[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4054-4065]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 27, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 163 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 163

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 27) establishing the 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2016 
     and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 2017 through 2025. The first reading of the concurrent 
     resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the concurrent resolution are 
     waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with 
     three hours of general debate confined to the congressional 
     budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and 
     one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals 
     and policies equally divided and controlled by Representative 
     Brady of Texas and Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York 
     or their respective designees. After general debate the 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
     the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except 
     those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. If more than one such amendment is 
     adopted, then only the one receiving the greater number of 
     affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In 
     the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative 
     votes, then only the last amendment to receive that number of 
     affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted. 
     After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution for amendment and a final period of general 
     debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall rise and report 
     the concurrent resolution to the House with such amendment as 
     may have been finally adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and 
     amendments thereto to adoption without intervening motion 
     except amendments offered by the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The 
     concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question of its adoption.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
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.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, I was looking around to see if folks were getting 
goosebumps as

[[Page 4055]]

the Reading Clerk was reading the rule. I was. I think that if folks 
were honest with themselves, they would be getting some goosebumps, 
too, because we don't always have the most open of processes around 
here. It is hard. We have 435 of us. We all represent different 
districts, constituents that often have different hopes and dreams, 
different challenges that they face. It is not easy to craft a process 
that allows every Member of this institution to have a voice.
  It is particularly not easy to allow every Member of this institution 
to have a voice on something as important as the budget of the United 
States of America. That is big, $3.8 trillion worth of big. And yet 
what you just heard from the Reading Clerk, Mr. Speaker, is that if we 
pass this rule, this rule that my colleagues and I on the Committee on 
Rules sorted out yesterday, if we pass this rule, we will begin the 
process that will allow a debate on every single budget submitted by 
every single Member of this House.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have written those budgets in the past. That is 
not an easy job. There is a reason we are not going to consider 435 
budgets. It is a big, big job. But more than being big in that it 
requires hundreds and hundreds of hours, it is big in that it requires 
you to put your money where your mouth is. That is not a task that 
folks often step up to the microphone to take on in this town, Mr. 
Speaker, but today we have budgets from the Progressive Caucus; we have 
budgets from the Democratic minority on the Committee on the Budget; we 
have budgets from the Republican Study Committee; we have budgets from 
the House Committee on the Budget and more. Every group that decided 
that they didn't run for this job to make campaign speeches but they 
ran for this job to make a difference has a chance to put their money 
where their mouth is.
  My friends in the Progressive Caucus, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this 
rule, we will be allowed to vote on a Progressive Caucus budget. My 
back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that their budget proposes 
increasing taxes by almost $7 trillion--$7 trillion. I don't support 
that kind of tax increase, but by golly, we ought to have a 
conversation about it. There are folks who are down here who are 
willing to recommend it. We should be willing to count the votes and 
see if it wins or whether it loses.
  I sit on the House Committee on the Budget as well as the Committee 
on Rules, Mr. Speaker. Our budget doesn't raise taxes at all, at least 
not the tax rates. We believe if you implement a responsible budget, we 
are going to see the economic engine of America begin to churn once 
again. We believe revenues are going to rise because it turns out, if 
you don't make any money, you can't pay any taxes. If you get the 
economy going, tax revenues begin to take care of themselves. Reduce 
about $5.5 trillion in spending, that is what the House Committee on 
the Budget proposes.
  I don't know where the votes are going to shake out, Mr. Speaker, and 
I am excited to find out. So often you come to the House floor, it has 
been pre-scripted: The votes have been counted; the process has been 
closed; it is just more of a show up and vote to give it some finality. 
But not so today.
  If we can come together as a Committee on Rules and pass this rule, 
if we can come together as a body and begin this debate, I don't know 
which budget is going to pass at the end of the day, but I know this: I 
know America will be the better for us having a process that includes 
absolutely every voice in this Chamber, and I know that our chances of 
turning this budget process, this collection of hopes and dreams that 
are in a document into the law of the land to make a difference in the 
lives of families in each of our districts back home, the chances of 
that happening will be much, much greater.
  Mr. Speaker, I have got lots to say about the budgets we have 
introduced, I have lots to say about the numbers that are behind those 
budgets, but I don't want to slow down what I know is going to be a 
bipartisan day and a bipartisan budget week.
  So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have some good economic news: the private sector has 
added 12 million new jobs over the last 60 months, 5 years; our 
national unemployment rate is down to 5.5 percent; we have reduced the 
deficit from 9.8 percent of our economy to nearly 3 percent; 16.4 
million people now have affordable health care who didn't have it 
before. These are good economic indicators, and we are moving in the 
right direction, but there is more to do to ensure that our economy 
gets and stays stronger.
  What we can't afford to do at this critical juncture is endanger all 
of the progress we have made by pursuing this drastic austerity agenda, 
and that is what the Republican budget is. They have an almost 
religious commitment to slashing government to pay for tax cuts for the 
wealthy. So they propose severe cuts to everything except the military, 
even though it means destroying Medicare coverage that was promised to 
seniors, cutting education funding that we need to help our children 
compete in the global economy, literally taking food out of the mouths 
of the poor, and snatching health insurance away from millions who now 
have access to affordable care coverage for the first time.
  Not only would the House majority raise taxes on the poor and give a 
$50,000 tax break to millionaires--a play that some like to call the 
reverse Robin Hood--but the House majority would slash funding for 
bridges and roads and gut funding for law enforcement and schools, 
double down on trickle-down economics and dynamic scoring, a failed and 
discredited set of policies that we know don't work.
  That is how the House majority wants to govern the greatest democracy 
on Earth, by cutting our way to prosperity. Not only is it dangerous, 
it is mathematically impossible. It just doesn't add up. But don't take 
my word for it. Here are some of the reactions to the Republican budget 
from the majority's allies and its own members.
  The American Enterprise Institute said about this budget: ``The House 
GOP leadership took the easy way out.''
  A Republican Member and Army veteran said that this budget ``makes 
our country weaker.''
  Another member of the House majority said: ``I am tired of seeing 
gimmicks in the budget process; I am tired of seeing gimmicks in the 
legislative process.''
  Finally, summing it up nicely, one Republican Member said, ``It's all 
hooey.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record several news reports 
documenting the criticisms of the GOP budget.

                       [From CNN, March 18, 2015]

     House GOP Members Threatening to Take Budget Down Over Defense

                           (By Deirdre Walsh)

       Washington.--A sizeable bloc of House Republicans are 
     vowing to defeat the GOP budget that was unveiled on Tuesday, 
     arguing it shortchanges defense programs at a time that 
     multiple national security threats around the world means 
     Pentagon spending should be boosted.
       ``As a Republican I do not want our budget to go down. But 
     as a veteran and somebody who has served in the Army I am not 
     going to be part of something that I believe that makes our 
     country weaker,'' Florida GOP Rep. Tom Rooney told reporters 
     Tuesday.
       Failure to pass a budget won't trigger any crisis--budget 
     resolutions are nonbinding and essentially symbolic 
     documents. They do set spending levels for various government 
     agencies and outline the party's priorities for reforming 
     entitlement programs and the tax code, but they lack the 
     force of law.
       But if House Speaker John Boehner can't cobble together 
     enough votes from his own members for a budget, he will add 
     another embarrassing setback to a pile of failed efforts this 
     year. Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 
     pledged that total GOP control of Congress meant they would 
     prove their party can govern and showcasing a unified budget 
     is key to that pledge.
       Last month, Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner, a senior 
     member of the Armed Services Committee, got 70 House 
     Republicans to sign a letter insisting that defense programs 
     receive a minimum of $561 billion that was included in 
     President Barack Obama's budget plan.

[[Page 4056]]

       Republican budget writers, however, were put in a box 
     because of the automatic across the board spending cuts, 
     known as sequestration, put into place by a previous budget 
     law. Those cuts cap defense spending at $523 billion.
       To address concerns from defense hawks, the House Budget 
     Committee used an accounting trick and added more than $30 
     billion in defense money to the ``Overseas Contingency 
     Operations,'' an emergency fund that doesn't count toward 
     their total spending number. On top of that money the 
     committee created a separate $20 billion reserve fund to add 
     more savings from other programs and promised to set both 
     pots of money aside for defense.
       But multiple House Republicans told CNN the move is merely 
     a gimmick.
       ``I don't think that it's fair game--I think it's fairy 
     dust stuff,'' Rooney said.
       The top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Rep. Chris 
     Van Hollen, also seized on the way Republicans structured 
     Pentagon money, saying on Wednesday the GOP budget ``plays a 
     shameless shell game with our defense spending. It would make 
     Enron accountants blush.''
       Boehner and his lieutenants also know some conservatives 
     won't back the measure because they want bolder reforms, but 
     threat from Republicans who want to see bolstered defense 
     spending is real.
       GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger ticked off a list of flashpoints 
     across the globe--ISIS in the Middle East, Ukraine, Boko 
     Haram--that weren't major threats in 2011, arguing the trend 
     shows the need to respond to growing threats, not cut back.
       ``It's a totally different world we live in and I think we 
     have to recognize that,'' he told CNN, adding he's not sure 
     how he will vote on the current measure and hopes it will be 
     changed.
       House Republican leaders also can't afford to lose more an 
     a couple dozen of their own members on this vote, because 
     Democrats will surely oppose the measure which repeals 
     Obamacare and cuts food stamp and education programs.
       There remains hope by some in the GOP, though, that they 
     can strike a balance that works for the majority of the 
     caucus.
       But even if House Republicans figure out a way to pass this 
     budget, the constraints on future proposals will persist 
     until Democrats and Republicans broker a compromise to do 
     away with the automatic cuts that they agree are unworkable 
     for both domestic and defense programs.
       ``Both sides need to come together and put their grown up 
     pants on and figure out how do we overcome this issue,'' 
     Kinzinger said.
       A budget resolution brokered between the two chambers is 
     supposed to be negotiated by April 15th so spending panels 
     can move forward with their work.
                                  ____


                       [From AEI, March 17, 2015]

                House GOP 2016 Budget Resolution is DOA

                         (By Mackenzie Eaglen)

       Even though House Republicans just unveiled their draft 
     budget for the next ten years, it is already painfully clear 
     how this is going to end for defense.
       1. The House budget resolution will not have enough votes 
     to pass as written. There will be no conference with the 
     Senate as a result.
       2. The defense appropriations bill that passes the House 
     will match the legal spending caps for the core defense 
     budget at $499 billion for 2016.
       3. Congress will seek to add additional emergency 
     supplemental funds--or overseas contingency operations (OCO) 
     money--for defense above President Obama's levels, but much 
     of it will ultimately be stripped out during floor debate.
       4. The defense spending bills that pass in both chambers 
     will not become law. Most likely, the federal government will 
     start the fiscal year operating under another continuing 
     resolution (CR).
       5. All eyes will turn to the Budget Committee chairmen to 
     craft a follow on to the Ryan-Murray Bipartisan Budget Act to 
     stanch the bleeding and triage the patient (defense) while 
     providing some fiscal certainty and relief for the military 
     later this summer or early fall.
       Only after this long, torturous path to the end will 
     leadership finally understand why the House Republican budget 
     blueprint for 2016 is wholly insufficient to provide for 
     America's military. First, the budget limits base defense 
     spending to about $499 billion in 2016, in line with caps 
     mandated under current law. This is a budget $35 billion 
     below what President Obama has requested, and about $112 
     billion below what former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates 
     thought would be necessary for the Pentagon when he crafted 
     his final budget in 2012.
       As an attempt to appease both budget and fiscal hawks, the 
     House budget seeks to offset a lower base defense budget by 
     increasing Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) ``wartime'' 
     spending. That is because these emergency funds are exempt 
     from budget caps and essentially ``off the books.''
       While the House GOP budget would ostensibly increase 
     Pentagon OCO funding to about $90 billion compared to the 
     Obama administration's 2016 request of roughly $51 billion, 
     much of this increase is an illusion. First, the plan uses a 
     budgetary procedure known as a deficit-neutral reserve fund 
     to increase OCO spending by more than $20 billion. Reserve 
     funds call for increased spending in certain areas but only 
     upon the condition that offsetting cuts or revenues are 
     generated elsewhere.
       Without corresponding deficit reduction, reserve funds do 
     not lead to increased spending. This means that while the 
     House plan promises about $39 billion in OCO spending over 
     the president's request, about half of this increase will not 
     materialize.
       Realistically, the Pentagon should expect no more than 
     about $569 billion from the House budget between base and 
     wartime spending--well under the $585 billion the president 
     requested.
       Even if taken at face value, the OCO increase contained in 
     the House budget will not make up for years of neglected 
     Pentagon modernization and readiness. The reality is that the 
     base budget and war spending accounts buy different outcomes 
     and effects. Emergency funds buy mostly perishable items like 
     readiness, maintenance, training, and war-related consumables 
     like fuel. This makes OCO spending the equivalent of a sugar 
     high. It contains empty calories that are rapidly consumed by 
     ongoing operations, but does not provide for the long-term 
     health of the military. Only robust and predictable base 
     budgets--as the bipartisan National Defense Panel 
     recommended--can provide long-term funding for readiness, 
     force structure and modernization.
       Moreover, by relying on debt-financed supplemental money to 
     put a Band-Aid on the military's growing wounds, the House 
     budget provides a false sense of accomplishment of having 
     ``fixed'' defense. The unfortunate reality is that it does 
     not. While the budget does propose increased defense spending 
     in the future, the only year that matters is 2016. And, in 
     2016, the House GOP plan keeps current spending caps locked 
     in. Not only is that insufficient, but the president is sure 
     to veto the defense spending bill when it ultimately hits his 
     desk at these levels.
       For three and a half years, the military has languished 
     under the Budget Control Act's irresponsible defense cuts as 
     threats around the world have increased. While both political 
     parties share in the responsibility for passage of the Budget 
     Control Act, the GOP now controls Congress. The House budget 
     resolution is clear that defense is only one priority of 
     many, and one far down the line at that.
       The House GOP leadership took the easy way out--politically 
     and budgetary. This resolution will do little to draw support 
     from policymakers with a deep understanding of the crisis in 
     defense and will likely end up failing for not pleasing any 
     bloc in the party, including defense hawks, fiscal hawks and 
     appropriators.
       For the Pentagon, this means another long year of budget 
     uncertainty with no foresight into how or when the budgetary 
     process will end and at what spending levels. That hurts not 
     only the military, but taxpayers as well since it creates 
     inefficiency and drives up program and planning costs across 
     the largest federal agency.
                                  ____


                  [From The Examiner, March 17, 2015]

    Conservatives Question `Gimmicks' in House GOP's Defense Budget

                             (By Tara Copp)

       Republican budget leaders announced a fiscal 2016 plan 
     Tuesday that appeases the defense hawks in their party by 
     nearly doubling wartime spending, but the move has prompted 
     pushback from their most conservative flanks, highlighting 
     the challenges ahead.
       Nine conservative House Republicans who hosted a discussion 
     with reporters shortly after the budget's release said they 
     want ``to get to yes'' on the GOP's plan, but they raised 
     concerns about the plan's direction.
       They questioned whether additional military spending has 
     been properly vetted, noted that the sequester-immune account 
     boosting military spending is not in line with the promises 
     they made to their constituents to deliver a balanced budget, 
     and pointed out that the added defense needs will require 
     concessions to Democrats that will further distance the party 
     from its political goals.
       ``Republicans are in the majority, but conservatives are 
     not,'' said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. But he added that the 
     final bill will need to address conservatives' concerns. 
     ``There are a lot more conservatives than are at this table 
     today.''
       Lawmakers said they specifically invited four officers and 
     agents to testify.
       The members were also doubtful that they could garner 
     enough intra-party support for the blueprint to move the bill 
     through on a process known as reconciliation, due to 
     differences on spending within their party.
       Reconciliation, if enough Republicans agree to it, would 
     allow the budget to be passed on a simple majority, 
     effectively cutting out Senate Democrats' ability to block 
     it.
       ``We need to make sure we are the party of fiscal 
     conservatism,'' said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. ``I 
     understand some of the concerns from defense hawks who want 
     to blow through the [spending] caps. But I'm tired of seeing 
     gimmicks in the budget process. I'm tired of seeing gimmicks 
     in the legislative process.

[[Page 4057]]

       ``At the end of the day, if you want to increase spending 
     on programs Republicans like, you are going to have to accept 
     some compromise for Democrats. So for those who are pushing 
     for higher spending, they'd better be prepared to go to 
     higher spending on Democratic programs and possibly tax 
     increases.''
       In the 2016 plan, which House Budget Committee Chairman Tom 
     Price, R-Ga., announced Tuesday, keeps the Defense 
     Department's baseline budget to the $523 billion sequester 
     cap--but then adds another $94 billion in the wartime fund 
     known as the overseas contingency operations account, which 
     is not subject to sequester caps.
       ``That's one of the issues I am having with the budget,'' 
     said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho. ``I think if you are going 
     to plus up military spending you should have to do it within 
     the budget--not in a separate [wartime] account. I think we 
     have to ask the fundamental question, `what is all that money 
     being spent on in the military? It's not a question that 
     Republicans are willing to ask.''
       Price's assurance that defense could be beefed up under a 
     balanced budget also was questioned.
       ``I don't know anybody who honestly believes we are going 
     to balance the budget in 10 years. It's all hooey,'' said 
     Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo. Buck said with winding down operations 
     in Afghanistan and the end of the 2008 financial crisis, it 
     is now time to make push difficult spending cuts to balance 
     the budget.
       ``We continue to put off the pain,'' Buck said.
       Labrador said it's not a question of defense as a priority, 
     but the willingness to scrutinize defense spending.
       ``I want to protect the military as much as anybody. But it 
     seems we have an unquestioning disregard for what its 
     actually being spent in the military sometimes as 
     Republicans, and I have a concern about that.
       ``So now what we are going to do is . . . put it in the 
     [overseas contingency] account and we are going to forget 
     about the promises that we made to our constituents that we 
     are going to balance the budget,'' Labrador said.
       Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said he was ``leaning toward yes'' 
     in supporting the additional Pentagon spending, but that he 
     wanted to see the final bill. ``Obviously we want to do 
     everything we can for national defense, but we understand the 
     dynamic we are in,'' Jordan said.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. The Republican budget would force hardworking families 
to work harder for less. The proposal turns Medicaid into a State block 
grant, makes students pay more for tuition, decimates the Pell grants 
for college tuition, slashes food stamps, and turns Medicare into a 
voucher program for the future recipients, all the while keeping 
billions of dollars in tax breaks for Big Oil.
  Today, Medicare guarantees insurance coverage for seniors, but 
imagine with me, if you will, a world in which Medicare is just a fixed 
amount voucher. Instead of insurance, your grandparent is given a set 
amount of money and is sent out on his or her own to negotiate with 
multinational companies; and if they need a medical plan that is more 
expensive than that voucher, the balance comes straight out of their 
pocket, or, if they can't afford it, they have no insurance. Not only 
does the budget show a clear disdain for working families, middle class 
families, students, and the elderly, but it was so haphazardly drafted 
last week that the media exposed a drafting error in the bill that 
revealed an additional $900 million in cuts. Imagine that, nearly a 
billion dollars that had been overlooked.
  What is more, the House majority is playing fast and loose, using 
budget gimmicks to violate agreed-upon spending caps in the 
sequestration and to fund critical long-term Department of Defense 
needs out of a temporary war slush fund, the overseas contingency 
operations account, a slush fund the use of which Republicans decried 
just last year for undermining the budgetary process.
  The Secretary of Defense, Dr. Ashton Carter, has highlighted the need 
for predictability in the Department's budget. He would like to know 
from one year to the next what is a gimmick and what is real, something 
that the House majority refuses to ensure. Ashton Carter, Secretary of 
Defense, says the only way that he can provide funding for the military 
is through stability, not through slush funds, spending caps, and 
budget games.
  This is how the majority chooses to run our government: with tax 
breaks for millionaires and billionaires, with financial incentives for 
Big Oil, tax breaks for corporations that ship their jobs overseas, and 
tax policies that burden the people whose heads are barely above water. 
But, most importantly, it hurts the SNAP program, when thousands, 
millions of Americans go to bed hungry every night. How dare we 
threaten the very thing that gives them some peace of mind and some 
food to eat. That is also, by the way, an agriculture program that our 
farmers depend on to help them make a living.
  Mr. Speaker, let's take a different course. Let's grow the economy 
from the middle class out, not try to hope something will trickle down 
on it. Let's fix our crumbling roads and bridges, and let's invest in 
our kids and make it easier to go to college, not harder. Let's respect 
the contribution of our Nation's seniors and make certain that they 
have the stability that they need in their health care to make 
financial decisions with some degree of certainty. We could do that by 
adopting the Democratic alternative. And while my colleagues in the 
minority might be getting fatigued saying this over and over that what 
we have isn't just a list of numbers, it is a statement of our ideals, 
instead of a slash-and-burn budget that puts at risk the economic 
growth of the last 5 years, we propose investments in our 
infrastructure, in our children, in our economy, and in our future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am not sure if I was clear when I got started, and I apologize if I 
was not. We are going to vote on every idea that folks have. We are 
going to vote on every budget that was introduced. If you have a plan 
about how to better run this Nation, you don't need to complain about 
somebody else's vision; you are allowed to bring your own vision to the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we all care about men and women back home in our 
districts. What you can see on this chart is the interest spending 
alone under current law in year 2025. That is the 10th year of the 
budget window, almost a trillion dollars in interest alone. When we 
hear about what the spending priorities are that each Member of this 
Chamber has, we have to ask ourselves, so what are you doing to balance 
the budget so that interest doesn't consume it all?
  As you can see, Mr. Speaker, under current law, if we don't make 
necessary changes, we are going to be spending more on interest alone 
on the national debt than we are on all defense issues combined. We are 
going to be spending more on interest on the national debt than we 
spend on Medicaid, our largest health care program, to help those 
constituents in need in our district. If you care about folks who are 
in need in your district, you care about balancing the budget, because 
we all know that in a debt crisis, the folks who get hurt the most are 
the folks who are most dependent on government services.
  Mr. Speaker, in this great festival of democracy that is the budget 
process, we have a budget before us today that purports to balance in 6 
years. The Republican Study Committee has introduced that budget. We 
are going to have a vote on it today. We have the budget that came out 
of the House Committee on the Budget. It purports to balance in 10 
years. We are going to have votes on budgets in this process, Mr. 
Speaker, that anticipate balancing never--never.
  The President's budget, for example, Mr. Speaker, the President's 
budget projects $2 trillion in new taxes--$2 trillion in new taxes--and 
never balances. It doesn't balance next year; it doesn't balance 10 
years from now; it doesn't balance 20 years from now. It balances 
never. Every time we borrow a dollar from our children or our 
grandchildren, we are promising, we are committing either an additional 
dollar in taxes on those same children and grandchildren plus interest 
in the future or an additional dollar in benefit cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to have this robust debate about our spending 
priorities, but it ought to start from the position that we have an 
obligation to pay for the bills that we are running up today. I say to 
my friends, these are

[[Page 4058]]

not small things that we are arguing about. I want to talk to you about 
how do we invest more in transportation. I want to talk to you about 
how do we invest more lifting people up from that bottom rung of the 
ladder to the next rung of the ladder, to the next rung of the ladder.

                              {time}  1245

  I want to talk about how to invest in America, but every time we vote 
for a budget that doesn't balance, we threaten that future. We have 
more in interest payments on the national debt than on all national 
security combined.
  I don't know that we are going to find that agreement today, Mr. 
Speaker, but if we pass this rule, again, we will be able to begin that 
process where all of the ideas will be debated.
  I just encourage my friends, when each budget comes to the floor, ask 
this question: Do we plan for balance ever? Do we anticipate ending the 
added burden on our children ever? Do we anticipate mortgaging our 
children's future for as far as the eye can see, or do we anticipate 
taking responsibility?
  We have got a lot of budgets to choose from, a lot of opportunities 
to take responsibility for. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my friends to 
support this rule so that we will be able to bring those bills to the 
floor.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the time of year where we begin to debate our 
Nation's budget, ostensibly, our plans for the fiscal future of our 
Nation.
  There was a time, far ago in the past, before the invention of the 
Ryan budget and the Price budgets, when this time of year represented 
an honest, informed discussion of our different views of the future of 
our Nation and how to restore fiscal stability.
  Since the Ryan budget, though, which says it balances, but doesn't; 
which includes tax revenue for laws that it says it repeals; which 
creates fiscal growth out of thin air; this discussion, unfortunately, 
has devolved into nothing more than political theater.
  Somehow, this year, as we consider this rule today on the first ever 
Price budgets, the process has fallen even further. Gimmicks are being 
stacked on gimmicks. The Budget Control Act and its caps are law, and 
everyone on my side of the aisle stands ready to work together to come 
to a compromise solution that allows for both our domestic spending 
needs to be met as well as our national security needs.
  But that is not the discussion we are having. Instead, we have a 
budget--or budgets--which completely circumvent common sense and 
budgetary convention by adding billions of ``base budget'' money to the 
overseas contingency account, essentially giving President Obama a 
record slush fund to engage in wars of his choice without consulting 
the United States Congress.
  Those are the Republican plans before you. What we have is a 
fictional budget. But then, that fictional budget wasn't enough for 
everyone. So here we are, being asked to pass a rule which looks a lot 
like the rules you might see at an auction at the county fair. The most 
votes wins the blue ribbon.
  This isn't the county fair. This is the United States Congress. This 
is our official budget plan of a major American political party for 
fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
  I reject this rule today. We can do better. We can have an honest 
discussion about our budget priorities and about restoring fiscal 
stability for the next generation. We deserve a serious proposal rather 
than this fun and games and gimmicks that we have before us under this 
rule.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my 
friend, that is what is so wonderful about this process. The days for 
pointing out who is so wrong and their ideas are so bad are left for a 
campaign season. This is the day where you bring your ideas to the 
floor of the House, and every single idea that was offered is going to 
be considered. Mr. Speaker, that doesn't happen by accident.
  At this time it is my great pleasure to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the 
Rules Committee and an outspoken advocate for trying to bring these 
ideas to the floor, without whom we would not be able to be here today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia, who represents not only the Rules Committee but conservatives 
from across our Conference on the Budget Committee. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for bringing this bill to the 
floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we had an opportunity to have Chairman Tom 
Price come and speak with us about the budget and what costs what and 
what decisions we wanted to make and what direction we were going to 
go.
  It was really pretty simple. He said he is presenting a budget that 
is going to balance. He is presenting a budget that is going to fund 
our military properly. And he has got a budget which is one we cannot 
only understand but believe in.
  One of the questions I asked him yesterday was: Mr. Price, how much 
does the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare, cost the taxpayer and 
the budget? He said: You know, I don't know, but I'll get back to you. 
Well, by the end of the hearing, he said--what he could figure--it is 
$108 billion.
  Now, I have not checked this out. In fairness to Tom Price, he is 
allowed to go and doublecheck everything. That was a cursory view.
  Mr. Speaker, if that is true, and if I accept the figures that the 
gentlewoman, the ranking member of the committee, said of the number of 
people who are on ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act--about 12 
million--if you just do simple multiplication, 12 million into $108 
billion, we are talking literally every single recipient would be 
costing this government more than $5 million per person for their 
insurance.
  It is staggering. It is staggering that our friends, the Democrats, 
passed--it took us all day--a bill that they told us at least 24 
million people who were uninsured would be on it, and a whole bunch of 
other people, and now here we are some 4 years later, a whopping total 
of 12.5 million at a cost of $100 billion or more. And yet they come to 
the floor and look at us like we are some self-righteous group of 
people because we want to balance the budget and change the direction.
  Mr. Speaker, this budget is not about doing away with the Affordable 
Care Act. It is about properly looking at the money that comes in to 
the Federal Government and us properly allocating it back out. And $108 
billion for 12 million people is immoral. It is unconscionable. And yet 
that was the testimony yesterday. Once again, I am going to have to 
look at it again, and I know Chairman Price is going to as well.
  Mr. Speaker, this is why we do budgets. We do budgets so that we do 
ask the tough questions, so that we can put a pencil to the millions, 
billions, and trillions that the American taxpayer sent us here to do.
  For us to be on the defensive by our friends, the Democrats, about 
wanting to balance the budget, about us wanting to do the things that 
will balance out and not only netting them out to where we don't spend 
more than what we take in, but being on the defensive because we are 
doing the right thing to sustain America's greatest days ahead of us, I 
think is a real mistake for the people who make the argument against 
us, when they are the people that passed--without one Republican vote--
what we were told is $108 billion for 12.5 million people.
  Mr. Speaker, we have got to get away from this yelling and screaming 
and go to the numbers. And that is what Tom Price did. That is what Mr. 
Woodall is doing. They are looking at how we are spending our money and 
what we are getting as a result of it. And if it really is true that 
for everybody who is on this Affordable Care Act, the true cost

[[Page 4059]]

to the taxpayers is over $5 million for each person, then shame on us 
for not knowing, asking, and understanding. And that is what we are 
doing today, Mr. Speaker.
  Tom Price, our young chairman from Georgia, actually has taken time 
to go and look at the budget. He is also doing a lot of other things 
that the gentleman from Texas, Mike Burgess, gave him credit for 
yesterday, where he is looking at some $800 billion--almost a trillion 
dollars--that is sitting in agencies, not spent yet, that has 
previously been given to them. The taxpayer paid for it, and they are 
just sitting there waiting to spend the money.
  Mr. Speaker, it is Republicans, it is Tom Price, it is Rob Woodall, 
it is the members of the committee who have taken the tough votes and 
have done their homework. And that is what we are presenting here 
today. We are presenting the hard work from a committee called the 
Budget Committee to come and look at, once a year, how much are we 
spending, what are we getting, and how can we do it better?
  So I will reject the arguments from those who say that the 
Republicans aren't doing the right thing. We are doing the heavy 
lifting. It is Republicans who are trying to look at the billions that 
are being spent. Not just the thousands, but the hundreds of millions 
and the thousand billions. Because a thousand billion is a trillion. 
And this is a big budget, and we need people to do what we are doing.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I stand up for not just my party, the Republican 
Party, but I stand up for the honest and legitimate work that Tom Price 
and the Budget Committee have done. And I intend to follow up with this 
committee and to make sure we know more about the real cost of 
government because it is the real cost of government that turns the 
direction of our country, where we pass by that effort of where we 
create good behavior and we help people to, one, where we create people 
who are leaning on the government for their life, for their lifestyle, 
and for their future. And that is a mistake. That is a mistake--and one 
that the Republican Party will try and stand up to.
  I understand the difference between a person who is able-bodied and 
not. I have a son with Down Syndrome, and I understand that we do need 
to do the right things for people who can't take care of themselves--
those with an intellectual or physical disability. I get it that we 
should be there for poor people.
  But it is unconscionable if we are paying $5 million for an insurance 
plan, per person, under the Affordable Care Act. That is beyond the 
wild ideas of boondoggle. It is immoral.
  So, the Republican Party is going to ask the tough questions. And 
when we go to the voter or taxpayer and we say: Here is what we want 
you to understand about your money, we can do it with the authority and 
the responsibility that we have done the homework. We sharpened our 
pencils and we made a real difference by understanding not just dollars 
and cents, but the future of this great Nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Now I think I understand it all. I believe I understand how you could 
lose $900 million when you are doing your budget.
  By what possible means do you think that we are paying $5 million for 
each person's health care who is on the Affordable Care Act?
  The rising cost of health care for the first time in 50 years is 
going down. But nobody ever paid $5 million for anybody's health care 
in a single year. It is the most atrocious thing I think I have heard 
on this floor.
  Mr. and Mrs. America, these are the people you have entrusted your 
Congress to. They are the people who are writing your budget. They are 
the people who are going to voucherize your Medicare, who are going to 
turn Medicaid into a block grant and help some people, maybe not. These 
are the people making sure that the roads and bridges are crumbling and 
that are going to take food out of the mouths of the poor.
  This is the kind of math that you are practicing over there? For 
heaven's sake.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who I 
hope is as angry as I am, a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Ms. LEE. I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for making 
it very plain in terms of what their budget does and does not do.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the 
underlying bill. Yes, I am a member of the Budget Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee, and I know that our national budget is a 
statement of our national priorities and our values. And I know very 
well that the Republican budget is full of misplaced priorities and it 
is not a moral document.
  This budget should not be rigged in favor of special interests and 
the wealthy few, but the Republican budget is. Our Nation's budget 
should prioritize working families, too many of whom are making low 
wages and living below the poverty line. It should assist those working 
hard to find a job and invest in workforce training, job training, and 
job creation. Instead, this Republican budget keeps tax breaks for 
corporations and the superwealthy.
  Our budget should open educational opportunities for all, but the 
Republican budget slashes Pell grants that Congress has already paid 
for by $89 billion.

                              {time}  1300

  A budget--a moral document--a budget that invests in the American 
people should invest in our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, but the 
Republican budget cuts funding for our roads, our bridges, and our 
rail.
  It should contain a serious and effective strategy to end poverty if 
we really believe that our budget is a reflection of our values and is 
a moral document. The House Republican budget offers none of these.
  In fact, it slashes programs that support low-wage workers and people 
working hard to find a job. These families shouldn't have to go hungry; 
yet, because their wages are so low, they need food stamps. By cutting 
$150 billion from SNAP, this budget creates more hunger and more 
poverty for people who are working.
  Many of the programs in this budget are a legacy of the War on 
Poverty, which cut the poverty rate in our country by one-third in 50 
years. Let me just read the list of programs that you are cutting and 
what the War on Poverty listed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. LEE. The Civil Rights Act, the Criminal Justice Act, Food Stamp 
Act, Older Americans Act, Social Security amendments, Voting Rights 
Act, HUD, all of these programs, Higher Education Act, these are 
initiatives that you are cutting that provide pathways out of poverty.
  This Republican budget balances on the backs of the most vulnerable 
to preserve tax loopholes for the superwealthy and slush funds for 
Pentagon contractors.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on this budget.
  List of War on Poverty Programs: the Civil Rights Act (1964); the 
Urban Mass Transportation Act (1964); the Criminal Justice Act (1964); 
the Food Stamp Act (1964); the Older Americans Act (1965); Social 
Security Amendments (1965); the Voting Rights Act (1965); the Housing 
and Urban Development Act (1965); the Public Works and Economic 
Development Act (1965); the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Act (1965); the Amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(1965); the Higher Education Act (1965); the Child Nutrition Act 
(1966); the Child Protection Act (1966); and the National School Lunch 
Act (1968).
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds just to ask the 
gentlewoman from California, I understand why she objects to the 
Republican budget. What I don't understand is why she objects to the 
rule.
  We have made every single budget that any Member of Congress asked to 
be made in order, we made that in order. Could the gentlewoman tell me 
why she opposes the rule?

[[Page 4060]]

  I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Why do I oppose the rule?
  I oppose the rule, first, because this rule, if it moves forward, 
would allow for the Republican budget, which we know could pass this 
body, with these huge cuts. I think we need to go back to the drawing 
board and minimally put back and restore cuts to the SNAP program.
  Any budget that has SNAP cuts, cuts to Pell grants, does not invest 
in infrastructure, any budget that does that, regardless of the budgets 
that have been put forward, I don't want to see this debate put forward 
with those cuts in place.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Candidly, I am certainly on the other side of that issue. I 
understand that somebody is going to win and somebody is going to lose, 
but I think the process is always better when we allow everyone's ideas 
to come to the floor, and that is one of the things this rule does, and 
I am very grateful that we have been able to do that. I thank my 
friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole), a member of the Rules Committee, a member of the Budget 
Committee, and a member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I want to pick up and thank my friend and thank our chairman of the 
Rules Committee for doing exactly what he just suggested, bringing us a 
rule that lets everybody bring their choices to the floor. That is what 
we all like to do around here.
  Interestingly enough, we essentially have three Democratic choices 
and three Republican choices, and we are going to have an opportunity 
for people to express a variety of opinions and arrive at a consensus 
in this body.
  Now, obviously, as a Republican, I like all three Republican 
alternatives pretty well. I think my friend Mr. Woodall has always 
worked on the Republican Study Committee budget; it gets us to balance 
faster than anything else on this floor.
  The reality is, if you look at the three Republican budgets, they 
have several things in common. The first is they make tough choices 
because we have got an $18 trillion debt; and, just left on autopilot, 
that will increase by another $7.2 trillion. It aims to bring these 
things into balance, and each one of those Republican budgets does 
that--the Republican Study Committee budget a little bit faster--but 
all within the 10-year budget window.
  Second, they all repeal ObamaCare--not a big surprise. No Republican 
voted for it. We have never liked it, and it would be remiss of us not 
to continue to argue our position.
  Third, they all call for major tax reforms. We all know that lowering 
rates, eliminating exemptions, and rationalizing the Tax Code 
contributes to economic growth.
  They all, frankly, defend the country pretty well. We do it in 
different ways, and we have debates, but they all manage to do that, 
and none of them raise taxes in the process of achieving those 
objectives.
  I am pretty content with the Republican choices in front of us and 
look forward to that. I think it behooves us all to remember--and it 
gets lost in this debate--a budget is not the law of the land.
  The budget is, essentially, a negotiating position. The President 
submitted a budget earlier. That is his initial negotiating position. 
Whatever emerges from this debate today is likely to be the Republican 
initial negotiating position.
  My friends on their side will present a budget today which I presume 
represents their initial negotiating position. They have also got other 
budgets within the context of that--perfectly appropriate. We do, too, 
but they will have a general position. Our friends in the Senate, on 
both sides of the aisle, are wrestling with this very issue as we talk.
  Now, we seem to forget, as we draw our differences and distinctions 
here, we do live in an era of divided government; and despite what many 
people think, we do occasionally come to compromises around here.
  Now, I am pretty pleased we have lowered the budget deficit every 
year that we have been in the majority, but that has entailed some 
compromises. We compromised in the Ryan-Murray agreement. That was 
actually a pretty good agreement that both sides were happy with.
  Frankly, this week, we will probably compromise on the so-called doc 
fix, the SGR. We compromised last December on the CR/Omnibus bill 
which, again, gave us some fiscal stability.
  I suspect, as we all define our initial negotiating positions, at 
some point down the road, we will indeed compromise. The President of 
the United States has got a signature that is going to have to happen 
to any appropriations bill. Our friends have a filibuster control in 
the upper House.
  My hope is we state our positions. I am very content with where we 
are opening this debate; and then, frankly, over the course of the 
months ahead, we work together and see if we can find that common 
ground.
  That common ground ought to do what the Republicans are trying to do 
in terms of lowering the deficit, reforming entitlements, not raising 
taxes, and moving us in a fiscally responsible direction while we 
modernize our Tax Code. That is our opening position. I look forward to 
defending it.
  I thank my friend Mr. Woodall for bringing this excellent rule to the 
floor, which allows everybody to put forward their position.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee 
on Rules and an extraordinary colleague.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the last 8 years have been very difficult. 
We are recovering from the single greatest economic crisis since the 
Great Depression. This recovery hasn't been easy, and it has forced us 
to make difficult decisions. Working on budget priorities and wrestling 
with spending cuts have been difficult, to say the least.
  Our economy is beginning to turn around, thanks in large part to an 
increase in hiring and the success of the Affordable Care Act; yet we 
still must wrestle with the Nation's budget. It is true, as my 
Republican friends say, that tough choices have to be made.
  Why is it that every time House Republicans try to put our fiscal 
house in order, they ask those among us who can least afford it to make 
the most sacrifices?
  Mr. Speaker, we should not balance the budget on the backs of the 
poor and working families. They didn't cause the financial crisis, and 
they shouldn't be the ones forced to get us out of this mess.
  There is a lot to dislike in the Republican budget, from repealing 
the Affordable Care Act to ending Medicare as we know it, to slashing 
Pell grants. Quite frankly, it is awful.
  I want to focus on what the Republican budget does to SNAP, the 
Nation's premier antihunger program. Once again, the Republican budget 
would turn SNAP into a block grant, resulting in sharp cuts of $125 
billion. On top of that, the Republican budget requires a cut of at 
least another $1 billion--maybe more--from SNAP.
  Mr. Speaker, SNAP is one of the only remaining basic protections for 
the poor. For many of the poorest Americans, SNAP is the only form of 
income assistance that they receive. The numbers don't lie, but the 
stories are far more powerful.
  Just listen to the people who rely on SNAP to make ends meet. 
Thousands of people sent messages to Congress written on paper plates, 
pleading with us not to cut SNAP.
  One woman wrote:

       SNAP means that, as a single mother, I was able to finish 
     college, feed my family, and find a career where I am able to 
     advocate for a program that I know works.

  Another person wrote:

       SNAP means dignity. SNAP matters to me because no senior 
     should have to choose between buying food or paying for their 
     medication. When I was a child, my father left,

[[Page 4061]]

     and the only reason we could afford food was because of food 
     stamps. I never got a chance to say thank you, so thank you.

  For the life of me, I can't figure out why House Republicans are 
hell-bent on arbitrarily cutting a program that feeds hungry kids, 
seniors, and working families. These SNAP cuts are deep and hurtful. We 
have already seen how the farm bill cuts $8.6 billion, how those cuts 
are wreaking havoc among the hungry. Imagine what a cut of $125 
billion-plus would do.
  Republicans claim that SNAP spending is out of control; yet the 
Congressional Budget Office shows that SNAP spending is going down as 
the economy recovers and people go back to work.
  Last night, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to strike 
these SNAP cuts from the Republican budget. The Republicans blocked my 
amendment while, at the same time, increasing spending for the Pentagon 
by over $90 billion, without even paying for it.
  Mr. Speaker, budgets are moral documents; and what the Republicans 
are doing, in my opinion, is immoral. Penalizing working families--and, 
yes, the majority of people on SNAP who can work do work--penalizing 
these families by taking away food in the guise of fiscal prudence is 
just wrong. Cutting SNAP, while increasing unchecked spending for the 
Pentagon, is hypocritical.
  Let's be clear. There is a cost to hunger in America. Hungry kids 
don't learn in school. Senior citizens who take their medication on an 
empty stomach end up in the emergency room. Workers who miss meals are 
less productive at work.
  Cutting SNAP, a program that puts food on the table for hungry 
families, is just a rotten thing to do. Shame on anybody in this House 
who votes for a budget that increases hunger in America.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to my friend 
from Massachusetts I know he cares deeply about these issues; and, 
candidly, this House is a better House because of his leadership on 
these issues.
  Just this year, we are going to spend four times more on interest on 
our national debt than feeding families through the Food Stamp program. 
An unbalanced budget is eroding those opportunities to invest in 
people.
  I am certain that we would come together to invest in Americans. I am 
certain that we care. I will concede the gentleman cares. I won't 
concede he cares more than I do about lifting folks up and taking them 
to the next rung of that ladder.
  Our debt and our deficit are eroding those opportunities to come 
together.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I would argue that the problem of hunger in America is 
actually increasing our deficit and our debt; but I would also argue, 
if you want to find ways to balance the budget, maybe go after some of 
those corporate tax breaks, instead of going after poor people.
  Mr. WOODALL. As the gentleman knows--and, again, I thank the 
gentleman--I have introduced the only bill in Congress that abolishes 
every single corporate tax break in the Tax Code. I would welcome 
support and enthusiastic cosponsorship from any of my colleagues on the 
other side the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of 
legislation that would help families afford college tuition by letting 
undergraduate borrowers refinance their student loans at a low interest 
rate of 3.86 percent. That is what the families we represent need, not 
the education cuts in the Republican budget.
  To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and to the previous question, as she 
just stated, would allow consideration of H.R. 1434, the Bank on 
Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an emergency out there for young Americans who 
are trapped in high interest rate students loans. The Federal Reserve 
bank has tallied that. It is $1.3 trillion of overhang in the U.S. 
economy.
  None other than the former Republican Governor of the State of 
Indiana and the former Budget Director under George Bush testified 
before the Education Committee the other day, and this is what he said:

       Research from the Pew Research Center and Rutgers shows 
     that today's 20- and 30-year olds are delaying marriage, 
     delaying childbearing, both unhelpful trends from an economic 
     and social standpoint.
       Between 25 percent and 40 percent of borrowers report 
     postponing homes, cars, and other major purchases. Half say 
     that their student loans increase their risk of defaulting on 
     other bills.

                              {time}  1315

  There are 7.5 million young Americans who are behind on their student 
loans. Again, they are trapped in no collateral, high interest rate 
documents that our bill allows them to write down.
  Anyone watching this debate knows that when there is a period of low 
interest rates--and that is exactly what is the situation today--middle 
class families refinance their houses, refinance their car loans, and 
refinance their credit cards; but students and people carrying student 
loan debt because of the fact that they were no-collateral loans are 
trapped.
  Our bill allows them to go to the Department of Education, write down 
those interest rates to 3.6 percent. The Congressional Budget Office 
has told us that half of the trillion-dollar overhang would be 
refinanced down if this bill took place. That puts money in people's 
pockets, as the Pew Research Center shows. That means that they are 
going to go out and buy cars, buy homes, and start families.
  Our failure to deal with this issue is strangling this economic 
recovery. And incredibly, we are going to take up a Republican budget 
which cuts Pell Grants and also raises interest rate costs for Stafford 
loan programs.
  Let's be very clear: this budget allows the government to charge 
interest while people are in school, which has been a pillar of the 
Stafford student loan program, that interest is not charged while kids 
are going through college. Yet the Republican budget adds to that $1.3 
trillion in overhang by adding interest costs in their budget plan.
  The hard-working American people who want to buy homes, who want to 
send their kids to college, have an opportunity with this legislation, 
H.R. 1434, to allow them to refinance down their interest rates to a 
lower out-of-pocket cost that will provide an automatic, instant 
stimulus to the U.S. economy. That is what the American people are 
looking for, not a Republican budget plan that compounds the largest 
area of consumer debt in the U.S. economy. It adds costs to folks whose 
Pell grants won't rise and whose interest rates are going to go up on 
their Stafford loans.
  The choice is very clear with this vote that we are about to take. 
One vote is going to add to the student loan problem, which the Federal 
Reserve has identified as the largest consumer debt challenge of our 
Nation, and the other vote will allow us to move forward to solving 
that problem.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's 
help those 7.5 million kids and young people who are behind on their 
student loans. Allow them to refinance down their interest rates, which 
is what happens all throughout the U.S. economy during a time of low 
interest rates.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in opposition to the rule, and 
I rise in opposition to the previous question so that H.R. 1434 can be 
offered. Let me tell you why.
  Every few weeks, I spend time calling constituents who have sent me 
letters

[[Page 4062]]

and emails. In many of these conversations, I hear about the burden of 
student loan debt. Just recently, I spoke with a couple with more than 
$100,000 in student debt, and their monthly loan payments exceed the 
rent that they pay on their apartment.
  There is absolutely no question, student loan debt is an enormous 
problem in this country. We all know the facts. As the gentleman from 
Connecticut stated, at $1.3 trillion, student loan debt has surpassed 
credit card debt. Nearly three-quarters of college seniors graduate 
with some debt; bachelor's degree recipients graduate with an average 
of almost $30,000 in debt.
  The Federal Government, the States, colleges and universities and 
other relevant actors in higher education must come together to address 
this issue. We must take steps to reduce the underlying costs of degree 
completion, strengthen Federal and State investment in colleges and 
universities, provide additional aid to students, and diminish existing 
student loan debt.
  The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney's legislation, the Bank 
on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, would help bring down 
existing student loan debt by allowing eligible borrowers with existing 
debt to refinance their student loans and receive the same lower 
interest rates passed by Congress in 2013 that new borrowers currently 
receive.
  Lowering interest rates for existing loan debt will benefit tens of 
millions of Americans. I oppose the rule. I oppose the previous 
question.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  If I could engage my friend from California, I understand why he 
doesn't like one of the Republican budgets that is here. But this rule 
also makes in order every single Democratic substitute budget that was 
offered.
  I would ask my friend why it is that he opposes this rule since it 
allows everyone's ideas to be considered.
  I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. TAKANO. Well, I am not so much in opposition to the rule because 
of not allowing other budgets to be considered, but because of the way 
the rule is structured, I would rather see us be able to consider H.R. 
1434. If we would oppose the rule and oppose the previous question, we 
could solve the student debt question here.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that we can amend the rule to bring up the Bank on 
Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act.
  The magnitude of the problem cannot be overlooked. In 2013, there 
were 37 million American student loan borrowers with outstanding 
student loans. Those 37 million American students hold an enormous $1.3 
trillion in student loan debt, as my friend from Connecticut mentioned. 
Student loan debt is growing by $3,000 per second. The Bank on Students 
Emergency Loan Refinancing Act would be a good first step in allowing 
students to refinance their loans and put some much-needed money back 
in their pockets and back in the American economy.
  In 2012, Congress passed a bill to allow new student loan borrowers 
to receive a low interest rate. Unfortunately, students with existing 
student loan debt were left out of this fix. This bill would provide 
those students who borrowed before 2012 the same opportunities that new 
borrowers have.
  If student loan borrowers could get lower interest rates, they would 
be able to more fully participate in the economy. They could buy 
houses, eat out in restaurants, move out of their parents' homes, or 
even just have enough money to save for a better future.
  This bill is simple, and it fixes a fundamental inequity. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, in parliamentary parlance, what we have before us is 
termed a ``structured rule.'' However, I would venture to say that this 
is an unstructured rule. It is a rule put forward by a majority with no 
clear structure to its strategy of how to govern this country.
  This rule will allow them to bring two versions of their budget to 
the floor, as their deficit hawks and defense hawks continue to fight 
over what budget they should pursue. It is demonstrative of the deep 
divisions that we have seen displayed on a regular basis in the 
majority party.
  We have now seen one example after another of this Republican 
majority being unable to assemble the votes from within its own ranks 
to pass important measures on its own. We saw it with funding to keep 
the Department of Homeland Security open. We also saw it last Congress, 
when Republicans were forced to withdraw an appropriations bill for 
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development when they didn't have 
the votes to support their sequestration strategy.
  The gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers, the Republican chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, said at that time that the bill's removal 
meant that ``with this action, the House has declined to proceed on the 
implementation of the very budget it adopted just 3 months ago. Thus, I 
believe,'' Chairman Rogers went on, ``that the House has made its 
choice: sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived 
discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end.''
  That was the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
speaking--not Steny Hoyer, not a Democrat, but a Republican leader.
  So, Mr. Speaker, today is not the first time that we are seeing the 
majority plagued by dysfunction as it budgets in a partisan way, but 
today it has gone a step further with a rule that essentially 
acknowledges that there is no consensus among Republicans as to how 
they ought to proceed. That is why Republicans are putting forward this 
convoluted amendment strategy.
  However, I tell my friends on the other side, the votes exist to pass 
a budget in this House but only if it is one that replaces both the 
defense and nondefense components of the sequester with a commonsense 
and fiscally responsible alternative.
  And I predict today that this budget will not be followed, as 
previous budgets passed by the Republican majority have never been 
followed and were not followed by them.
  Democrats would partner, I would tell my Republican friends, to pass 
a budget that invests in the future and does not stifle the growth of 
jobs and opportunity.
  I urge my colleagues we can do better. Reject this rule. Let's go 
back to the drawing board. Let's get it right.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to my 
friend, whose leadership in this House I value, that he had an 
opportunity in that joint select committee, that supercommittee, an 
opportunity that I know he wishes that we had been able to come 
together on and we were not able to come together on.
  What we have now is not a division amongst ourselves; it is a 
reflection of the fact that we actually have different opinions. 
Allowing different budgets to come to the floor is going to allow us to 
flush out those opinions.
  I wish, thinking about bipartisan cooperation as we have had in years 
past, there would have been a Republican-Democratic substitute that 
would have gotten to balance as well, making those tough decisions. But 
instead, what we are left with are Democratic budgets that never 
balance and Republican budgets that achieve balance, all while ignoring 
the challenge that we have to deal with sequester long term.
  I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on trying to deal with the 
sequester. I, too, wish we had had it.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman from Georgia yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

[[Page 4063]]


  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  The fact of the matter is, I oppose this rule. I think my Republican 
friends' budget will pass. I understand that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds, and I yield to 
the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  I wish he would go back to the drawing board. And I will tell my 
friend, I will participate with you.
  Nobody believes, I think, that sequester is going to ultimately rule 
the day in our appropriation bills because it is, as your chairman 
said, ill-conceived and unrealistic. I would think it better policy for 
us to decide that now, and then implement appropriation bills 
consistent with something that is reasonable and not ill-conceived.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).
  Ms. ADAMS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today as a member of the Higher 
Education Subcommittee and as a retired professor of 40 years at 
Bennett College in North Carolina. I am steadfastly committed to making 
sure that every student has access to a quality, affordable college 
education because education is key to achieving the American Dream.
  However, too many of our graduates are burdened with insurmountable 
debt, which hinders their prospect of achieving the great American 
Dream. Even worse, the rising cost of education and the threat of 
educational debt has become a barrier for many students considering 
college. That is not acceptable.
  National student loan debt is more than $1.3 trillion. It is time to 
invest in our constituents and help our graduates better manage their 
debt. Homeowners and car owners can refinance their loans. Why can't 
our hardworking graduates do the same?
  The Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act will allow them 
to do just that. It will allow graduates to refinance their old debt so 
that they are better equipped to pay it off.
  One in seven student borrowers defaults on their loans within the 
first 3 years. If we don't act now, our graduates will continue to be 
forced to choose between paying school debt, purchasing homes, creating 
a savings account, and starting families. The threat is too grave to 
our economy.
  I know firsthand what higher education can do for a person's life 
because of what it did for me. That is why I am fighting for every 
student to have access to a quality, affordable education.
  We can no longer sit back and watch students spend their entire adult 
lives paying off their student debt. I urge my colleagues to put our 
graduates before partisan politics, and let's pass this legislation.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from New York that 
I have no further requests for time, and I would ask my friend if she 
has further requests for time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not, and I am prepared to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the House majority has once again chosen 
to favor billionaires over the middle class, debunk economics over real 
investments, and politics over people. Democrats have a clear 
alternative that would keep our economy growing and ensure a strong 
fiscal future. Our alternative ensures that college is achievable, that 
jobs are available, and that health care is affordable. That is what 
will keep our economy on the right track.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question, vote ``no'' on the draconian Republican 
budget, and I yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I understand why folks want to vote ``no'' sometimes in this Chamber. 
You want to vote ``no'' because you don't like the ideas the other side 
has, and it turns out that if they have more votes than you have on any 
particular idea, they win and you lose. I lose in this Chamber from 
time to time myself, as I know all my friends do, but this rule offers 
an opportunity at least for every idea to be heard, and the best ideas 
ought to rise to the top. That is the America that I believe in. That 
is the Congress that I believe in, that if we allow this festival of 
democracy, if we allow all of these provisions to be considered, we 
will have the best ideas rise to the top.
  When I hear my colleagues complaining about what isn't available 
today, it is an indictment of our collective work ethic because this 
rule makes every idea that was presented available.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side decided to talk about 
student loan debt today. It is a troubling issue. Member after Member 
has come to the House floor, and they have said that these students 
have taken out all of these loans, economic circumstances have changed, 
and now their opportunities are truncated. I feel for those students. 
America is in exactly that same circumstance. We have taken out loan 
after loan after loan, economic circumstances are changing, and if we 
continue on this path, America's opportunities will be truncated.
  I hear my friends advocating for an opportunity to refinance student 
loans. Where is the opportunity to refinance America's $18 trillion in 
debt? Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 years, if we do nothing--if we do 
nothing--as my colleagues propose, if we defeat this rule and do 
nothing, America will pay $4.7 trillion in interest alone--not a penny 
of the $18 trillion in principal, $4.7 trillion in interest alone. That 
is an entire year, in fact, that is an entire year and one quarter of 
Federal spending wasted on interest.
  These are not academic conversations we are having today, Mr. 
Speaker. These are decisions about whether we are going to be paying 
our creditors or investing in America. These are decisions about 
whether we are going to be paying our creditors or focusing on our 
collective priorities. These are decisions about whether the budget 
will balance or whether it never ever, ever will.
  I choose balance, Mr. Speaker. I choose balance, and I choose the 
tough bipartisan decisions that we will have to make together. I choose 
the tough bicameral decisions we will have to make together. I choose 
the tough negotiations with the President that we will have to do 
together. But I will not be a party to mortgaging the future of America 
one more time. I am grateful that we will consider all of the ideas 
that are presented here today, and I am confident that balance and 
fiscal responsibility will rise to the top.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
rule and get on to this great debate that we will have.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 163 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1434) to amend the

[[Page 4064]]

     Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for the refinancing 
     of certain Federal student loans, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1434.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered; 
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 216; and agreeing to the 
Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 180, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 132]

                               YEAS--238

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey

[[Page 4065]]


     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman  Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Costa
     Duncan (SC)
     Gosar
     Graves (MO)
     Grijalva
     Hinojosa
     Labrador
     Norcross
     Payne
     Roskam
     Ruiz
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1402

  Mr. PALLONE, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, and Mr. GARAMENDI changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 180, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 133]

                               YEAS--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--180

     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Griffith
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Adams
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Deutch
     Duncan (SC)
     Graves (MO)
     Grijalva
     Hinojosa
     Norcross
     Payne
     Ruiz
     Smith (WA)
     Turner

                              {time}  1410

  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.

                          ____________________