All articles in House section

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 273, ELIMINATION OF 2013 PAY ADJUSTMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(House of Representatives - February 14, 2013)

Text of this article available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        


[Pages H516-H529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 273, ELIMINATION OF 2013 PAY 
                   ADJUSTMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 66 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 66

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     273) to eliminate the

[[Page H517]]

     2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  During any recess or adjournment of not more than 
     three days, if in the opinion of the Speaker the public 
     interest so warrants, then the Speaker or his designee, after 
     consultation with the Minority Leader, may reconvene the 
     House at a time other than that previously appointed, within 
     the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the 
     Constitution, and notify Members accordingly.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of February 15, 2013, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure condemning 
     the government of North Korea and its February 12, 2013 test 
     of a nuclear device.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     February 16, 2013, through February 22, 2013--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 66 
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution, waiving all points of order, waives section 
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, therefore causing a violation of 
section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the 
gentleman from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily 
out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in 
the underlying bill H.R. 273, but rather as well to demonstrate that in 
many ways this bill and this process has been a travesty of the civics 
lesson that Americans learned in school.
  I would like to make, Madam Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman shall state it.
  Mr. POLIS. What is the process that a Member can use to demand a 
division of the question on a bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If a matter is divisible, any Member may 
demand that the matter be divided.
  Mr. POLIS. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  Does the rule being considered today prohibit a Member from demanding 
a division of the question?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the content of 
the pending measure.
  Mr. POLIS. Having heard from the Chair that a motion can be made by 
any Member to divide the question, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to demand a division of the question on today's bill before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the Speaker, and I understand that it sounds like 
sitting here in the Chamber one Member objected to a division of the 
question. I would like to point out that over 400 Members did not 
object to the division of the question.
  I will not ask for a recorded vote on this, although I think it's 
clear that my side would win over 400-some to 1, perhaps. I did not 
hear any additional objections from anybody in the Chamber.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman shall state it.
  Mr. POLIS. Is the time under my control yieldable?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman controls his time and may 
yield.
  Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Madam Speaker. If we have additional time 
later, I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Again, there was one objection, one objection in this entire body, to 
what I believe would be the overwhelming will of this body, which is to 
simply divide this question, because there are fundamentally two issues 
before us.
  This bill, H.R. 273, introduced 3 weeks ago, was not seen or heard in 
any committee of jurisdiction of the House, rushed through the Rules 
Committee under a closed rule to the floor of the House, and yet 
despite the fact that this bill failed to undergo any appropriate 
committee of jurisdiction review process, here it is in the House with 
limited debate at a time when we are edging closer and closer to the 
spending cliff that our country faces in 2 weeks, which this bill does 
nothing about.
  I know that many of us in this body, myself included, have been 
tireless advocates for supporting efforts to lower our deficit and 
balance our budget through a balanced approach. But as Republicans on 
the Rules Committee acknowledged last night, including Congressman 
Bishop, this particular bill would do nothing to solve our Federal 
debt, as it does not even change the spending caps agreed to in the 
Budget Control Act. What it does instead is include two completely 
unrelated measures.
  When you consider that the House Republicans have here coupled a 
Federal employee pay freeze with a freeze on Members of Congress' 
salary, it leaves the suspicion that is being speculated on by many 
outside this Chamber that this might, this just might be being done for 
political purposes and posturing. And one wonders why this institution 
is held in such low esteem by so many members of the public. It is 
precisely this kind of political trick.
  Let there be no disagreement: This body, since I've joined this body, 
has never given Members of Congress a pay raise. It simply hasn't. This 
has largely been an uncontroversial measure. When times are tough 
economically, Members of Congress should absolutely be the first in 
line to say, Look, we're not going to take a pay increase. And, in 
fact, Members of Congress have already foregone their pay increase 
through October of this year.
  So let that come up through the appropriations process, as it is 
traditionally done. I'm confident this body will act with regard to 
Member pay. But let us not tie it up with this issue of whether all 
Federal employees at all different wage levels should have any raise at 
all this year or not.
  Now, an amendment was brought forth yesterday by Congressman Bera of 
California and Congressman Connolly of Virginia, that divided the bill, 
just as we tried to do today. And by overwhelming majority, 400 some to 
1, we did not do, because it was unanimous consent that was required. 
Unfortunately, the idea was shut down by the Rules Committee.
  I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments we've just 
heard. The bill before us today is just the latest partisan jab at 
Federal employees who are on the front lines protecting and serving our 
constituents every day.

                              {time}  1340

  I remind my colleagues that more than 85 percent of Federal employees 
do not work here in the D.C. region. They live and work in your 
districts. They are the law enforcement agents, park rangers, 
researchers, and health inspectors who make our communities safer. 
These are middle class families struggling to make ends meet just like 
everybody else, yet House Republicans have routinely used them as a 
punching bag, chipping away at their pay and their benefits. So far, 
the tab is $103

[[Page H518]]

billion and counting. It is time to say, ``Enough.''
  I was pleased to join with Congressman Bera and 10 of our colleagues 
in cosponsoring the amendment Mr. Polis referred to this partisan bill 
that at least would have separated the questions of freezing our pay 
from that of Federal employees. In fact, three such amendments were 
submitted, but each was rejected by the Republicans in the Rules 
Committee, underscoring that this really is nothing more than another 
political potshot at Federal employees and using us as the subterfuge.
  If anyone's salary should be frozen as a result of our Nation's 
fiscal paralysis, it's ours; it's Members of Congress. That's why I 
introduced an alternative bill, H.R. 636, with Ranking Member Cummings 
from the Oversight Committee, to freeze Member salaries for the 
duration of this Congress. Of course, my Republican colleagues fail to 
acknowledge that we already voted to freeze Member salaries through 
September of this year, as Mr. Polis indicated, so there is no real 
sense of urgency here.
  Why aren't we spending this time working on a bipartisan solution to 
avert the devastating consequences of sequestration 2 weeks from now? 
The $85 billion in across-the-board cuts in defense and domestic 
spending for the rest of this fiscal year would slam the brakes on this 
economy and throw us potentially back into recession.
  GDP performance in the fourth quarter shows that. It declined by one-
tenth of 1 percent, largely because of shrinkage in public sector 
investments. That was led by a 22 percent drop in defense spending, the 
largest since the end of the Vietnam War. My colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have shown almost no interest in addressing this 
threat, despite the pleadings of the Secretary of Defense.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. An amendment by our colleague, Mr. Van Hollen from the 
Budget Committee, to replace sequestration was also rebuffed by the 
Rules Committee just last night on a partisan vote.
  To make matters worse, the House is about to go into recess again 
tomorrow. In fact, we spent 15 of the 19 weeks from July through the 
lame duck in recess.
  Let's do something productive for the United States economy.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to make an inquiry as to how 
much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 3\1/4\ 
minutes remaining, and 10 minutes may be claimed by an opponent.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my good friend from Colorado.
  In 1729, an Irish satirist by the name of Jonathan Swift proposed a 
novel solution to child hunger and general poverty in Ireland. He 
recommended that Ireland's poor pull themselves up by their own 
bootstraps by selling their children as food to the rich. That would 
nourish the rich, earn the poor parents some much-needed cash, and 
solve the child hunger problem all at once. Some people took him 
seriously. Most realized the point that he was trying to make.
  Today, the House majority has a somewhat similar kind of modest 
proposal, without Mr. Swift's sense of humor or irony. To ensure that 
our elderly are cared for, let's cut the pay of those responsible for 
their health. To make sure our food and drugs are safe, let's diminish 
the benefits of those whose job it is to screen for safety and 
unintended effects. To find a cure for cancer, let's punish the 
researcher who works daily to save millions of Americans from that 
disease. To care for our wounded veterans who are sent by this body to 
fight in foreign lands, let's make their caretakers find a second job.
  Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may 
justify their vote today by boasting of freezing their own pay, but 
that was already accomplished in the fiscal cliff legislation. The bill 
before us today will freeze, for the third year in a row, every Federal 
employee's pay. It's an effort to denigrate our Federal workforce in 
the hope that the government becomes unresponsive, inefficient, and 
unworthy of our best and brightest. That's why I urge a strong ``no'' 
vote on H.R. 273. Enough is enough.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, why are we debating a bill that had to 
bypass regular order to rush to the floor in February when there's 
already a moratorium on the increase of pay for Members of Congress, 
and we should be debating spending, eliminating the deficit, the 
sequestration?
  With 6 legislative days remaining before that fiscal cliff, here we 
are instead discussing something with regards to Member pay that 
doesn't even occur until October, and that which has been the tradition 
of this body for the last 4 years--not to allow Members of Congress a 
raise--and conflated it with a separate issue with regard to the proper 
compensation level so that our Federal employees and Federal agencies 
can compete in the marketplace with private employers and attract the 
talent they need to succeed.
  This rule and this bill suffer from the stench of politicization, and 
the House should divide these two issues.
  Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to 
allow for consideration of amendment 4, the Bera-Connolly amendment, 
with 10 minutes of debate on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The majority manager would have to yield for 
that request.
  Mr. POLIS. Excellent. Well, I hope that no one objects.
  Again, but for three votes cast in the Rules Committee by a 7-4 vote, 
and but for one solitary objection out of 435 Members of this House of 
Representatives, we would have divided the question and this body would 
have avoided being dragged into yet another political game that 
continues to jeopardize the standing of this body among the American 
people.
  It's clear that each of these issues deserves a separate discussion 
and a vote. With regard to Federal employee pay, let it come through 
regular order. Let the committees of jurisdiction debate how the issue 
is handled, and let it be placed within the context of balancing our 
budget and an overall budget solution to the automatic cuts that are 
far more severe than a Member pay freeze and may include unpaid 
furloughs and other extreme measures within a couple of weeks instead 
of engaging in stale political gamesmanship.
  Let's reduce our debt and deficit and avert the impending sequester.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
point of order.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. I'd like to say to my friend that I endorse, Madam 
Speaker, his request to do away with stale political gamesmanship. I 
would put in the stale political gamesmanship category making a point 
of order against an unfunded mandate in the bill and then failing to 
make any indication that you actually believe there's an unfunded 
mandate in the bill, but simply using this time to talk about an issue 
that we have already litigated in a multihour hearing last night.
  That said, I know, Madam Speaker, the gentleman's heart is felt in 
this issue. I would say to the gentleman that, while there was only one 
objection in this body, I make that objection out of great affection 
for the gentleman because, as I read the underlying bill, I see 
absolutely no way to divide this legislation into the components that 
the gentleman would like to debate.
  The gentleman would like to debate a Member pay freeze. The gentleman 
would like to debate a Federal employee pay freeze.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. The way to divide them is precisely the Bera-Connolly 
amendment that was brought to our committee yesterday. On a functional 
level that does divide it.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman. In fact, I thought that's where 
the gentleman's heart lay.
  As the gentleman knows, the reason the Bera-Connolly amendment is not 
on the floor today, among others, is that it is nongermane to this 
legislation. We cannot subdivide this piece of

[[Page H519]]

legislation to include nongermane components, which, again, I know the 
gentleman wants to debate those components. And, Madam Speaker, when 
the House schedules those bills, I look forward to having that debate, 
too; it's just not in this bill.
  One of the great pleasures I've had in this body, Madam Speaker, has 
been being a part of a majority that is bringing bills that are simple 
to read and simple to understand. This is a front-and-back bill. I 
happen to have mine on two pages because I like to flip, but if I had 
been more conservative with my printer, it would have been a front-and-
back page here, Madam Speaker.
  What we talked about in the Rules Committee all last night--and it 
would have created more points of order for germaneness issues and 
others--was adding amendment after amendment after amendment that did 
not affect this language, but instead created brand-new debates about 
brand-new issues.

                              {time}  1350

  Again, I associate myself with the comments of my friend from 
Colorado. I think the American people are absolutely fed up with the 
way that this process works. But what I think they're fed up with are 
those bills that stack a transportation issue beside a health care 
issue beside a Commerce Department issue beside a military issue beside 
a child care issue, all of these things that are completely unrelated 
to one another, Madam Speaker.
  In this bill, one issue and one vote. And the gentleman is absolutely 
right: in a vote in the Rules Committee last night, Madam Speaker, we 
decided not to allow this bill to be complicated with nongermane issue 
after nongermane issue after nongermane issue. Those measures, these 
debates can actually come to the floor one item at a time, but we were 
not going to allow that to subsume what is also an important debate, 
and that's on the provisions that actually are contained in H.R. 273.
  So given, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman observed no unfunded 
mandates in this bill, because there are no unfunded mandates in this 
bill, I ask the Chair to reject the point of order for there being 
unfunded mandates in this bill.
  Madam Speaker, if I could conclude by just asking that in order to 
allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge 
the Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of this 
resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my friend, Mr. 
Hastings, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 66, this rule that we're 
considering today, will allow for debate on the underlying bill, H.R. 
273.
  This rule that we're considering today is a little bit unusual in 
that it not only allows for the underlying resolution, but it also 
takes care of some housekeeping business that we have here on the floor 
of the House. For example, all of America, Madam Speaker, has read of 
the nuclear tests that happened in North Korea, and this resolution 
allows us to consider tomorrow a bill under suspension of the rules to 
condemn that activity in North Korea. It's very important business that 
we are able to take care of here in the House. We would not be able to 
take care of it but for this rule. I'm glad we considered that here in 
the rule.
  In this underlying bill, Madam Speaker, we're continuing what the 
President himself continued through March of this year. We're 
continuing through the end of the calendar year a freeze on the 
automatic increases in Federal employee pay. Again, I brought down a 
copy of the resolution, that small, front-and-back bill.
  So often you see findings in these bills, Madam Speaker, you see 
findings about what the Congress believes and why this bill is coming 
to the floor. And I promise you, Madam Speaker, if you read this 
resolution--and, again, it's only a page and a half long, so it will be 
easy to do--you will not find one finding of contempt for Federal 
employees. In fact, if you had listened to the hearing in the Rules 
Committee last night, what you saw is universal praise for the hard 
work that our men and women in the civil service are doing for this 
country.
  We have a lot of work that has to be done. I know it's a popular 
sport in some districts to kick Federal employees. Federal employees, 
by and large, work hard, though I'm happy to say you can distinguish, 
for example, the love and affection that so many of our constituencies 
have for our men and women in uniform. You see those pay-raise bills 
move through very quickly, versus a little suspicion that you have from 
time to time from folks who say, well, golly, I was just down at XYZ 
Federal office, and I didn't get great service. Golly, Rob, I was on 
the telephone trying to get results from X, Y or Z agency, and they 
kept me on hold for 3\1/2\ hours. What are my dollars paying for?
  I blame us for that, Madam Speaker. We owe better to our Federal 
employees than to put them in that circumstance. And gradually, not 
nearly fast enough, but gradually, our Federal employee system is 
moving towards recognizing hardworking, successful and dedicated 
employees through merit pay, through merit increases, through bonuses 
and through bumps--ways to say, do you know what, service matters. 
Service matters. And a one-size-fits-all pay scale does not work across 
the Federal system.
  I'm very proud, Madam Speaker, I've just been appointed to the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee in whose jurisdiction this 
bill is. I hope we're going to be able to take up those issues and 
build on that progress that has been made. But in all the conversation 
you'll hear on this floor--I won't say ``rhetoric,'' Madam Speaker, 
because, again, I know people's hearts are in this issue--in all the 
debate you will hear on this House floor, what you will not hear is 
that $1 is being cut from those merit bonuses. What you will not hear 
is that $1 is being removed from agencies that have an opportunity to 
say, Do you know what, job well done. You deserve a bonus. What you 
will not hear is that $1 is being taken that would have gone to 
recognize performance above and beyond in the service of our citizenry.
  What you will hear is that in line with the recommendations of the 
much-discussed Simpson-Bowles Commission, a 3-year freeze on Federal 
automatic salary increases will be continued, upheld. It's been in 
effect for 2 years and 3 months, and it will continue through the end 
of the year.
  Now, so often I hear, Madam Speaker, my constituents say, Rob, I just 
want to make sure that Congress is abiding by the same rules you ask 
everybody else to abide by.
  I want to make that clear. That's what my friend from Colorado was 
discussing. It's not actually a provision in this bill that's extra. 
It's a function of law. Members of Congress' pay will absolutely be 
frozen for just as long--just as long. The same rules that apply to 
everybody apply to the Vice President, Mr. Speaker, apply to the 
executive branch, apply to folks back home in Georgia, apply across the 
board to Federal employees, and apply to everybody here in this 
Chamber.
  We had one of the longest, and I would argue most intensive, hearings 
of our Rules Committee cycle last night, Mr. Speaker, where we explored 
this bill line by line, detail by detail. I was pleased to be part of 
that debate. I'm glad we had an opportunity, really, for unlimited time 
in which to do that. But I believe we crafted a good rule, Mr. Speaker, 
that will allow for thorough debate of this underlying bill.
  Again, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members, this bill,

[[Page H520]]

posted on the House Rules Committee Web site, front and back of a sheet 
of paper, is simple and direct for everyone in this House to be able to 
read and everyone back home to be able to read so that we can have a 
thorough debate on this bill this afternoon.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia, for yielding the customary 30 minutes to me. I 
rise obviously in opposition to the rule for consideration of H.R. 273, 
to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees.
  I just heard my colleague from Georgia say that this is a good rule; 
but I've also heard him say what I agree with very frequently, and that 
is that this body should proceed toward regular order, allow the 
committee process to go forward in a meaningful way, to have hearings, 
and to let the will of the body be worked here in the people's House. 
I've also heard him talk about closed rules; and it's for that reason 
that I believe that this process is not a good process because it is a 
closed rule, and this couldn't, in that sense, be good. There were no 
hearings.
  He talks about this one week, one bill. Why this week for Federal 
employees? Last night, I talked with six members of the American 
Federation of Government Employees, some of them older, some of them 
younger, and all of them agonizing, as are Federal employees around the 
country.

                              {time}  1400

  Let me get to the point. The Republicans have decided that they want 
to continue in the same shortsighted and counterproductive campaign 
against Federal employees that we saw in the last Congress. When they 
introduced this very same bill in the 112th Congress, it passed the 
House and then went nowhere and accomplished absolutely nothing. I'm 
quite certain--and I'll bet--that it will face the same fate this time 
around.
  Just last week, the Rules Committee considered H.R. 444, the Require 
a PLAN Act, which should have been called the ``Republicans Have No 
Plan Act.'' Instead of offering real solutions to the challenges facing 
our Nation, my Republican colleagues continue to introduce do-nothing 
legislation that will do nothing to help the American people.
  Obviously, all of us know that we face $85 billion in sequestration 
cuts in a matter of weeks. These cuts were intended to be a fail-safe. 
They were supposed to be so unpalatable, so horrible for everyone, that 
Congress would never allow them to go into effect. Yet, instead of 
making sure that these massive cuts don't threaten the progress that 
we've made, my friends on the other side would rather play politics at 
the expense of the middle class and the working poor, underscoring the 
working poor.
  As the President put it in his State of the Union address: 
``Arbitrary deficit reduction is not an economic plan.''
  Deficit reduction is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. 
It is just one tool that will help us get our country back on the right 
track. You can't build a house with just a saw. Deficit reduction needs 
to be part of a comprehensive economic plan, one that will stimulate 
growth and create jobs.
  A serious economic plan is one that does not take potshots at our 
economy and our Nation's full faith and credit for political purposes. 
We must, in this people's House, move beyond politics and work to avoid 
a dangerous backslide in our Nation's economic recovery.
  For the life of me, I can't even begin to understand why House 
Republicans continue to pick on Federal employees. It's as if the 
people that keep the Capitol clean, the police officers that keep us 
safe, the countless people that work right here on this Capitol complex 
do not deserve this paltry raise and are to be picked on.
  My AFGE friends were saying to me last night that Federal employees 
have already contributed $103 billion towards deficit reduction. 
Furthermore, Federal employees and retirees have contributed $15 
billion in savings over 10 years through an increased pension 
contribution. A 2-year Federal pay freeze has been in effect since 2011 
and will produce an additional $60 billion in savings. The reduction 
and delay of a 2013 pay increase included in the current continuing 
resolution will yield $28 billion in savings.
  At what point does enough, as my friend from Virginia said, become 
enough? What's more and puzzles me--and I asked the question of the 
scrivener of this bill last evening--is: Why aren't Federal 
contractors, who make twice as much as Federal employees, included in 
this pay freeze? He gave me some political fogging. I don't know what 
it was and don't care to even bother to try to remember.
  During the debate over the fiscal cliff, Republicans said that we 
shouldn't ask corporations and the wealthiest in our society to pay 
their fair share. The reason that was put--this is a while back during 
the debate on the fiscal cliff--was that if we tax the wealthy, they 
won't work as hard if they're taking home less money. What about 
Federal employees? Why is it that that logic does not apply here? It's 
incomprehensible that we find ourselves in this position.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Federal Government is not paying realistic 
salaries, then we can't expect to be able to provide for people to 
allow for themselves and their families to have a decent living.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Federal workforce is 
smaller now than it was in 1988, a historic low compared to the size of 
the national population. There are fewer Federal workers now than at 
any time during President Reagan's administration. Something has got to 
give.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 90 seconds to say to my 
friend, I always appreciate the eloquence of his words. My only saving 
grace, Mr. Speaker, is that the facts are on my side. If the world was 
as the gentleman from Florida had described it, I'd probably be where 
the gentleman from Florida is in terms of position. That's not the 
case.
  Every dollar we spend in this town, Mr. Speaker, has consequences. 
The $11 billion that we're talking about in this bill is not money 
that's being cut from the Federal budget; it's money that's not being 
given as an automatic inflater to every Federal salary in the land. 
Instead, it remains available to those agencies to perform the services 
that they were created to perform.
  Let me just be clear, Mr. Speaker. That means for every dollar that 
is not going into a clerk's pocket at the Veterans Affairs 
Administration, that's a dollar that's going to go to implement 
Veterans Affairs services. For every dollar that's not going to be an 
automatic pay increase in my hometown at the CDC, it is going to go for 
critical research and infrastructure there to perform the very 
important role the CDC was created to perform.
  We have to make choices, Mr. Speaker. Google ``Greece and pay cuts.'' 
Google ``Greece and pension cuts.'' In fact, don't just use Google. Use 
Yahoo. Use Bing. Use anything you'd like, Mr. Speaker. You will see 
where we are headed.
  When you refuse to make the tough decisions that my friends are 
refusing to make with respect to the Federal budget, you know where 
those cuts are going to fall.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to one of our 
very distinguished freshman Members, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Williams).
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I stand here in support of H.R. 273, a 
commonsense bill to overturn President Obama's recent executive order 
that authorizes a .5 percent pay raise for Federal workers.
  With the looming threat of sequestration just weeks away, Federal 
agencies should be focused on how to do more with less, like every 
other business does in America and every other family does in America. 
But the President's order would cost taxpayers more than $10 billion 
over 10 years.
  Here are the facts: in the last decade, the average Federal civilian 
salary has increased by 62 percent. When you factor in benefits and 
total compensation packages for Federal employees, it tops $126,000, 
compared to less than $63,000 in the private sector. I haven't heard 
the other side say anything about that.
  I'm a business owner. I have been in business for 41 years. I still 
own a business, and I hope to stay in business. When I pay pay raises 
to my employees, it's because of their loyalty and

[[Page H521]]

hard work, not simply because they're on payroll.
  My constituents in the 25th District of Texas are fed up with a 
government that spends, borrows, and grows too much. Let's protect 
hard-earned taxpayer dollars and pass this commonsense solution, H.R. 
273.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman 
that I was a businessperson, too, and there is a distinction between 
private businesses and civil servants of the Federal Government.
  I'm pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman on the Rules Committee and my good friend from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern).

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me urge my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, to vote against this closed rule. This is a closed 
rule by which the entire process has been shut down. The committees of 
jurisdiction held no hearings. There was no markup. It came to the 
Rules Committee. What did the Rules Committee do? They shut it down. 
They shut out all possibilities for Democrats or Republicans to offer 
amendments. My friend from Georgia is proud to defend this closed, iron 
fist policy, but I think it's wrong, especially on a bill like this, 
number one.
  Number two, this is a rotten thing to do to Federal employees. It 
really is. I mean, these are hardworking men and women. These are 
people who work at NIH, who try to find cures for diseases that, by the 
way, will not only improve the quality of life for our people but will 
save money. This is about denying a pay increase to DEA agents on the 
borders and to the CIA agents who tracked down Osama bin Laden. This is 
a rotten, rotten thing to do. And for what? To score some cheap 
political points.
  I'm a little confused. My friend from Georgia says it's really not a 
cut, that we're not reducing the deficit at all. The gentleman from 
Texas said we need to save the American taxpayers money. The bottom 
line is that this is a cheap political stunt. The victims here are 
working people, and none of us should be surprised, because this is the 
Republican kind of signature issue: go after working people. Do you 
want to find ways to balance the budget? Punish working people. Do you 
want to find this or that? Go after working people. Enough. Enough of 
this war against working families in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, what is also really frustrating is that here we are 
debating a bill that's really going nowhere, that's about a press 
release. The Republicans are going to go on vacation tomorrow. We're 
not going to be back for a week, and then we'll have 4 legislative days 
left to deal with this thing called ``sequestration.'' On March 1, all 
of these across-the-board cuts go into play. And guess what? We're 
going to lose at least 750,000 jobs. That's not my estimate. That's 
what the head of OMB says. There will be 750,000 Americans unemployed 
because of their inaction. Guess what? What are these people going to 
do? They're going to have to look for employment. They're going to be 
without work. It's going to slow down our economic growth. Give me a 
break. There should be some urgency here.
  My Republican friends, instead of bringing this to the floor, you 
ought to be finding ways to avoid this fiscal sequestration cliff that 
we're about to go over.
  When my friends talk about the deficit and the debt, they don't talk 
about unpaid-for war costs, and they don't talk about all the money 
that they don't pay for that's sent over to Baghdad and Kabul. Instead, 
we have fights on the floor of whether or not to provide emergency 
hurricane relief aid to the victims of Hurricane Sandy in our own 
country. Only about 48 of my Republican friends voted for that. I mean, 
that's where their priorities are. We should be trying to put the 
American people first.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. McGOVERN. What we should be talking about on this floor is jobs--
jobs, jobs, jobs. That is how we get this economy going again. That is 
how we reduce our deficit. That is how we reduce our debt. Instead, 
you're punishing American workers. This is shameful. We should be 
spending our time doing something that will actually benefit this 
economy and this economic recovery. This is not it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and to vote 
``no'' on the underlying bill, and I urge the leadership to get serious 
about avoiding sequestration. It is not good for our country.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself 4 minutes to talk about cheap political 
stunts because I see a few cheap political stunts down here from time 
to time. I don't want to characterize anybody's behavior in that way as 
I don't think that's appropriate, but what I would say is, if we go to 
the very top of the GS scale and take a good senior person, like a GS-
14 who is making $84,000 a year, this one-half percent pay increase 
that the President did by executive order and that we're saying won't 
go into effect until next year is going to give that one working 
person, that income earner for that family, $2,000 for that family to 
use over the next year.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield for 10 seconds?
  Mr. WOODALL. I will yield to the gentleman to answer this question: 
The gentleman sees here $10,793. That's the additional burden that the 
gentleman, when he controlled this Congress for 2 years with the 
President of the United States, also of his party, added to this 
working family's burden.
  Now, when you come to the House floor and profess your affection for 
the working people in my district and when you express that affection 
by ensuring that, this year, one-half percent of their pay is going to 
go up, you're adding $10,000 for that worker, $10,000 for that worker's 
wife, $10,000 for that worker's oldest child, middle child and youngest 
child--for a family of five in my district. The gentleman added $50,000 
in debt and deficit that has to be repaid.
  Now, I know the gentleman was using his heart when he passed those 
programs that did this. I don't question the gentleman's motivation at 
all. What I do is take offense that the gentleman questions my 
motivation in shifting $2,000 from workers' salaries into programs--
programs for veterans, programs for research, programs for health--and 
that he questions my commitment to working class people when, while he 
did this, he voted ``yes'' after ``yes'' after ``yes'' with no remorse 
whatsoever.
  I'd be happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. What I take offense at is the gentleman's party is 
about to lay off 750,000 workers in this country. For the life of me, I 
don't know how that helps our economy. That's what I take offense at. 
We should be talking about avoiding sequestration. Instead, my friends 
on the other side of the aisle are talking about how to lay off more 
American workers. That's what I take offense at.

  Mr. WOODALL. In reclaiming my time, I welcome my friend to the 
sequestration debate, the one that we tried to have last May with 
absolutely no assistance whatsoever.
  Here we are at midnight on sequestration day, saying, Hey, let's do 
it. Folks, let's do it. Let's do it. Back in May, we passed a bill 
here. Let's do it with the bill we passed in August to solve the fiscal 
cliff. Let's do it with the one we passed in September. Let's do it 
with the one we passed in December.
  There is not a person in this body I don't want to work with to solve 
these problems--there is not one--but when we do it here at the 
eleventh hour and say, Golly, I wish folks had gotten serious about it 
earlier. Mr. Speaker, we've been trying to get serious about it for 18 
months. When the President passed the law of the land and signed this 
sequestration into law after the Joint Select Committee failed, the 
question isn't why are we having to plan for sequestration today; the 
question is why wasn't the administration planning for it 13 months 
ago, when we knew the law of the land was going to put it into effect 
come March 1, 2013?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding, I would ask

[[Page H522]]

my good friend from Georgia a question: If we are leaving here, as I 
suspect we will tomorrow for a week, why don't we just stay here and 
get this done rather than go on vacation or waycation or whatever we 
do?
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I actually asked that question--or a version of it--of 
the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, the minority whip, last 
night.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. He doesn't control the House, Mr. Woodall.
  Mr. WOODALL. If the gentleman would continue to yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I continue to yield.
  Mr. WOODALL. I asked, What would it have taken to get that Joint 
Select Committee to succeed? Because that's why we're here in 
sequestration; that's why we're dealing with these things. He said he 
did not know what more we could have done to find agreement then.
  So I say to the gentleman that those same challenges the minority 
whip observed last night that were preventing agreement then are those 
same challenges that are preventing us, whether we work until midnight 
tonight or not, from solving them today, though I would be happy to 
stay with the gentleman just as long as there is work to be done here 
in this House.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. In reclaiming my time, one thing is 
absolutely certain: the majority whip controls the floor, and the 
Speaker controls the House, and if they chose for us to stay here, we 
could stay here.
  With that, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend, 
the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, who is my ranking member 
on the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker and everyone who is listening, you know by now and what 
you've heard by now is they want sequestration. The local papers and 
the ones that we've printed on Capitol Hill today all say they want 
sequestration. The excuse they're giving is they're going to wait and 
see what the Senate will do, that we're not going to take any action 
here, that we're just going to be bystanders until we find out they 
want sequestration.
  Over 700,000 workers are going to lose their jobs. A lot of 
economists tell us that this could be worse than the Great Depression, 
but they're willing to do it. They're willing to do it because they 
want to fight this President. I think that means a whole lot more to 
them than doing their job here as elected Members of Congress. As we've 
heard before, we only have 6 legislative days left. When we come back 
from a week's vacation, we will have these cuts that will have this 
devastating impact on our economy and on the well-being of every 
American citizen.

                              {time}  1420

  I urge the CEOs of America who are very worried, and they've said so 
for months and months, that they're concerned desperately about the 
prospect of sequestration, to talk to their Members here and get them 
to change their mind, if they can.
  This is really dire. We're not kidding around here. This is serious 
business. We are literally facing a fiscal cliff. But the solution 
we've made to this, as you all know, a manmade crisis here, they take a 
swing at their favorite punching bag and hold hostage again the people 
who make their living serving all of us.
  Last night was the first time I really heard that what we're doing, 
we're not going to save anything. Now, bear in mind that the Federal 
employees have already given in salary give-backs over $100 billion 
over the next 10 years. That should be enough sacrifice from them, but 
no, we're going to go for more. But we're not going to use it to reduce 
the deficit, it is going to be made available to agencies.
  Well, there's a lot of ``Alice in Wonderland'' sort of sense in 
Congress these days. Alice, one of the things that I liked about her 
the most, and she's a very strange little girl, but she said that she 
practiced as hard as she could to try to believe six impossible things 
before breakfast. And I'm trying to put this in that same category, and 
it simply is impossible for me to believe that we gain anything in the 
world by taking away the salary and income of hardworking government 
employees to put back in Federal agencies. Frankly, if any of you can 
really understand that, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.
  We had a chance--in the last 2 weeks, we've had two chances--to do 
away with the sequester in a commonsense way and also to cut the 
deficit with a sensible solution. Mr. Van Hollen, who is the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee and deserves our respect, was not 
allowed to do anything.
  As you pointed out, and I also heard Mr. McGovern say so, the Rules 
Committee now runs the House. There's no committee action on any of 
these bills. No chance for Republicans and Democrats in the committee 
setup, which the Founding Fathers did, and which we followed for 
generations and hundreds of years here, no possibility for them to 
discuss it. It simply is brought to Rules.
  Now, Mr. Van Hollen, his sensible solution here, which really does 
make sense, was simply not allowed to be put on the floor so that we 
could discuss it and give people a vote. A bipartisan group of the 
Members of the House don't want this bill passed. I'm going to put a 
letter in from one of the most thoughtful Members and a friend, 
Representative Wolf from Virginia, about what he thinks this is about. 
He calls this a cheap political trick, and I think that pretty well 
sums it up.
  Now, already cuts totaling $1.5 trillion have been made to 
discretionary spending. And as a result, because of the layoff of 
employees, our economy experienced an unexpected economic contraction 
in the final quarter of 2012, which we should pay heed to.
  Sequestration would compound our economic troubles even further. 
George Mason University says sequestration would cause 2.14 million 
American employees to lose their jobs. Meanwhile, important Federal 
programs would be crippled because of irresponsible cuts. I need to 
mention a few of them again.
  FAA, which makes flying safer, they would experience a great cutback. 
The people who guard the border, who do drug interdiction, who keep our 
border safe and strong, they would have a severe cutback. Sequestration 
would mean that vital research would be slowed. And as a scientist, let 
me assure you that research cannot be turned off and on like a faucet. 
It is necessary for us to maintain that research with dollars because, 
as it's been pointed out before, we want to keep our population 
healthy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlelady.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. How important that is for us, not only for our 
economic well-being, but for the well-being of our citizens.
  This is a foolish thing that we're doing here today, and I can't 
imagine anybody in the Senate would even contemplate bringing it up. So 
all of this is simply a waste of time, as we do here so many times.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides, vote ``no'' and please give us a 
chance to let Mr. Van Hollen bring his bill to the floor--or some bill 
from the Republican side. I don't care where it comes from. We have to 
stop sequestration.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                                   Washington, DC.

                          Vote No on H.R. 273

       Dear Republican Colleague: Next week, the House is 
     scheduled to consider H.R. 273. I urge you to vote no on this 
     legislation.
       Let's be honest: this bill is nothing more than a political 
     stunt that targets the hardworking, dedicated men and women 
     of the civil service, who have already had their salaries 
     frozen for more than two years. Everyone knows they are an 
     easy target. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we can 
     balance the budget on the backs of federal employees. It's a 
     drop in the bucket towards deficit reduction and a hollow 
     gesture absent meaningful mandatory spending reforms. Worse, 
     this is just busywork as our economy faces the sequestration 
     meat ax.
       I believe that the federal government must be able to 
     recruit and retain qualified individuals in order to deliver 
     government services in an efficient manner. And about half of 
     all federal employees make less than $60,000 a year. These 
     are individuals who haven't had a pay raise in more than two 
     years. And now we're talking about freezing their pay for a 
     full third year. The president's proposed .5 percent 
     adjustment is cheap grace ($225, since a quarter of it has 
     already been frozen) and won't bring civil service pay close 
     to the private sector, but it will at least attempt to tell 
     these employees that they are valued.

[[Page H523]]

       And just who are these federal employees? They are the 
     people you call when you need help, and 85 percent of them 
     live outside of the Washington, D.C. metro area.
       They are the CIA agents who planned the raid to kill Osama 
     bin Laden. They work side-by-side with our military. Those 
     agents depicted in Zero Dark Thirty? They haven't had a pay 
     raise in more than two years.
       They are the FBI agents you call when your child has been 
     kidnapped. Those agents who rescued the 5-year-old kidnapped 
     and held hostage in a bunker in Alabama? They haven't had a 
     pay raise in over two years.
       They are the Customs and Border Patrol and DEA Agents who 
     are working to stop illegal immigrants and human traffickers 
     and drug runners. The border patrol agents who worked side-
     by-side with slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry haven't 
     had a pay raise in over two years.
       They are the nurses and doctors at the VA who care for our 
     veterans and wounded warriors--they haven't had a pay raise 
     in more than two years. I know I'm not alone in wanting the 
     best doctors and nurses to care for our veterans.
       They are the foreign service officers who represent our 
     government at embassies in Libya, Israel, Russia and beyond. 
     The FSO's who worked side-by-side with slain Information 
     Management Office Sean Smith in Benghazi haven't had a pay 
     raise in more than two years.
       They are the FDA inspectors who trace E. coli outbreaks to 
     ensure that our food is safe to eat. They are the NIH 
     researchers working to find a cure for breast cancer, and 
     prostate cancer, and Alzheimer's and Autism.
       They are the defense civilian riggers and machinists and 
     refuelers and engineers repairing sophisticated electronic 
     weaponry systems at Army depots and Air Force bases and 
     shipyards who support our military personnel;
       They are the firefighters you call when a lighting strike 
     sets a national forest on fire and homes and business are in 
     danger. And they are the park service rangers who ensure that 
     your constituents can safely hike and camp in our national 
     parks and tour our battlefields.
       They are the scientists working at the DOE labs. They are 
     the meteorologist at weather service storm centers tracking 
     hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and blizzards. They are the 
     NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists.
       Over the last Congress, unlike other groups, federal 
     employees contributed more than $103 billion to deficit 
     reduction--no other group was asked to sacrifice more. I know 
     that these patriotic Americans are willing to do more, but 
     they rightly expect all of us to fully join this effort. A 
     vote for the bill next week isn't a vote just to cut a 
     program, but it's a targeted vote to specifically freeze an 
     individual's pay from a marginal increase--a personal affront 
     to the employee and their entire family, including their 
     spouses and children, and the retired parents who care about 
     their children.
       I get it--this vote polls well with certain groups. But we 
     were elected to represent our constituents. Let's pass bills 
     that actually reduce the drivers of our nation's debt and 
     deficit. This is cheap grace. Vote no.
       Please don't hesitate to contact me or Mira Lezell on my 
     staff at 5-5136 if you have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Frank Wolf,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my great pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to a good friend here, Mr. Wittman.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this bill. 
I'm proud to represent thousands of hardworking Federal civilian 
employees who selflessly serve this Nation on a daily basis. They fight 
crime for the FBI, root out terrorism with the CIA, and provide vital 
support to members of our military. They're scientists, air traffic 
controllers, and engineers, pursuing excellence each day to cure 
disease, protect our travelers, and shore up our infrastructure. 
They're doctors and nurses at VA hospitals, ensuring that our veterans 
get the highest caliber care in return for their service to this 
Nation. They're Border Patrol agents protecting our homeland from those 
who wish to do us harm. But above all, they are patriots, selfless, 
committed citizens who believe in serving their Nation.
  This Congress charges these hardworking Americans with their duties, 
and this Congress asks them to perform these duties to the very best of 
their abilities. It is only appropriate then that their service be 
recognized and applauded rather than consistently used as a tool in the 
game of politics.
  To be clear, I do not think that Members of Congress should receive a 
pay increase, and I have continually supported efforts to reduce our 
pay and cut our legislative budgets. But this bill is not about Members 
of Congress, it is about our Federal civilian workforce, which has 
already been under a pay freeze for the last 2 years. This legislation 
would continue that pay freeze throughout the end of this year.
  For these dedicated citizens, life is about public service and 
commitment--commitment to the people of this Nation and to the ideals 
and dreams set forth by our Founding Fathers.
  So today, I ask my colleagues: Do you want an efficient, responsible, 
and safe United States of America? Do you plan to ask any less of our 
Federal workforce?
  It seems to me that we are only asking them to do more for this 
Nation with less without standing by them in these challenging times. 
We must stop continually targeting our Federal employees, and I urge a 
``no'' vote on H.R. 273.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to 
tell both of us how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 13 minutes. 
The gentleman from Georgia has 16\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), a new, 
very thoughtful Member of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the closed rule. 
Yesterday I introduced an amendment that would have separated the pay 
raise for Members of Congress from the remainder of Federal employees. 
If that amendment had passed, only Members of Congress would be 
affected by this bill.
  Unfortunately, the Rules Committee reported a closed rule and will 
not allow an up-or-down vote on any amendments. They would not allow us 
to vote up or down on this. Failure to allow an up-or-down vote does 
not allow Congress to take a clean vote on a cost-of-living adjustment 
for Federal employees.
  Congress needs to start working together in a bipartisan manner and 
start addressing issues like sequestration and the budget. We need to 
start making strategic budget decisions, not across-the-board cuts. 
That is not how you make decisions. We need to eliminate and reduce 
those programs that are no longer effective and begin to bring our 
budget under control. And if we cannot act responsibly and find a way 
to achieve this balance, then we don't deserve a pay raise as Members 
of Congress.

                              {time}  1430

  This amendment, the amendment I proposed, would have reiterated that.
  Not allowing a clean vote is just wrong. We should not balance the 
Federal budget on the backs of our Federal employees. My amendment 
would have allowed us to take that vote.
  Sacramento County, my home county, has over 26,000 Federal employees. 
These are hardworking citizens in the Defense Department. Many of them 
are veterans who have served our country admirably, and there are other 
dedicated public servants keeping our country safe. We should not ask 
them to make the sacrifice without asking ourselves to make that 
sacrifice first.
  Now is the time we've got to set aside this partisanship and start 
working together to serve our country. However, achieving fiscal 
balance on the backs of our hardworking Federal employees is not a 
solution.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. Protect our 
hardworking and responsible Federal employees, and work in a bipartisan 
manner to pass a responsible budget.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. And I want to say 
of my friend from California, he gave a very thoughtful presentation in 
the Rules Committee last night. And as my colleague from Florida 
suggested, I am a big fan of open rules. It's early in the process. 
It's always harder to go through regular order until the committees 
have spun up.
  But I would just say to my freshman friend from California that even 
if we had made an open rule controlling for this bill, the gentleman's 
amendment still would not have been made in order. It would have been 
ruled by the Parliamentarian as out of order, as being nongermane to 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

[[Page H524]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. But we have the power in the Rules Committee 
to waive that germaneness, and we could have done that and allowed Mr. 
Bera's measure to go forward. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate my friend's comment. He's absolutely right.
  So my advice to my new freshman colleague from California would be, 
in this case, it's not an open rule that he's after; it's his 
colleagues on the Rules Committee working their Rules Committee magic 
to waive the rules. It would have actually taken a waiver of the House 
rules to allow the gentleman's amendment to come.
  But he made a very passionate case last night, Mr. Speaker, and I 
know his heart is in this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear about what this bill is and what this 
bill isn't. And what it isn't is a pay freeze for Federal employees, 
and, in fact, what has been the law of the land for the last 2 years 
has not been a pay freeze.
  All of the increases that come with longevity have been taking place. 
All of the increases that come with promotions have been taking place. 
All of the increases that come with meritorious pay and bonuses and all 
of those activities have still been going on.
  What this is, however, is a 9-month suspension of the automatic, 
across-the-board .5 percent increase that the President directed by 
executive order in December. That is all this bill is, and that's all 
this bill will be under this rule.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good 
friend, the former mayor of his city.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced approach to reducing 
our deficit which makes responsible cuts while also raising revenue. 
This bill is not the way to do it.
  I have great respect for the gentleman's intellect, but this is one 
of the dumbest bills I've ever seen come to this floor.
  Let's take a look at it, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to 
this rule and the underlying bill.
  As part of the fiscal cliff deal, we promised Federal employees that 
they would see their first pay raise in over 2 years on March 27. This 
is a modest pay adjustment, half a percent. When you say $10 billion, 
you're talking about $1 billion a year.
  Now, a little more than a month before the increase takes effect, the 
bill before us today would break that promise. Do you think, America, 
that this is going to solve the fiscal problems that the Congress and 
President created?
  My home State of New Jersey suffered devastating damage from Sandy 
this past fall, as did a few other States. Employees from FEMA, the 
Army Corps of Engineers, HUD, and many other agencies were on the 
ground immediately.
  How dare you ask this pejorative question about, well, what if we 
took the dollar from the clerk and then provided it to our Armed 
Forces?
  What kind of negotiation is that?
  What kind of bartering are we doing?
  And we're doing the same thing with our own staffs, the very people 
that are sitting alongside us and behind us, which is not germane to 
this legislation, but we're doing the same thing. They haven't had a 
raise in 2 years.
  Oh, wonderful, we're saving the country because we're doing that. 
These are human beings too. They're not chattel. They're not numbers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. PASCRELL. They're not stick figures. They walk the streets, 
navigating through flooding, debris, downed power lines, these Army 
Corps, these FEMA folks, in order to assess damages and reach out to 
the victims. They're not nameless. They're not faceless bureaucrats. 
These are heroes who continue to contribute each and every day to our 
ongoing rebuilding.
  And darn it, we allowed this to happen 5 or 6 years ago when we laid 
off thousands and thousands of police officers and firefighters and 
teachers and we called it saving the country.
  Federal workers are also law enforcement officers and firefighters 
who put their lives on the line for us every day. They work for the 
Defense Department. They protect us in our times of need, and we need 
to be there for them.
  They've done and continue to do their part. I am tired of us using 
Federal, State, local, county employees as the scapegoats for our 
ineptness. Maybe it's the politically correct thing to do to capitulate 
and join the forces and cut everybody. That's what we should do? I 
don't think so.
  I will debate you anytime on the Federal workers.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to say to the 
gentleman--he heard it from the gentleman from Virginia on my side of 
the aisle--the respect for Federal employees and the job that they do 
is not a question that's being debated here today.
  The admiration that I have for the folks at the CDC, in my neck of 
the woods, the support that, led by the Speaker of the House from my 
State, Speaker Gingrich, to double the NIH budget, and then double it 
again. The kind of work that goes on here is undisputed.
  But I want to show you, Mr. Speaker, what my constituents also see in 
their tough times, because it's not just the clerk at the VA that 
hasn't gotten a raise in 2 years.
  I was talking with a friend of mine who's a clerk at a furniture 
store, single mom, child, son, 6 years old, hasn't gotten a raise in 2 
years, makes $11 an hour.
  Average median Federal wage, $74,000.
  What I show you here is a chart from the CBO, the same organization 
that sites the job loss figures that you've quoted here earlier, that 
compares the work of folks with high school degrees, with a little bit 
of college, with college, in the private sector, the salaries and the 
benefits in the private sector with that of the public sector.
  Now, I say to the gentleman, in no way, Mr. Speaker, do I want to 
minimize the tremendous responsibility placed on our Federal civilian 
workers. Again, I have chosen a career of public service, as have they, 
and I admire them for it. I know it's at great sacrifice to themselves 
and their families.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. After this one sentence, and that is, in this tough 
time, until we can get our handle on the debt and the deficit, my 
constituents continue to look at how their tax dollars appear to be 
paying salaries and benefits higher to Federal employees than what my 
folks are getting back home.
  I hope the CBO will produce a different report that shows a different 
result; but until it does, I wish my friends wouldn't categorize what's 
going on here as some sort of hateful act, disrespectful act towards 
Federal employees and could recognize it as a balancing of salaries and 
benefits that our own Congressional Budget Office has suggested is 
actually an inequity that exists today.
  With that, I would be happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
New Jersey.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. PASCRELL. I wouldn't use the two words that you used. I would use 
the word ``demeaning.'' We have demeaned our staff, which is not 
included in this, I understand that. But you want to know something? 
Those unemployment figures for the last 6 years would be so different 
if we hadn't laid off those very same Federal employees whom you are 
now deciding to take a half a percent away from them at this particular 
time. And for some crazy idea that you'll give the money to the agency 
to do with it what it wishes, I don't think you meant that, really. I 
don't think you meant that at all.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank my dear friend from Florida for the 
leadership on the issue, the number of Members who have already spoken, 
and my good

[[Page H525]]

friend on the Rules Committee who is the manager of this particular 
rule and, in essence, bringing this bill to the floor of the House, and 
that is what you hear the discourse about. Many times this discourse, 
this debate becomes confusing because we are trying to compare apples 
and oranges. And so let me first own up to the fact that a 
congressional pay freeze is already in place. Our salaries have been 
frozen. When it expires, we'll rise to the occasion and freeze it 
again. We're elected by the people, and those decisions can be made on 
behalf of the people.
  We're not talking about congressional salaries today. They're in 
place. They exist. What we're talking about is the ICE officer that I'm 
meeting with in the Rayburn Room who works everyday to protect this 
country and has seen that, because of the $103 billion that Federal 
employees have already given to reduce the deficit, necessities of work 
are being challenged. Customs and Border Protection, DEA officers, FBI, 
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control physicians, 
research at NIH and those scientists, all of those persons are working 
for the greater good--those who had to address the West Nile virus, 
FEMA employees who are right now on the ground with Hurricane Sandy. I 
have no question that there are private sector employees that are 
addressing this question, but they've gotten a 4.7 percent raise.
  Let me tell you what the issue is. Let's stop fooling around and 
address the question of sequester. Protect those who need a social 
safety net and Social Security and Medicare. Realize that if you dice 
and cut and slash under the sequester, that will be the issue. None of 
these amendments were allowed in.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
  Last night at the Rules Committee, there were amendments to bring 
forward the right way of addressing the question, and they indicated 
that was not germane. I know these words are confusing, but that could 
have been a waiver. We all know what that means. It doesn't match, it 
doesn't fit, but we waive you in. That could have been debated on the 
floor of the House.
  My amendment said that we should take a pause. I simply said this 
bill shouldn't be brought up. I struck the entire language of the bill 
so that we could get to the point of providing a debate on the 
sequester to make sure that the American people's voices are heard. 
They don't want an across-the-board cut when you begin to cut the 
resources that they need. But we can do better.
  And let me just say to you, in Texas, there are 251,000 Federal 
employees; California, over 400,000. These are not folks inside the 
beltway. They're the ones that are in the Nation's national forests, on 
the border, in hospitals, dealing with drug cartels.
  I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not what we should be 
doing today. This is unfair to our Federal workers, and I won't stand 
for it.
  Vote against the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my amendment #5 to H.R. 273, ``to 
eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for federal employees and 
to reject this frontal assault on federal employees.''
  My amendment would have struck the entire text of this bill. Why? 
Because the premise underlying the bill, to freeze federal salaries, is 
flawed.
  And let me be clear: this bill does not add a dime to deficit 
reduction efforts. Yet my friends on the other side insist on this game 
of charades, pretending to be concerned with deficit reduction, but the 
folly of it all is that it's only a not-so-well-disguised game of 
political one-up man ship.
  If you are really looking to cut government spending you should have 
made the Amendment submitted by my colleague, Mr. Van Hollen of 
Maryland in-order. Mr. Van Hollen's amendment was not perfect as it cut 
subsidies for large oil companies, among other things; but it 
represents a balanced approach to deficit reduction.
  And as we look for ways to address our fiscal issues we cannot 
continue to use the salaries and retirement options of federal 
employees as our Congressional Savings and Loans.
  Federal employees have contributed more than their fair share to 
addressing this problem. We need creative and long term solutions with 
a heavy emphasis on job growth.
  H.R. 273 continues to freeze the salaries of federal employees who 
are vital to implementing the very laws and regulations that are 
generated by Congress and federal agencies.
  As the Ranking Member on Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on 
Border and Maritime Security, I can attest that it is in our national 
security interest to have the ability to recruit and retain the best 
and the brightest employees to keep our borders safe from harm.
  As a Representative from Texas, I can further attest that is again in 
our nation's best interest to have qualified high skilled professionals 
reviewing drilling applications for off shore well sites.
  Federal employees help to ensure that the air we breathe, the airways 
that we travel upon, and the food we eat are safe.
  Most Americans encounter their first federal employee when they meet 
their postal carrier. Men and women who faithfully deliver the mail: 
rain or shine.
  After 911 with our need to improve airline security, we turned to 
federal employees . . . the very employees who are amongst the first to 
react when there is an attack on our soil.
  Federal employees operate in every state cross our nation with only 
15% of all federal employees working in Washington D.C, continuing to 
freeze their compensation is not a long term solution to our fiscal 
problems.
  Our long term fiscal problems will not be solved by cutting Social 
Security, Medicaid, or Medicare.
  Our problems will not be solved by freezing the pay and benefits of 
federal employees.
  Our problems will not be solved on the backs of seniors, low and 
middle income Americans, or the disabled. Our problems can be solved by 
putting forth legislation that will put hardworking Americans back to 
work, advance training for high skilled and high wage jobs. By putting 
forth legislation that inspirers innovation, and through addressing the 
long term needs of all Americans rather than a few.
  Most federal employees are not living the lifestyles of the rich and 
famous. The majority of Federal employees are middle class Americans. 
Over 60 percent of all federal employees make less than $75,000 a year.
  According to the Federal Salary Council (FSC) annual report federal 
employees are paid 34.6 percent less in salary than their private--
sector counterparts.
  There are those who have cited a study by the Congressional Budget 
Office which found that federal workers on average earned slightly more 
than private-sector workers; however, that study did not take into 
account the level of job responsibility, specialized training, or 
length of tenure of each employee. Which we all know should be taken 
into account.
  There are those who claim that the federal government is too large. 
In reality, the federal government is smaller today that it was in 
1968.
  The IRS has 20,000 fewer employees than they did in 1995, yet are 
required to process 236 million more complicated tax returns.
  The Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid has 7 percent fewer employees serving 64 percent more 
enrollees.
  Most growth in the number of federal workers has been in Homeland 
Security and Defense as a result of 9/11.
  From 2001 to 2010, employment in non-security federal agencies as a 
percent of population actually fell by 4 percent.
  Even though overall there are less federal government employees 
serving each American today than there were 30 years ago. They have 
still contributed $103 billion worth of budget savings since the 
beginning of 2011.
  $60 billion from a federal pay freeze in 2011 and 2012.
  $15 billion from increased retirement contributions for newly-hired 
federal employees. As a result new hires will not receive 2.3% less 
compensation than their federal counterparts.
  $28 billion from a pay increase of .5 percent which is well below the 
Cost of Living Adjustment of 1.7 percent.
  Additional funds will also be generated as a result of a mandatory 
reduction in the Department of Defense civilian work force.
  Federal Employees have given enough.
  They have not seen a cost of living adjustment in going on 3 years. 
There appears to be a growing attitude that this freeze should go on 
indefinitely.
  The freeze was originally enacted to cover only 2011 and 2012; 
however, it was extended through late March as part of a temporary 
budget measure. Again, this was supposed to be a temporary solution not 
a permanent cure.
  We must do more to recruit and retain the best and brightest.
  We must do more to inspire innovation and job growth.
  We must do more to protect middle income Americans, like federal 
employees.
  The way to address our long-term fiscal problems is not be using 
federal employees as a Congressional Savings and Loans.

[[Page H526]]

  Again, it is not through cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, and 
Medicare. It is by advancing creative long-term solutions that 
encourages jobs growth and innovation that will allow us to fix our 
current fiscal issues.


                               FAST FACTS

  H.R. 273, freezes a 0.5% statutory pay adjustment slated to go into 
effect in March. It also extends the Congressional pay freeze through 
the end of the year.
  My amendment nullifies the entire bill.
  According to the Office of Management and Budget the federal 
workforce is virtually as small today as it has ever been in the modern 
era.
  In 1953, the federal government employed one worker for every 78 
residents. In 2009, one worker was employed for every 147 residents.
  In the IRS today, there are 20,000 fewer employees than there were in 
1995, processing 236 million more complicated tax returns. And, in the 
Department of Health and Human Services Medicare and Medicaid staff, 
there are 7 percent fewer employees serving 64 percent more enrollees.
  Most growth in the number of federal workers has been in Homeland 
Security and Defense as a result of 9/11. From 2001 to 2010, employment 
in non-security federal agencies as a percent of population actually 
fell by 4 percent.
  Only 15 percent of federal employees work in the Washington, DC, 
metro area. Continuing to freeze the pay of federal employees so they 
are not in keeping with the cost of living will have Cutting federal a 
negative impact on the economy of every state.
  Currently there are 281,571 federal employees working in my homes 
state of Texas. In California, there are over 350,000 federal 
employees. There are hundreds of thousands of hardworking Americans who 
are going to be impacted by this continued pay freeze across the U.S.
  Over 93 percent of federal employee jobs are non-clerical positions.
  The federal workforce is a highly-educated and skilled workforce, 
including doctors, attorneys, scientists, IT specialists, CPAs, 
engineers, and other highly trained experts in virtually every 
discipline.
  Nearly 50 percent of federal employees have a bachelor's or higher 
degree.
  About 21 percent of federal employees have professional degree or 
doctorate versus compared to only 9 percent in the private sector.
  The federal workforce is the most highly-educated in the nation, with 
professionals in virtually every discipline.
  If we want to continue to recruit and retain the best and the 
brightest in the federal government we can not continue to use their 
wages and benefits as a Congressional Savings and Loans. Provide 
services that are vital to our daily lives.
  I do not believe that Americans wish to sacrifice vital services that 
impact the health, safety and well-being of their families because the 
federal government failed to invest in its most important asset . . . 
human capitol.
  The federal workforce has declined, on a per-capita basis, from one 
employee for every 78 U.S. residents in 1953 to one employee for every 
147 residents in 2009.
  About 85 percent of federal employees work in other cities and towns 
across the nation.
  Federal employees have contributed $60 billion over 10 years toward 
deficit reduction through a two-year pay freeze, and another $15 
billion in pension contribution increases.
  Federal workforce cuts will hurt American families through fewer food 
inspections, decreased monitoring of air and water, and fewer people 
protecting consumers in the financial markets, just to name a few.
  Continuing attempts to freeze federal employee pay, cut retirement 
benefits, and reduce the federal workforce will more than likely result 
in a workforce that is not as productive, not as efficient, and not as 
competent.
  Because these types of measures make it even more difficult to 
attract and retain highly skilled and qualified federal employees. We 
must consider the long-term impact of short-sighted decision making.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I just want to read from the Simpson-Bowles Commission report. And I 
want to read from it not because I support everything the Simpson-
Bowles Commission had to say. I want to read from it not because it's a 
bill that has passed here on the floor of the House--it's been 
introduced but it hasn't passed--but I want to read from it because it 
was put together by the President to be a thoughtful, nonpartisan, 
deliberative body that would try to find those things in the Federal 
Government that should change to right the fiscal ship that is the 
United States of America. And this is what that group, appointed by 
President Obama, Republicans and Democrats, a thoughtful deliberative 
body, had to say:

       Out of duty and patriotism, hardworking Federal employees 
     provide a great service to this country. But in a time of 
     budget shortfalls, all levels of government must trim back. 
     In the recent recession, millions of private sector and State 
     and municipal employees have had their wages frozen or cut 
     back, and millions more lost their jobs altogether. In 
     contrast, Federal workers' wages increase annually due to 
     automatic formulas in law, providing them with cost-of-living 
     adjustments totaling more than 5 percent in the last 2 years. 
     This proposal would institute a 3-year government-wide freeze 
     on Federal pay at every government agency, including the 
     Department of Defense civilian workforce. This proposal will 
     save $20.4 billion in 2015.

  In 3 years, the President, to his credit, implemented the first 2 
years of this proposal. Perhaps there was consultation with someone in 
this body. It wasn't with me. I serve on the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee. The President, by executive order in December, 
decided he was not going to extend it a third year and was instead 
going to give a half percent pay raise.
  These are issues that can absolutely be debated, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  This isn't a Republican idea; it's not a Democrat idea; it's not 
something that was created in the minds of folks who hate Federal 
employees and the Federal Government. It's an idea that came directly 
from the commission appointed by President Barack Obama to solve 
exactly the kind of fiscal problems that we are facing today.
  Like it, don't like it, but don't say it's something that it's not, 
Mr. Speaker. This is an idea from the President's fiscal commission, 
and we're bringing it to the floor today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would alert my colleague from 
Georgia that I have no further requests for time, and I'm prepared to 
close.
  Mr. WOODALL. I also have no further requests for time and am prepared 
to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance my 
time.
  I really like and have great affection for my friend from Georgia, 
and I understand exactly what he just did with reference to the 
President's commission as appointed by Senator Simpson and Erskine 
Bowles, but the fount of wisdom with reference to what is required in 
order for this Nation to right its ship doesn't emanate from just any 
one commission. And while this particular proposal may be listed as an 
idea from the Simpson-Bowles Commission, I would urge my friend from 
Georgia to read the whole thing, which does contemplate shared 
sacrifice. And that's what I tried to get across to my colleagues here 
in this institution.
  As a person that lived as a child during the Second World War, I saw 
what sacrifice meant, and I saw the people that did the sacrificing. 
And they did it together, differently than us today. And that's why I 
think it's wrong to cherry-pick and then use a sledgehammer against 
Federal employees for something that is not likely to become the law of 
the land. It's a waste of time.
  The only good thing that I have to say about the bill before us today 
is that it has zero chance of becoming law. I anxiously wait for my 
friends on the other side, particularly the leadership, to actually 
start considering legislation that will help, not hurt, the American 
people.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment which would allow the House to vote on replacing the entire 
sequester for 2013 with savings from specific policies that reflect a 
balanced approach to reducing our national debt.
  There are only 6 legislative days left until the sequester hits. Now 
is the time to act. Smart government is not about sequesters; it's 
about solutions. And it's time to work together for the American 
people.
  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 
gentleman from Florida?

[[Page H527]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time with the final thought that we don't have that much time to waste, 
and we are wasting the American people's time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say the gentleman believes we're wasting the American people's time. 
An equally precious commodity is the American people's money.
  I talked earlier about the $10,000 per American inhabitant. A lot of 
folks do their numbers by American tax-paying families, Mr. Speaker. A 
lot of folks do their numbers by per adult or per children. I didn't 
want to game the system like that.
  The chart I have right now, Mr. Speaker, $52,381. If you take today's 
$16.5 trillion debt that America has and divide it by every single 
human being that the Census Department tells us is in America in 
January 2013, you will find that we have borrowed and spent $52,381 for 
every human being in America.
  I don't minimize the burden that will be on a family of four in my 
district when they don't receive that half a percent pay bump that the 
President tried to do by executive order that we're rescinding here 
today. I don't minimize that at all. But it is minimal compared to the 
$52,000 for each member of that family of four. That half a percent pay 
raise is minimal compared to the $208,000 that that family owes as its 
share of the Federal debt.
  The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Speaker, made a very passionate 
presentation last night, and I believe he is absolutely right. He 
referenced himself and our ranking member as the only two folks in that 
committee who know anything about sacrifice. I always go through my 
grandparents' stuff. I was one of those kids who loved being in the 
attic. You always find neat stuff in the attic and the basement. I have 
all the ration stamps, Mr. Speaker--sugar, rubber. I don't know what 
that's like. I don't know what that's like for a Nation to come 
together with such a sense of purpose that they say we're going to 
police ourselves and our own family. We're going to have the posters up 
on the wall that say ``loose lips sink ships,'' and don't waste because 
we need it for the war effort, and we're going to come together and 
make that happen.
  In fact, the last time, Mr. Speaker, this country had the kind of 
debt as a percentage of the size of its economy that it has today was 
when we were coming out of World War II. In that time, when we were 
rationing rubber and sugar, when we no longer minted our currency with 
copper because we didn't have enough to go around--or nickel--we were 
using steel to put the coins together at that time. In that time of 
crisis, Mr. Speaker, when we thought the freedom of the world was on 
the line, we borrowed the largest amount of money ever borrowed in the 
history of this country to win World War II.
  As we stand here today, we have borrowed trillions more in actual 
dollars, but that same gargantuan number of 100 percent of our economy. 
And for what? What does that leave us when the next crisis comes--and I 
promise you it will. The next crisis will come, and the tools that we 
have to address it will have been eroded by the policies of today.
  I take no pleasure in being down here today managing the rule that 
will extend into year 3 a Federal employee pay freeze. I told folks in 
my constituency, Mr. Speaker, I said I want to come back home and I 
want to tell you how much I've been doing good work for you in 
Washington and doggone it I deserve a pay raise. I want us all to be so 
successful that we can go back home and tell folks we deserve it. But 
with $16.4 trillion in debt, 4 years of no budgets at all coming out of 
this town, trillion-dollar annual deficits, we don't.
  If you think the pain of a 3-year pay freeze is bad, Mr. Speaker, 
Google Greece, Bing Greece, do your Yahoo search on Greece--not half a 
percent freezes, but double-digit cuts to Federal benefits; double-
digit cuts to pensions that seniors are relying on; double-digit cuts 
to salaries; layoffs, double-digit percentages. It doesn't get better 
on its own, Mr. Speaker. We have to do it.
  My friend from Florida is so right, Mr. Speaker: we have to come 
together to solve the bigger problems. This is not the bigger problem. 
At best, this is a symptom of a problem. At worst, it's just something 
we're trying to do to manage through.
  In this body, Mr. Speaker, and the Senate, the President, we put six 
of our best minds from the House, three Democrats and three 
Republicans, six of our best minds from the Senate, three Democrats and 
three Republicans, and we locked them in a room for about 3 months and 
said do anything, do anything you want to with the Federal budget. 
Dream your biggest dreams. Come up with your best ideas. Get outside 
the box. And we're going to close the door so you can have that 
conversation with the utmost candor, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
House Members and Senate Members alike.
  After 3 months, Mr. Speaker, having looked at literally hundreds of 
trillions of dollars of Federal spending going out for decades, they 
found that they could agree on not even one dollar, not one dollar in 
changes.

  Mr. Speaker, as you well know, and as the freshman Members of this 
body are going to learn, we only control one-third of the budget here, 
just one-third of the budget, that discretionary spending, one-third of 
the budget. That's where the Federal employee salaries are, one-third 
of the budget. So everything we do to try to get a handle on $52,000 in 
debt per man, woman and child in America, everything we do to try to 
get our fiscal ship sailing straight once again is coming from that 
one-third.
  Because to get to the real drivers of the debt, Mr. Speaker, to get 
to the real drivers, we've got to get into the two-thirds, the two-
thirds that can only get to the table when the House and the Senate and 
the President all agree.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I know you're on a roll, but will my friend 
yield for just 5 seconds?
  Mr. WOODALL. As highly unorthodox as that is, my great respect for my 
friend requires that I do.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank you so very much.
  I just want to say America ain't Greece; it ain't going to be Greece.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker--and again, pleasure to 
yield--I say to my friend, I fear it's thinking like that that's going 
to take us exactly there.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, again, I take no pleasure in this freeze today. I 
believe in shared sacrifice across this country to solve our problems. 
The only thing that would be permissible in this legislation is to 
ensure that Members of Congress and fellow employees are both frozen 
together, as is ensured in this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, bring this bill to the 
floor, support this underlying resolution, and remember that until 
$52,381 per man, woman and child in this country reads ``zero,'' we're 
going to have these discussions again and again and again.
  The President, Mr. Speaker, I'm told is planning to produce a budget. 
It's not going to be this month. It may come next month. Do you know 
that in the 2 years I've been here as a Member of Congress, the 
President's budgets never, ever, ever pay down one penny of this debt? 
We're complicit in this, Mr. Speaker; and, together, we can get 
ourselves out of it.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 66 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       (1) At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, following debate on H.R. 273 it shall be in order 
     to 1 consider the amendment received for printing in the 
     Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII and 
     numbered 1, if offered by Representative Van Hollen of 
     Maryland or a designee. That amendment shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be separately debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division 
     of the question.
       (2) On page 2, line 5, insert ``with or without 
     instructions'' after ``recommit''.

[[Page H528]]

     
                                  ____
        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 I Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time and move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 194, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 41]

                               YEAS--229

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

                               NAYS--194

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Culberson
     Diaz-Balart
     Farr
     Gowdy
     Grijalva
     Johnson (GA)
     McKeon
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1522

  Messrs. BERA of California, ISRAEL, PETERS of California, Ms. 
MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico, Messrs. MURPHY of Florida, CASTRO 
of Texas, PETERS of Michigan, COSTA, Ms. ESHOO, and Mr. GALLEGO changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SHUSTER, WOLF, HUELSKAMP, FLEMING, CALVERT, HUNTER, YODER, 
and JONES changed their 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.

[[Page H529]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 192, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 42]

                               YEAS--227

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

                               NAYS--192

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Esty
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (UT)
     Culberson
     Farr
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Johnson (GA)
     King (IA)
     Lynch
     Terry
     Yarmuth


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1529

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 42, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''


                          Personal explanation

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, had I been present on Thursday, 
February 14, 2013, I would have voted ``no'' on the motion on ordering 
the previous question on the rule and ``no'' on H. Res. 66, the rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 273.

                          ____________________




    

All articles in House section