passion on this issue. What brings us to 
the very best decisions that we can make in this body, Mr. Speaker, is 
having folks who work hard day in and day out educating themselves on 
the issues. They can bring the very best case for the American people 
to the floor.
  And that's why I would ask my friend whether or not he believes it 
actually helps that debate to get involved in some of those rhetorical 
feats of mind, I guess we would call them, because he knows as well as 
I know that under the law of the land, in 2002, food stamp benefits, 
SNAP benefits, would have gone up by about 40 percent over the last 10 
years, and Republicans and Democrats came together over the last decade 
and increased those benefits 270 percent, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, this proposal suggests that instead of going up 270 percent, we 
allow those benefits to go up 260 percent. That's the draconian cut.
  We see that in the same rhetoric in the student loan program, Mr. 
Speaker. Everyone in this body knows the law of the land was that 
student loan rates were at 6.8 percent--a below-market rate of 6.8 
percent. They were lowered for a very small fraction of the student 
population for a very temporary period of time to 3.4 percent, and the 
law now hasn't gone back to 6.8 percent, to standard levels. But folks 
want to talk about that as a doubling instead of a returning to common 
law.
  And more importantly, Mr. Speaker, to continue to suggest, as he 
knows is not the case, that Republicans are unwilling to focus on the 
Defense Department, let me say it plainly. I believe there is waste and 
fraud and abuse in the Defense Department, and I stand here willing to 
work with you to eradicate it all. I supported Ranking Member Van 
Hollen's amendment to put Defense on the table. The budget that this 
House passed--the only budget that's passed in all of Washington, 
D.C.--reduced defense spending by $300 billion in recognition of 
exactly that.
  And, Mr. Speaker, again, the rhetoric just gets a little overheated 
from time to time, and, candidly, I think it gets in the way of us 
doing the people's business. When I say to you that Secretary of 
Defense Leon Panetta, on August 4, 2011, said:
  If these defense cuts happen--and God willing that will not be the 
case, but if it did happen--it would result in a further round--because 
we've already cut once; in fact, already cut twice--a further round of 
very dangerous across-the-board defense cuts that I believe, says Leon 
Panetta, Secretary of Defense, would do real damage to our security, 
our troops, and their families.
  I would say to my friend: How does it advantage us to make this a 
Republican-Democratic issue when the Democratic chairman of the House 
Budget Committee, Leon Panetta, says allowing these cuts to go forward 
would be dangerous to our defense, to our national security, to our 
troops, and to our families? How does it advantage us to make this a 
Republican-Democratic issue when President Clinton's OMB Director, Leon 
Panetta, says this would be dangerous across-the-board defense cuts 
that would do real damage to our security, our troops, and our 
families? How does it advantage us to make this a partisan issue when 
President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, former OMB Director, 
former Democratic Budget Committee chairman, says: I believe allowing 
these cuts to go forward would do real damage to our security, to our 
troops, and to our families?
  Do we have real choices to make? We do.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you.
  The Democrats have a substitute amendment that would replace the 
sequester in a different way. It would prevent the across-the-board 
cuts from happening to defense and the non-defense programs. So there's 
an agreement that that meat-ax approach is the wrong way. We have an 
alternative.
  The gentleman just talked about how we have this great debate of 
ideas on the floor of the House. I have a very simple question: Why are 
we not going to get an up-or-down vote on our idea on how we would 
replace the sequester in a balanced way?
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman both for his 
comments and for his offering of that substitute.
  The reason is threefold:
  Number one, that substitute doesn't comply with the rules of the 
House. We made a decision in this body that we were going to not 
continue to ask for more and more and more out of taxpayers' pockets 
but that we were going to try to do our own business here in terms of 
oversight on all the money that's already being borrowed and spent and 
sent out the door.

                              {time}  0940

  Number two, that happened to be the rules that we adopted in this 
Congress, Mr. Speaker, but under the rules adopted in the last Congress 
in which you were the Budget chairman, you know your substitute would 
also not have been in order under the PAYGO rules that you instituted. 
Again, not a Republican or Democratic issue. Under a Republican House, 
the substitute is not

[[Page 6559]]

in order. And under a Democratic House, the substitute is not in order.
  But, number 3, and, I would argue, most importantly, I say to my 
friend, we've got a trust deficit with the American people, and it 
doesn't surprise me. When we talk about the 5-year impact of the 
reconciliation plan that we passed out of our Budget Committee and I 
hope that this House will pass today, we're talking about a net effect 
on debt reduction, the process for which reconciliation was created, of 
$65 billion over 5 years. Over the next 5 years, $65 billion is not 
going to have to be borrowed from our children and our grandchildren. 
Under the gentleman's substitute, over that same period of time, 
spending is actually going to go up by almost $37 billion. This is a 
process that is designed to reduce borrowing and spending, to reduce 
the burden we are placing on our children, and the gentleman's 
substitute increases the burden that we place on our children.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I don't want to take up all your time, but I would 
like to make the point that what our substitute does is, dollar for 
dollar, replace the sequester, which is what our Republican colleagues 
have said is the object of this effort, which is to make sure that we 
don't have the meat-ax approach.
  I would just note that the gentleman said that one of the reasons 
that we're not going to have an opportunity to vote on ours is because 
it doesn't comply exactly with the rules. In bringing the Republican 
bill to the floor today, I'm reading right here on the report, the 
committee report, you waived three rules. You waived three rules, and 
yet you can't allow an up-or-down vote on a substitute amendment. You 
know that you have it within the power to allow our substitute, just as 
you waived these three rules.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend, what we 
have within our power is the power to stop the borrowing and the 
spending. I'm reading here from today's Congressional Quarterly, 
because folks sometimes get confused, Mr. Speaker. We talked about the 
Reading Clerk and the tough work they had yesterday, reading today from 
Congressional Quarterly, it says here that Democrats left open the 
possibility that they would offer an alternative proposal through a 
motion to recommit, which is allowed under the rule. My friend on the 
Rules Committee knows that to be true. My friend on the Budget 
Committee knows that to be true.
  I look forward to your using that opportunity to bring your 
substitute to the floor for a vote. I think that is the right of the 
minority. I'm glad we preserved the right of the minority, Mr. Speaker.
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to reemphasize the point that Mr. Van Hollen made.
  You know, the Rules Committee has the right to be able to waive the 
rules to bring any piece of legislation to the floor. And as Mr. Van 
Hollen rightly pointed out, in the report on this rule, the Republicans 
waive, implement waivers because their proposal, without these waivers, 
would violate the rules.
  And so, you know, my friend talks about that this shouldn't be a 
partisan discussion. I would just say to my friend, the reason that 
this is a partisan discussion is because the Republicans have made it 
such by denying us the right to come to the floor and offer our 
substitute, not as a procedural matter, but as a real substitute. You 
have politicized this debate. You have shut us out, and that is why 
there is frustration.
  And I just want to say one other thing again because I am so sick and 
tired of the demonization of programs that benefit poor people in this 
country, especially the SNAP program.
  My friend was talking about all of this money that we invested in 
SNAP as if somehow we were giving these very generous benefits out. 
Just for the record, in 2002, the average SNAP benefit was $1 per meal 
per day per person--$1. With all of the improvements we have made, 
today it is about $1.50 per meal per day; and it is going to go down 
next year because of cutbacks we've already made in this program, 
unfortunately, to offset other things over the past few years. That 
means in a 10-year period that we have increased this benefit by 50 
cents per meal. Now, I don't know about my friend, but $1.50 doesn't go 
very far today.
  So when we're talking about trying to help people get through this 
economic crisis, that's what we're talking about. So this is not some 
extravagant, overly generous benefit. That's what it is. That's what it 
is. And rather than cutting waste in the Pentagon budget, which we all 
know exists, you protect the Pentagon budget. Rather than going after 
subsidies for oil companies and going after billionaire tax breaks, you 
protect all of that. And where do you go to find the savings? From 
programs that help the poorest of the poor. I mean, it's outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, 
and thank him for his leadership on efforts to ensure that those 
families who are struggling most in our country continue to have access 
to food and nutrition, and that children in our country continue to 
have access to health care. And that's what this debate is all about, 
because we do have an alternative.
  There is no disagreement on two things: Number one, we need to reduce 
our deficit in this country in a credible way; number two, the meat-ax 
approach of the sequester is not a smart way to do it.
  So how should we go about reducing our deficit? Well, we propose to 
do it in the same balanced way that every bipartisan commission that 
has looked at this issue has recommended--through a combination of 
difficult cuts. And I would remind everybody that just last August we 
cut a trillion dollars through a combination of cuts as well as cuts to 
tax breaks for special interests and by asking the wealthiest people in 
this country, people who are making $1 million a year, to contribute a 
little bit more toward deficit reduction.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will yield very briefly, yes.
  Mr. WOODALL. I have a very brief question.
  My understanding of your substitute is that it raises $3 in taxes for 
every $1 in spending cuts. Could you tell me which bipartisan 
commissions have represented that, have also agreed that $3 to $1 is 
the right combination?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Absolutely. I'm glad the gentleman asked the 
question.
  Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, they proposed an approach which was 
about $3 in cuts to $1 in revenue, depending on the accounting rules. 
We've already enacted $1 trillion in cuts, 100 percent in cuts. You 
voted for that; I voted for that, 100 percent cuts.
  What this does is, for the next 1 year, we do another $30 billion in 
cuts--a little over that, actually--and then we get about $80 billion 
through closing loopholes.
  For example, we say that the big oil companies don't need taxpayer 
subsidies to encourage them to go drill. They've already testified, 
their chief executives, they don't need that. They're making plenty 
right now. We also say that millionaires should pay the same effective 
tax rate as the people who work for them.
  And if you take that approach, frankly, with the trillion dollars in 
cuts we've already made, we are still cutting a lot more than the 
bipartisan groups recommended compared to the revenue. So our ratio of 
cuts to revenue is much higher because those bipartisan groups, they 
recommended that trillion dollars in cuts, and we adopted that on a 
bipartisan basis.
  What they are not doing, what you're not doing, is taking the other 
part of their recommendation, frankly, which

[[Page 6560]]

is to say let's close some of these outrageous tax loopholes for the 
purpose of deficit reduction. And because 98 percent of our House 
Republican colleagues have signed this pledge saying that they won't 
take one penny of----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You won't ask one penny more for people making over 
$1 million a year to help reduce our deficit, not one penny. And the 
math is pretty simple after that; because you ask nothing of them, your 
budget whacks everyone else. That's why your budget ends the Medicare 
guarantee; that's why you cut $800 billion out of Medicaid; and that's 
why, in your sequester proposal here, you whack programs that help the 
most vulnerable, struggling families.
  Let's talk about what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
said your proposal would do: 22 million households with children would 
see their food and nutrition support cut under the SNAP reductions; 
300,000 kids will no longer get the school lunch program; 300,000 kids 
will lose their health coverage under the children's health insurance 
program. Those are the decisions you have to make because you don't 
want to ask the oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidy.
  We say the American people would make a different choice. We have 
that different choice in the substitute amendment. That substitute 
amendment would prevent those cuts to the Defense Department. It would 
prevent cuts to NIH and biomedical research. But it would prevent those 
cuts without whacking seniors and children's health programs. It would 
do it in a balanced way.
  We say we don't need the direct payments to agricultural businesses. 
These are payments that go to ag businesses whether they're making 
money or not. The spigot is on. We cut those; you don't in your 
proposal that's before us today. Why not? Instead, you cut the food and 
nutrition programs.
  So we think the right approach is the balanced approach that every 
bipartisan group that has gotten together has recommended.

                              {time}  0950

  Because 98 percent of our Republican colleagues have signed this 
pledge saying they're not going to ask the folks at the very top to put 
in one penny, one dime more, you're smacking everybody else. We don't 
think that's the right way to go. We agree we should reduce the 
deficit. And we eliminate the sequester, but just in a different way.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say we just 
disagree on what balance is. When our proposal for budget reduction is 
to reduce spending by $65 billion over 5 years and your proposal for 
budget reduction is to spend an additional $35 billion over those same 
5 years, we disagree on what balance is. We are moving in the wrong 
direction under your proposal, right direction under our proposal. I'm 
very proud of our proposal, proud to serve on the committee with my 
friend.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise to support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent Selfridge Air National 
Guard Base, which is home to the Michigan Red Devils, the 107th Fighter 
Squadron.
  The 107th, Mr. Speaker, flies A-10s, and they recently returned from 
a redeployment to Afghanistan where they performed so bravely and made 
us all proud. The 107th was one of the Air Guard units scheduled to be 
eliminated under the President's budget proposal, but fortunately the 
House Armed Services Committee will present a Defense reauthorization 
bill next week which reverses that and saves the 107th, along with 
protecting the Air National Guard actually across the entire country.
  This House is going to do the right thing for the great American 
patriots of the Air National Guard by prioritizing spending within our 
budget, not by spending more money. So I would certainly urge our 
colleagues in the Senate to join us.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to remember that the cuts that caused the Obama 
administration to target the Air Guard were before the sequester. If 
the sequester is allowed to go into effect, the impact on the community 
that I represent, for example, would be immense, and the defense 
corridor we are building as a part of our economic revitalization would 
be stopped, really, dead in its tracks. Not only would the National 
Guard again be put at risk of massive new cuts, but military 
contracting across the board would be faced with additional cuts. In 
Macomb County alone--the county that I'm proud to represent as part of 
my congressional district--this would mean $200 million in additional 
cuts, Mr. Speaker, and obviously would cost countless jobs in the 
defense-related corridor.
  This House has taken steps to stop the devastation of our Air 
National Guard and now is taking steps to stop the devastation of our 
defense base and needless loss of jobs with commonsense reforms. So I 
would urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting reconciliation 
today, and the Defense reauthorization bill that's coming to the floor 
next week.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm proud to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, 
which chooses to slash programs that help struggling families get back 
on their feet without closing a single tax loophole or eliminating a 
single special interest subsidy.
  Our budget should reflect our values and, as many in the faith 
community have argued, it should advance the moral responsibilities of 
the Nation to provide for the common good. I note that the Catholic 
Bishops just sent a letter concluding that ``the proposed cuts to 
programs in the Republican budget reconciliation fail this basic moral 
test.'' I'm pleased that the bishops are speaking out, as they should.
  Forty percent of the total cuts here come from cutting assistance to 
low- and moderate-income families, including food stamps, Medicaid, the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, and social services for vulnerable 
children and elderly and disabled people. But instead of eliminating 
big agricultural subsidies where people don't have to plant a seed and 
they get paid, this budget would cause more than 200,000 children to 
lose their school lunch and would cut the food stamp program by $36 
billion. That means 46 million Americans, one-half of whom are 
children, would see their benefits cut, and 2 million Americans would 
lose them entirely. This, at a time when one in seven seniors faces the 
threat of hunger and one in five children right here in America--a land 
of plenty--face a similar risk. They are going to bed hungry in the 
United States of America. We know the impact of hunger and 
malnutrition: lower performances at school, poor growth, and an immune 
system less able to fend off illness.
  Instead of ending subsidies to big oil companies, this budget 
eliminates the Social Services Block Grant, which provides childcare 
assistance to low-income working mothers, addresses child abuse, and 
provides care for the elderly and disabled. About 23 million people, 
half of them children, would lose services.
  Instead of ending tax breaks that allow corporations to ship jobs 
overseas, this budget cuts Medicaid, slashes the Children's Health 
Insurance Program, and forces 350,000 Americans to forego health care 
coverage provided by the health care reform.
  Instead of asking millionaires to pay the same tax rates as middle 
class families, this budget makes children who are U.S. citizens but 
have immigrant parents ineligible for the child tax credit, harming 2 
million families and 4.5 million children who are United States 
citizens. They end the Medicare guarantee for seniors in this Nation.
  These cuts have a catastrophic effect on the most vulnerable in our 
Nation,

[[Page 6561]]

and for what? All to protect special interest subsidies and tax breaks 
for the richest members of our society. My friends, it's $150,000 for 
the average millionaire in a tax cut. That's what we're talking about 
in this piece of legislation. It is wrong. Budgets are about choices, 
about values. And this bill exposes exactly what this majority is all 
about.
  We need to pass legislation that strengthens and rebuilds the middle 
class of this country, creates jobs, invests in rebuilding our 
infrastructure, supports manufacturers, and restores fairness to our 
Tax Code. This reverse Robin Hood agenda of the House majority fails in 
every single regard, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, you know, when I hear my colleagues talk, 
it sounds as if we have a choice about doing one thing or another 
thing. I will say to my colleagues, when you're borrowing $1.4 trillion 
a year from your children----
  Ms. DeLAURO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. Just a moment. I'd be happy to yield to my friend.
  When you're borrowing $1.4 trillion a year from your children, when 
you're mortgaging the future of this country, it's not a choice of 
either spending cuts or revenue changes; we've got to have both. We've 
got to have both. And to describe it to the American people as if we 
can do one or the other and get ourselves out of this mess, we cannot. 
We absolutely cannot. It takes both.
  I would ask my friends--and with this, I'd be happy to yield to my 
colleague--when this House brought to the floor a tax cut bill that 
gave every Member of Congress a tax cut at the end of 2011 that said we 
only have to pay 4 percent of payroll taxes that we owe, instead of 6 
percent of payroll taxes that we owe, I voted ``no.'' I said there's 
not a Member in this body that needs a tax cut. I said we have too big 
a problem in this Nation to give tax cuts to Members of Congress. I 
voted ``no.'' Did anybody else vote ``no'' with me? Did anybody else 
vote ``no'' with me?
  I will not be lectured about how it is that tax cuts are distributed 
in this country when we have opportunities to cut them on this floor, 
to eliminate them on this floor, and my colleagues continue to vote 
``yes.'' We could have added a provision that eliminated those tax cuts 
for the rich. We did not, and we should have.
  With that, I'd be happy to yield to my friend.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The fact of the matter is that there are choices, and the majority 
refuses to make those choices.
  Let's not provide the tax cuts for people who are making over 
$250,000 in this Nation. Let us pull back from Afghanistan in an 
orderly way and save the money. Let us cut the subsidies for those who 
are sending the jobs overseas.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time from my colleague, and I very much 
appreciate her passion--if I can get regular order, please, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut will 
suspend.
  The gentleman from Georgia has the time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the Speaker for his help there. I'm sorry that I 
needed it, but I appreciate him offering it.
  You know, we passed a budget in this House, a comprehensive budget in 
this House. And to hear my colleagues talk, you'd think this is the 
only bill we're going to pass for the rest of the year. To hear my 
colleagues talk, you'd think we're not going to bring the farm bill to 
the floor and go after ag subsidies. To hear my colleagues talk, you'd 
think we're not going to bring a tax bill to the floor and try to raise 
revenues in this country. To hear my colleagues talk, this is it.
  This isn't it. This is the bill that responds to the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who said in February of 
this year about the cuts that we're trying to prevent today:

       I will tell you that I am prepared to say that 
     sequestration will pose an unacceptable risk.

                              {time}  1000

  That's what we're here to talk about today: How do we mitigate the 
unacceptable risk? How do we mitigate against the challenges that 
former Democratic Budget Committee chairman, former Clinton OMB 
Director, former Clinton Chief of Staff, current Secretary of Defense 
Leon Panetta says threaten our national security?
  And, again, we're going to have a choice, Mr. Speaker. We've brought 
a very powerful program, a very powerful proposal to the floor today, a 
very powerful proposal. For the first time in over a decade, we're 
trying to get a handle on that out-of-control portion of spending in 
this budget. Just a little bit, Mr. Speaker. Just a little bit.
  And, again, we just have a different idea of what balance is. We have 
a different idea of what deficit reduction is. My idea of deficit 
reduction is over the next 5 years we reduce the deficit.
  My colleagues' idea of deficit reduction is over the next 5 years we 
spend an additional $40 billion above and beyond what we were going to 
borrow and spend anyway. It's a legitimate difference of opinion. I'm 
glad we're bringing this rule to the floor, Mr. Speaker, so that we can 
have a vote on that opinion. I look forward to the debate on the 
underlying bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman.
  First of all, no one here on our side is arguing that sequestration 
should go into effect. We don't think that's good for our country, but 
we think that the Republican reconciliation bill is even worse for our 
country because of the cuts in so many programs that actually help our 
people.
  There's no balance in there. The gentleman can say I'm all for 
balance. There's none in your reconciliation bill. It's all cuts to 
programs that actually help the people of this country.
  And, finally, I'd just say we have an alternative to sequestration. 
Mr. Van Hollen brought that before the Rules Committee last night. The 
Rules Committee Republicans, every single one of them, voted ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I think I'll let this thing cool down a little bit.
  But the gentleman on the other side of this debate is quite wrong. 
There's no balance in this particular bill at all. There is no balance.
  The cuts are devastating. Meals on Wheels for seniors, Medicare 
programs, Medicaid programs for seniors. And if you take a look at the 
rest of the issues, school lunch programs, kids are going to go hungry. 
There's no balance.
  There is no tax proposal in this. There's no balance at all.
  But the reason I rise today is to add one more problem that's not 
being solved by this reconciliation. The National Flood Insurance bill 
was folded in to this reconciliation, and it has a gaping hole. The 
Corps of Engineers has gone through the Nation's levees and downgraded 
those levees, creating an enormous problem for agriculture throughout 
this Nation, and certainly in California, where many of the levees have 
been downgraded. It's now impossible for farmers and the agricultural 
community to obtain loans to continue to produce and to enhance their 
agricultural production.
  This amendment, which I had hoped could be put into the bill but was 
not allowed by the Rules Committee, would simply require an immediate 
study by the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to undertake a study on the impact of the downgrading 
of the levees and the resultant inability to get national flood 
insurance, and the impact that that has on the agricultural 
communities, keeping in mind that agriculture, in a flood zone, is one 
of the very best ways to reduce the risk.
  I would hope that the majority would consider, as this thing moves 
along, to fold into the National Flood Insurance Program an opportunity 
for the Farm Flood Program that I've introduced, which would allow 
farmers to obtain

[[Page 6562]]

national flood insurance, and then the lending that the banks could 
make available so they can continue to build the necessary facilities 
for their agricultural production.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, there are no tough choices here. I talked 
to the gentleman whose seat I took the other day. I said, John, you 
know, when you were up here as a Congressman, you made it look fun. 
Folks were always saying thank you, thank you, thank you for all the 
spending that was going on here. I said, I don't get to make any fun 
decisions.
  When you've increased the public debt in this country by 50 percent 
over the last 4 years, you're all out of giveaway decisions. All we 
have now are tough decisions. That's all we have.
  And, again, I know that my friend from Massachusetts speaks with 
passion and conviction. His advocacy for the neediest among us is an 
inspiration on the floor and in committee and on and on, and I don't 
fault him for that a bit.
  But I would say to my friend, had we not given that payroll tax cut 
to Members of Congress, we could have provided that food stamp increase 
that you discussed earlier to an additional 2 million individuals in 
this country, an additional 2 million individuals in this country had 
we foregone that tax increase right here. But we didn't. We chose just 
to go along with the program and cut away, spend away. We can't do 
that. We've got to stop that.
  And I would say to my friend, because it's hard, I have the same 
families struggling in my district that you do. In fact, our 
foreclosure rate in my district is higher than it is in your district. 
Our number of folks who are going homeless in Georgia as a result of 
foreclosures, higher than it is in Massachusetts.
  But when you talk about the additional 1.8 million folks, 1.8 million 
folks, Mr. Speaker, according to the CBO, who are going to lose their 
food stamp benefits under this bill, there's no question about that.
  But here's the thing, Mr. Speaker, and this is important. This bill 
doesn't cut anybody from food stamps. This bill says the only people 
who can get food stamps are people who apply and qualify for food 
stamps. Hear that, Mr. Speaker.
  The CBO tells us, and my friend from Massachusetts quotes, that 1.8 
million people are going to lose food stamp benefits. But the only 
change this bill makes is that you actually have to apply for the 
benefits to get the benefits. So that means 1.8 million people in this 
country are receiving food stamp benefits who would not qualify for 
food stamp benefits if they had to go and apply.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not mean-spirited. If you want to change the 
food stamp rules, if you want to make it a laxer process, whatever you 
want to do, let's do that. But let's not demonize each other. Let's not 
say we're trying to throw poor children out in the streets, when all 
we're saying is we have a successful food stamp program, and why don't 
we just limit it to those people who qualify for it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to yield to my friend from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you for the courtesy of yielding.
  The fact of the matter is that 1.8 million people will not be able to 
get the supplemental food that they get from food stamps. They're going 
to be hungry. That's a fact.
  Now, the rest of the fact is the application process has been 
supported by the Federal Government and by the legislation so that the 
States can reach out to those people that are hungry and that are able 
to qualify for food stamps. That's gone in this bill. So the ability to 
reach out and to bring into those programs----
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time from my friend, I would say reaching 
out and bringing folks into the program who do not qualify for the 
program. The rules for the program are clear, Mr. Speaker. If you 
qualify for food stamps, I am the first one who wants you to have it. 
If you qualify for the SNAP program, under SNAP program rules, you 
should get food stamps.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I'll be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Just so the gentleman understands, the General 
Accountability Office says the error rate in the SNAP program is less 
than 3 percent. What is he talking about when people are getting 
benefits that they don't deserve? I'd like to know the numbers of that. 
How much?
  Mr. WOODALL. This is important, Mr. Speaker, and I hope folks are 
paying attention back in their offices. The gentleman is talking about 
the error rate, the error rate, folks who have mistakenly gotten food 
stamps because in the application process they got the application 
process wrong. They shouldn't have qualified but they have given them 
away anyway.
  What the CBO says is something entirely different. What the CBO says 
is that 1.8 million American families, if they walked into the office 
today and applied for food stamps today, would not qualify for food 
stamps. It's not an error. It's not a mistake. It's that the rules of 
the game have been changed to say we just want everybody, we just want 
everybody to have a part in the program.
  When the gentleman says it's a paperwork nightmare for States, I 
happen to agree with the gentleman. There's a tremendous paperwork 
challenge for States. But this does not solve that. All we're saying is 
go through the application process. To suggest that we're trying to 
take benefits away from people who need those benefits is disingenuous.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to let the gentleman have his own time, 
Mr. Speaker, because I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Just by way of time update, the gentleman 
from Georgia has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.
  The gentleman is wrong. He's just wrong when he talks about the abuse 
of the SNAP program, that people are somehow getting benefits that 
they're not entitled to. And the demagoguery that's going on with 
regard to categorical eligibility is just inexcusable. That actually 
cuts paperwork and bureaucracy at a State level, and it helps people 
who are eligible to get the benefits.
  I'd also say to the gentleman, he gets up on the floor and talks 
about this payroll tax cut for Members of Congress. That was a payroll 
tax cut for everybody.

                              {time}  1010

  Now, if you wanted to exempt Members of Congress, that would be 
minuscule. That would do nothing to provide any benefit to anyone.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend that I wish he 
would show me the code sections here that go into the SNAP program, the 
codes that say, under the SNAP program, the income criteria that we had 
yesterday is changing, and so folks aren't going to get those benefits 
tomorrow. That's not here. All this bill does is to say you need to 
apply, and you need to earn those benefits on your own merits.
  When the gentleman talks about paperwork, he knows good and well the 
CBO took that into consideration. When the CBO says 1.8 million 
families are no longer going to qualify, it means some folks are going 
to get thrown off of categorical eligibility because that is the gaming 
of the system. They're going to go back in, and they're going to apply 
for benefits, and they're going to get them, but 1.8 million are going 
to go back in and apply and get denied because they don't qualify for 
benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, if we need to change the eligibility criteria, if we 
have folks in need who can't qualify, let's change the eligibility 
criteria. But in the name of good government, when we're going into 
programs and saying we have rules of the game--we just want people to 
have to follow them--to somehow define that as being mean-spirited, it 
galls me.

[[Page 6563]]

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  What galls me is that the Republican majority is balancing the budget 
on the backs of the most vulnerable in this country, on the poorest of 
the poor.
  The gentleman talks about the CBO. The CBO says that cutting $36 
billion from the SNAP program means that more than 22 million 
households will see a cut in their benefits. It means that 22 million 
families will have less food tomorrow than they do today. In fact, 2 
million people would be cut from SNAP altogether. That is not my making 
up numbers. That's the CBO. That's where I get that from. I think 
that's cruel and inhumane during one of the worst economic crises that 
we've faced.
  Yes, we have to balance the budget, and we have to make tough 
choices, but why does it have to be on the backs of the most 
vulnerable? Why can't Donald Trump pay a couple of more dollars in 
taxes? Why can't we end the subsidies to Big Oil? Why can't we make it 
so that Warren Buffett pays the same tax rate as his secretary? That's 
all we're saying here.
  Your reconciliation bill represents your priorities. What we're 
arguing is that your priorities are wrong and bad for the country. We 
have an alternative. You won't even let us have the opportunity to 
debate that alternative on the floor.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts 
that I am prepared to close if he has any more speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I'm it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Then I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to this closed rule to let the House work its will and to 
give Mr. Van Hollen's substitute an up-or-down vote in the House. It 
deserves more than a procedural vote.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think what we're talking about here 
today are two different visions for this country. The Republicans have 
their vision that is outlined in their reconciliation package. Mr. Van 
Hollen, I think, has adequately summarized what the Democratic 
priorities are.
  The main difference is that, in their proposal, there is no balance. 
It's a meat-ax approach to everything--cut, cut, cut, cut--regardless 
of what it means to the people of this country. What we're trying to do 
and, quite frankly, what other bipartisan commissions have recommended, 
is a more balanced approach: we cut spending, but there are also some 
revenues to be raised.
  At a time in our country when we have a Tax Code that allows Warren 
Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, it seems that it's 
time for a little fairness, and that's all we're asking for here. 
That's all we're asking for--a balanced, fair approach. We are prepared 
to make the tough choices. Yes, some of those tough choices mean cuts. 
But I'd say to the Republicans that some of those tough choices may 
mean you'll have to go back on the pledge that you signed with Grover 
Norquist, that you'll have to support closing tax loopholes and raising 
taxes on the wealthiest individuals in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would at this time like to insert in the Record a 
letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and I want to read 
one paragraph from that letter, which is to the Members of Congress:

       The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the 
     serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that 
     Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate 
     burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs. 
     However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts 
     must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and 
     vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the 
     budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test. The 
     catechism of the Catholic Church states it is the proper role 
     of government to ``make accessible to each what is needed to 
     lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, 
     education and culture, suitable information, the right to 
     establish a family, and so on.'' Poor and vulnerable people 
     do not have powerful lobbyists to advocate their interests, 
     but they have the most compelling needs.

  Mr. Speaker, that paragraph sums up what I feel and what so many of 
us feel about what my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing. 
Yes, we have to make tough choices, but why are always the tough 
choices on the backs of middle-income families and on the backs of the 
poor?
  There are people in this country who are hungry. We are the richest 
country on the planet, and we have hungry people here. Yet what is our 
response? It's not to figure out a way to help deal with this terrible 
scourge. Our response--their response--is to take a meat-ax approach to 
SNAP, which will cut benefits. That's what the CBO says, that it will 
cut benefits and that people will have less food tomorrow than they 
have today if this is to become law.
  I think that's a horrible choice. That's not a choice we should be 
discussing on the floor. Yes, let's make these programs more efficient. 
But I'm going to tell you the SNAP Program is a hell of a lot more 
efficient than the Pentagon--the waste, the fraud, and the abuse in the 
Pentagon, the wasteful weapons systems in the Pentagon. I want to tell 
you that I don't care what Leon Panetta says. There are savings to be 
found in the Pentagon's budget, and we ought to go after that. We ought 
to make sure that Donald Trump pays his fair share in taxes, and we 
ought to close these corporate tax loopholes that allow corporations to 
get away with paying no taxes. Middle-income families can't do that.
  This is about fairness. That's what we're looking for--fairness and 
balance. This is a tough time. But rather than following the European 
model--which my friends seem to love, a model of austerity and of cut, 
cut, cut, cut, which is not very popular, as they're seeing--what we're 
trying to do here is to make responsible cutbacks and responsible 
investments: investing in a robust highway bill to put people back to 
work, investing in education to make sure our young people are prepared 
to compete in the 21st century economy, and, yes, investing in the 
social safety net and investing in programs that provide a circle of 
protection to the poor and the most vulnerable.
  There is nothing wrong with that. We should be proud of the fact that 
we are a country that cares. Let's not give that up. That's a strength. 
It's not a weakness. It's a strength. I say to my colleagues that my 
biggest problem with what the Republicans are doing is that it fails 
that test. What it does is it goes after the most vulnerable in a way 
that, I think, is cruel and wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                                     Committee on Domestic Justice


                                        and Human Development,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 2012.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: As you vote on a reconciliation 
     package for the fiscal year 2013 budget, I would like to 
     affirm the principle contained in the Committee Report that 
     the ``budget starts with the proposition that first, Congress 
     must do no harm.'' In this light, I urge you to ensure all 
     policies meet the moral criteria established by the Catholic 
     bishops of the United States to create a circle of protection 
     around programs that serve poor and vulnerable people and 
     communities:
       1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it 
     protects or threatens human life and dignity.
       2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it 
     affects the lives and dignity of ``the least of these'' 
     (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, 
     without work or in poverty should come first.
       3. Government and other institutions have a shared 
     responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially 
     ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity 
     in difficult economic times.

[[Page 6564]]

       A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on 
     disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons; 
     it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising 
     adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other 
     spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health 
     insurance and retirement programs fairly.
       I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal 
     that would alter the Child Tax Credit to exclude children of 
     hard-working, immigrant families. The bishops' conference has 
     long supported the Child Tax Credit because it is pro-work, 
     pro-family, and one of the most effective antipoverty 
     programs in our nation. Denying the credit to children of 
     working poor immigrant families--the large majority of whom 
     are American citizens--would hurt vulnerable kids, increase 
     poverty, and would not advance the common good.
       The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, 
     formerly known as food stamps), provides vital food security 
     to families during tough economic times. It is estimated that 
     cuts proposed in this bill would deny assistance to two 
     million families, and cut the benefit for everyone else. No 
     poor family that receives food assistance would be 
     unaffected, constituting a direct threat to their human 
     dignity. If savings in agricultural programs need to be 
     achieved, subsidies and direct payments can be reduced and 
     targeted to small and moderate-sized farms.
       The Social Services Block Grant is an important source of 
     funding for programs throughout the country that serve 
     vulnerable members of our communities--the homeless, the 
     elderly, people with disabilities, children living in 
     poverty, and abuse victims. We should prioritize programs 
     that serve ``the least of these,'' not eliminate them.
       The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the 
     serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that 
     Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate 
     burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs. 
     However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts 
     must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and 
     vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the 
     budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test. The 
     Catechism of the Catholic Church states it is the proper role 
     of government to ``make accessible to each what is needed to 
     lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, 
     education and culture, suitable information, the right to 
     establish a family, and so on'' (no. 1908). Poor and 
     vulnerable people do not have powerful lobbyists to advocate 
     their interests, but they have the most compelling needs.
       As you pursue responsible deficit reduction, the Catholic 
     bishops join other faith leaders and people of good will 
     urging you to protect the lives and dignity of poor and 
     vulnerable families by putting a circle of protection around 
     these essential programs and to refrain from cutting programs 
     that serve them.
           Sincerely,

                              Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire,

                           Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice
                                            and Human Development.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
joining me on the floor today.
  I will say I think he chose exactly the right words when he was 
trying to make his points: describe your opposition as hating women and 
children, and that's your best chance of winning your argument. If only 
it were true.
  And that's what I hope the American people take home from debates 
like these, Mr. Speaker--that there are serious challenges here and 
that there are serious people who are here who are trying to solve 
these challenges. But we get wrapped around the axle in the name-
calling I hear, that I would argue does nothing to feed a child and 
that does nothing to take care of a family.
  The gentleman says that we're the richest Nation in the world. I 
would tell the gentleman there is no poorer nation on the planet. There 
is not a nation on the planet that has borrowed more money than this 
Nation has--not one, not one. What do they say about socialism, Mr. 
Speaker? It's a great plan until you run out of other people's money. 
Guess what? We've run out of other people's money.
  I just want to show you a chart, Mr. Speaker. This is a chart--and 
I'll show it so that other Members can see it. The green line 
represents tax revenues in this country. It goes back to 1947. What 
you'll see is that tax revenues are fairly flat as a percent of the 
economy. In fact, because this chart goes all the way back to 1947, it 
reflects the New Deal with FDR. It reflects all of that growth in 
government. The red line is the government spending. It goes all the 
way back through 1965. It reflects Lyndon Johnson and all the Great 
Society spending that goes on.
  I just want to make sure all of my colleagues can see it there. The 
red line represents where spending is going in this Nation, and the 
green line represents where taxes are historically in this Nation. Mr. 
Speaker, does this look like we have a tax problem here? Does it look 
like we have a spending problem in this Nation?

                              {time}  1020

  Taxes have remained the same as a percentage of GDP, as has spending, 
until now. Until now, we have a spending-driven crisis in this Nation. 
I say to my friend that, again, he chose all the right talking points: 
they want to protect the rich; they want to protect the oil companies.
  There is one bill in this Congress that you know well, Mr. Speaker, 
that eliminates every single corporate loophole exemption deduction and 
break. There's one. That same bill, Mr. Speaker, eliminates every 
loophole the wealthy use to avoid paying their fair share. Mr. Speaker, 
it is the single most popularly cosponsored tax bill, fundamental 
reform bill in the House and in the Senate. It has almost 70 Members in 
the House; it has nine Members in the Senate, and there is one Democrat 
on it.
  Mr. Speaker, giving the right speech down here about what folks ought 
to do doesn't move us in the right direction. Putting your name behind 
some legislation and moving something forward gets us in the right 
direction. This Budget Committee chairman sitting here beside me, I'm 
so proud of him. Chairman Paul Ryan, that's a man known around this 
country as a man who is trying.
  There are a lot of folks here who are known for blaming. There aren't 
many folks who are known for trying, who say, I don't care about the 
slings and the arrows. America is facing crisis. And if not me, then 
who?
  We got that in the House-passed budget, Mr. Speaker, folks who said, 
If not me, then who? And they made tough choices. Here we have the 
first reconciliation bill. My colleagues on the other side are going to 
offer a motion to recommit to this deficit-reduction bill that actually 
increases spending and call that balance.
  Mr. Speaker, the food stamp program spending has increased 270 
percent over the last decade. The mean-spirited folks that my 
colleagues talk about want to increase it by 260 percent instead. These 
aren't easy decisions, Mr. Speaker, but they're not going to put one 
family out that qualifies for food stamps.
  We're going to move beyond the demagoguery, Mr. Speaker. We're going 
to move into the real business that governing this Nation takes. I hope 
we'll get a strong bipartisan vote on this rule. I hope we'll get a 
strong bipartisan vote on the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of both the rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 648 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       Strike ``and (2)'' and insert ``(2) a further amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute submitted for printing in the 
     Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, if 
     offered by Representative Van Hollen of Maryland or his 
     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''.
                                  ____

       (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

[[Page 6565]]

     ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal 
     of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question 
     passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in 
     order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of 
     the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House 
     defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition 
     rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 177, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 244]

                               YEAS--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     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
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     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 (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--177

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Burgess
     Dicks
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Granger
     Hinchey
     Hurt
     Johnson (GA)
     Lynch
     Mack
     McCaul
     Noem
     Paul
     Slaughter
     Stutzman
     Waters
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1046

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. KISSELL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HURT. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 244, 
on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 648. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 244, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 6566]]




                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 183, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 245]

                               AYES--233

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     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
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     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
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--183

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Austria
     Bachus
     Berman
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Johnson (GA)
     Mack
     Noem
     Paul
     Slaughter
     Stutzman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1053

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 245, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________