[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3353-H3361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1216, REPEALING MANDATORY FUNDING
FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
1540, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012; AND
WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 269 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 269
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1216) to amend the Public Health Service Act
to convert funding for graduate medical education in
qualified teaching health centers from direct appropriations
to an authorization of appropriations. The first reading of
the bill shall
[[Page H3354]]
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment
to the bill shall be in order except those received for
printing in the portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII in a
daily issue dated May 23, 2011, and except pro forma
amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so
received may be offered only by the Member who caused it to
be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read if
printed. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012
for military activities of the Department of Defense and for
military construction, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services. After general debate, the Committee of the Whole
shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the
bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order
of the House.
Sec. 3. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of May 27, 2011, providing for consideration
or disposition of a measure addressing expiring provisions of
the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 269 provides for a modified open rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 1216, which amends the Public
Health Service Act to convert funding for graduate medical education in
qualified teaching health centers from mandatory spending to an
authorization of appropriations; H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act; and same-day consideration of a rule to consider
extending certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Mr. Speaker, this
is the seventh modified open rule that the House Republican majority
has offered this Congress, compared to the liberal Democrats' one
modified open rule during the entire 111th Congress.
The first underlying bill today, H.R. 1216, continues the fulfillment
of the Republican Pledge to America and illustrates that once again
Republicans are keeping our promises to the American people to cut
Federal spending. The American people want transparency of Washington's
spending of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. In an act of gross
irresponsibility, the Federal Government is spending $1 out of $4 of
gross domestic product.
We hear the term ``Federal money'' as though it is manna from heaven.
Let me dispel that misconception, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government
has only the money it takes away from hardworking American families
through taxes or the money it borrows. As a Nation, we are currently
borrowing 43 cents for every dollar spent at the Federal level.
Some argue that to balance the Federal Government and pay down our
debt, we should raise taxes. As a fiscal conservative, I have to
disagree. Raising taxes on hardworking Americans and job creators is
simply a way to pass the blame. We must rein in out-of-control
Washington spending and put an end to it. The American people are sick
and tired of reckless government spending and Washington's disregard
for basic budgeting principles of living within its means. This is one
of the many reasons I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill before us today, Mr. Speaker.
H.R. 1216 restores congressional oversight to Federal spending by
ending the autopilot spending for physician residency programs at
teaching health centers and restoring it to the annual appropriations
process. When a program is put on autopilot, Congress abdicates its
authority to unelected bureaucrats and takes a hands-off approach.
House Republicans are committed to ending that approach to Federal
spending and ensuring that government programs are accountable for how
they are spending money. No longer will we accept politically popular
excuses. Each program must prove that it is a wise steward of taxpayer
dollars. If Congress will not address out-of-control spending now, we
are passing the buck to our children and grandchildren.
Therefore, I commend my Republican colleagues at the House Energy and
Commerce Committee for seeking to end mandatory or autopilot funding
for programs in the liberal Democrats' government takeover of health
care. Because the liberal elites knew their government takeover of
health care was unpopular and would likely have consequences at the
ballot box, they included $105 billion in mandatory taxpayer spending
in the law itself to protect their favorite programs.
Let me take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to explain the difference between
discretionary and mandatory government spending. Discretionary spending
is appropriated by Congress annually and, therefore, subject to
congressional oversight and review. Discretionary spending allows
Members of Congress the opportunity to be wise stewards of the
taxpayers' money by not funding ineffective or duplicative programs. On
the contrary, mandatory spending operates irrespective of congressional
appropriations and must be spent whether we have the money or not. The
most recognized mandatory spending programs are Medicare, Medicaid and
Social Security which operate on autopilot and have not been subject to
congressional oversight from year to year as funds automatically stream
from the Treasury to anyone who qualifies for a particular benefit.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the liberal elites in Washington
chose to hastily ram through their government takeover of health care
with no regard for the staunch opposition of the American people. The
audacity of an elected official or, worse, an unelected bureaucrat
basically saying to a taxpayer that he or she knows how to spend the
taxpayer's money better than the individual taxpayer is appalling. That
is what the ruling liberal elites in Washington did when they chose to
forgo the annual appropriations, also known as oversight, process by
putting their favorite programs on autopilot under ObamaCare.
Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that Washington should not be in
the business of picking winners and losers. During committee
consideration of the underlying bill, my Republican colleagues rightly
pointed out that the liberal Democrats in control last Congress put the
funding for residencies at teaching health centers on autopilot but
left residency programs at children's hospitals to fend for themselves
in the annual appropriations process. In fact, President Obama's FY
2012 budget proposes eliminating funding for residency programs at
children's hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to understand why residencies at teaching
health centers should receive special treatment. Why were these
residency programs protected while others languished and were
eventually proposed to be eliminated?
{time} 1320
This is a classic example of Washington bureaucrats deciding which
programs will win and which will lose. As I said earlier, every program
should be properly scrutinized by Congress
[[Page H3355]]
through the appropriations process and be accountable for how it is
spending taxpayer money. While this accountability should always be
important, it's even more critical because we're facing the third
straight year of trillion dollar deficits. This fiscal year our deficit
will be $1.6 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, remember the figure I mentioned earlier about our
Nation's borrowing habits? We're borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the
Federal Government spends. This translates to a national debt that has
now reached more than $14 trillion and has gotten the attention of the
American people. If you're having a hard time visualizing $14 trillion,
let me put it this way: If America was required to pay back its
national debt right now, each citizen--man, woman, and child--would owe
more than $46,000.
The simple truth is that we have a spending crisis in this town due
in large part to mandatory spending that operates on autopilot. House
Republicans are committed to bringing government spending under
control, and we're continuing to build on our Pledge to America by
restoring congressional oversight and accountability for government
programs.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and
the underlying bills.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North
Carolina and my friend, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for the consideration of
H.R. 1216, the Graduate Medical Education Direct Spending Repeal Act,
and general debate for H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and this rule also allows for a martial law
consideration of the reauthorization of the Patriot Act sometime this
week.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointing rule. While I have no
problem with a rule providing for general debate for the Defense
authorization bill, it is disappointing that this rule also includes
these two other provisions--especially the martial law rule.
Let me begin with H.R. 1216. This bill is simple--it's another chance
for the Republicans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. It's one more
part of their repeal agenda.
The funny thing is, Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to push their
repeal agenda, but they haven't put any plan forward to replace these
new health care provisions that we passed. The truth is that the
Republicans are not only trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they
are also trying to repeal Medicare. This is outrageous. The American
people do not want the House Republicans to dismantle Medicare.
The Affordable Care Act, Mr. Speaker, provides dedicated funding for
the training of family doctors through graduate medical education
programs at teaching health centers. The Republicans, while they claim
they support doctors and training programs, don't believe in this
dedicated funding. This bill not only rescinds the direct funding for
these programs, it reduces the authorization by nearly $50 million.
Now, everyone knows there is a shortage of primary care physicians in
this country. Why, then, do Republicans want to undercut efforts to
bring physicians into areas of desperate need?
Making these funds discretionary will jeopardize the 11 programs
currently underway across the country--including one program in my home
State of Massachusetts. Making these funds discretionary does nothing
to help our constituents who are struggling to obtain primary care.
Making this program discretionary will deter other entities from making
business decisions necessary to expand residency training--decisions
like securing commitments from key stakeholders to agree to train new
or additional residents, applying for accreditation if not already
eligible, and hiring new faculty with funding over the next few years.
Finally, claims that this bill saves hundreds of millions of dollars
are just not true. Republicans may claim that this bill will cut nearly
$200 million from the deficit, but that's only true if Congress
provides no funding for this program. CBO--the nonpartisan budget
arbiter that Republicans frequently ignore--estimates that $184 million
will be appropriated over 5 years, meaning only $11 million will be
saved by H.R. 1216. So claims of this incredible fiscal austerity are
simply not true.
Now, a second part of this rule is the martial law portion for same-
day consideration of the Patriot Act extension. The Senate is currently
debating this reauthorization, and the Republicans feel it necessary to
once again jam this bill through this House as soon as the Senate is
done with it. This is no way to debate legislation dealing with our
homeland security and basic civil rights and civil liberties. This is
an important issue. Members need time to be able to understand all of
the implications of the Patriot Act.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me say just a few words about the fiscal
year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which we will begin
general debate on later today.
All Members of this House are strongly committed to protecting our
national security--regardless of party, region, or political point of
view. It has been the tradition of the House Armed Services Committee,
at the staff and Member level, to work in a bipartisan way to carefully
craft the annual defense authorizations bill, and I recognize Chairman
Buck McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith for continuing that
collegiality.
But given such a tradition, it comes as a surprise to see so many
provisions in H.R. 1540 that attempt to repudiate and attack several of
the President's national security policies. From warehousing low-level
detainees for an indeterminate amount of time, to delaying the
implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to hamstringing
the implementation of the bipartisan-supported New START Treaty, to
seeking a so-called updated authorization for the use of military force
that no longer references the devastating 9/11 attacks against America,
but instead gives broad authority to the executive branch to pursue
military operations anywhere for any length of time--such changes have
all the appearance of a partisan agenda.
This afternoon, the Rules Committee will be reviewing many of the
amendments on these and other issues, and I hope that they will be made
in order so that a broad range of issues and recommendations might be
considered and voted upon by this body.
Now, a number of those amendments will deal with the future of our
policy and military operations in Afghanistan.
As most of my colleagues know, I believe that we need to rethink our
strategy in Afghanistan. It is bankrupting our Nation. The gentlelady
from North Carolina talks about the deficit. I will remind her and
others that we are borrowing to pay for the war in Afghanistan. We are
borrowing approximately $8.2 billion a month. That's billion with a
``b.''
So if we're going to get serious about deficit reduction, we either
need to end these wars--which I think we should do--or if you support
them, you ought to pay for them.
This war has already demanded the lives of 1,573 of our service men
and women and gravely wounded tens of thousands of our troops. And
right now, there is no true end in sight.
The death of Osama bin Laden creates an opportunity for us to
reexamine our policy in Afghanistan and ask the President exactly how
and when he will bring the last troops home to their families and their
communities.
The death of bin Laden provides us with a moment to commend our
intelligence and uniformed men and women, and it also allows us to
bring fresh eyes to what kind of defense budget and priorities best fit
the needs of our Nation and our national security, especially in these
difficult economic times.
I hope that the Rules Committee will embrace such a debate, allow a
broad range of amendments to be made in order, and support a fresh and
critical examination of the policies and priorities put forward in H.R.
1540.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for
bringing up some issues that need to be responded to.
First of all, let me say he says that we plan to repeal Medicare. It
was the
[[Page H3356]]
Democrats who, in voting for the health care act that took over health
care in this country to the Federal Government, who cut $500 billion
from Medicare--a half a trillion dollars. Republicans have made no
recommendations to cut Medicare at all. Only the Democrats have voted
to do that. Not Republicans.
Republicans want to save Medicare, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are
doing. We're recommending that we save Medicare for the future. The
Democrats are the only ones who want to repeal Medicare by cutting that
money from it.
Let me mention a couple of other things that my colleague has spoken
about in terms of underlying bills.
{time} 1330
In terms of the Patriot Act, I believe it is the Attorney General,
the Democrat Attorney General, Mr. Holder, who has recommended not only
that the Patriot Act be renewed, but that all three of these provisions
be made permanent. It is coming from that side of the aisle that they
want the Patriot Act renewed. So their President is pushing for this.
In terms of borrowing for the war, Mr. Speaker, you know, it is the
Federal Government and only the Federal Government that provides for
the national defense of this country. That is why we have a Federal
Government, Mr. Speaker. It's why we became the United States. No other
branch of government can provide for our national security. Every other
branch of government, however, can handle health care, can handle
education, can handle many of the things that the Federal Government
has gotten itself into that it has no business being involved in. So if
we had to borrow money, we wouldn't be borrowing money if we weren't in
these other things. We would have ample resources to provide for the
national defense.
But I would also like to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts
that it was a Democratic President who took us into a third war, with
no authorization from the Congress. And it is not the Republicans who
are creating this problem.
Mr. Speaker, the second bill made in order under this rule is H.R.
1540, the National Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. Speaker, this weekend we will all pause to observe Memorial Day,
as we should. As we debate this very important bill, we need to keep in
mind the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. We also
need to keep in mind those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in
defense of all of our freedoms, including this process of freely
debating our laws and the idea of the role of government. We could not
be here today without the sacrifices of those who served in the
military and kept us a free people. I hope that's what everyone keeps
on their mind this weekend when they celebrate Memorial Day.
As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, ``The operations of
the Federal Government will be most extensive and important in times of
war and danger.'' Our Founding Fathers had a clear view that the
primary and central job of the Federal Government was to ``provide for
the common defense.'' Providing for the common defense is the mandate
of our Constitution. It's not an issue that should divide us in
partisan rancor, but unite us as a country that supports our military
and provides them with the tools to do their very important job.
One need not look too far back in history to find words that remind
us of our responsibility to provide for the common defense. President
Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, promised to ``check and
reverse the growth of government,'' but also to ``maintain sufficient
strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we will have
the best chance of never having to use that strength.'' That message,
Mr. Speaker, still holds true today.
Not only does this bill ensure that our troops are properly equipped,
but it also provides the men and women of the military and their
families with the resources and support they need, deserve, and have
earned. The fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act takes a
detailed approach to ensuring that the investments in our national
security are in line with our fiscal priorities and realities.
The bill has a clear mandate of fiscal responsibility, transparency,
and accountability within the Department of Defense. It also provides
incentives to have competition for every taxpayer dollar associated
with funding of defense requirements. The bill addresses a wide range
of recent policy changes at the Department of Defense, including the
repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; reaffirming the Defense of Marriage
Act, which protects one man-one woman marriage; as well as ensuring
that our military is properly equipped, trained, and staffed for any
future threats to our national security.
Just as our men and women in uniform stand ready to defend our
country, Congress must also tackle the fiscal crisis facing our Nation.
Nothing, Mr. Speaker, is more dangerous to our national security than
the crushing debt that our country is in. Many of my colleagues have
come to the floor warning that the sky was going to fall and Armageddon
would be upon us if we did not raise the debt ceiling. Well, last week
we hit the debt ceiling, and guess what? The sky is still up there and
we are paying our bills.
History shows that in 1985, 1995, and 2002, Congress delayed raising
the debt ceiling for months without an Armageddon-like economic
meltdown. Our intent on this side of the aisle is to pay down the debt
with fiscally disciplined and responsible budgets that reduce deficit
spending. With a system like that in place, there will be no need to
continue to raise the debt ceiling and create further financial burdens
that could cost each American over $40,000. Imagine a better American
future. Imagine what Americans can achieve if we are freed from
Washington's debt burden.
On March 16, 2006, a young Senator took the floor in the United
States Senate and said, ``The fact that we are here today to debate
raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a
sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It's a sign we
now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to
finance our government's reckless fiscal policy.'' Mr. Speaker, that
Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling, and that Senator was
Barack Obama, our current President. As far as that statement goes, I
agree with the President that our dependency on foreign funds is
reckless and a danger to our national security.
Just as dangerous is the failure to achieve energy security.
Republicans strongly believe that energy security depends on domestic
energy production. Our friends, the liberal Democrats and President
Obama, have actively blocked and delayed American energy production,
destroying jobs, raising energy prices, and making the U.S. more
reliant on unstable foreign countries for energy. This is hurting
American families and small businesses, who are vital to creating the
new private sector jobs we so desperately need during this time of high
unemployment.
The liberal proposals fail to create jobs in America but help create
jobs overseas for the citizens of foreign nations. We need policies
that allow us to take advantage of our natural resources and our
innovative culture to develop new sources of energy and create jobs
here at home.
To date, the Obama administration has pursued an anti-energy agenda,
rife with policies that block domestic energy production and destroy
jobs. The consequences of this agenda are dire. In the short term, it
fuels a rise in gas prices and costs for consumers, and in the long
term it limits innovation and stifles economic growth and job creation.
Mr. Speaker, we need to approve this rule which we are debating and
the underlying bills so that we can stop the funding of abortions and
so that we can fund our military. And we need to look at the other
policies that are being promoted by our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle and in the White House to see that we can become more secure
as a Nation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I feel I need to clarify the record on a couple of
things.
My friend from North Carolina said that the Republicans want to
protect Medicare. I would suggest that she read the bill that she voted
for and other Republicans voted for, the so-called
[[Page H3357]]
Ryan budget. The way they protect Medicare is by destroying it. They
turn it into a voucher system. And it will mean seniors will pay more
and they will get less protection. It is outrageous what they're
proposing. And more and more Americans are reading the bill, and they
are outraged by what they are seeing.
Democrats, and I hope some thoughtful Republicans, will stand firm
and protect Medicare. It is the most important, successful program in
our history, along with Social Security. And efforts to dismantle it
and to put more burden on our senior citizens for their health care,
and basically a major giveaway to the insurance companies, is not
protecting Medicare.
{time} 1340
The gentlelady talks about the reckless spending in Washington. I
will remind all of my colleagues that when Bill Clinton left office, we
didn't have a deficit; we were paying down our debt. There was a
detailed article in The Washington Post not too long ago explaining how
we went from no deficit to now a huge deficit. It includes tax
giveaways to the wealthiest people in this country that were not paid
for, you know.
I find it somewhat sad that one of the first things that was done in
terms of addressing some of our economic concerns was to protect the
tax cuts for people like Donald Trump but then to go in and cut
emergency fuel assistance for poor people and to go after food and
nutrition programs and Pell Grants. That's not the way we should be
balancing the budget.
But The Washington Post talks about these tax cuts for the wealthy
that were not paid for; on top of that, two wars that were not paid
for. Now, I am against these wars; but if you are for them, you ought
to pay for them. That's the way we have done it throughout our history.
World War II, we paid for it. There was a war tax. We had war bonds.
The Vietnam War was paid for in part by eroding Lyndon Johnson's Great
Society. It was paid for. But now we have these wars that are not paid
for, $8.2 billion a month in Afghanistan alone.
So I hope this is not a partisan agenda when we talk about the war in
Afghanistan, and I am not here to put the blame on one party or
another. I hope that we can have these amendments on the floor and have
some thoughtful discussion about ways we could bring this war to an
end. I think Democrats, and I know a lot of Republicans, feel that we
should bring this war to an end.
In terms of energy policy, I think people are horrified that we
continue to protect taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil companies while they
are gouging us at the gas pump. It is unbelievable that we can't have a
debate on this floor about taking away these taxpayer subsidies to Big
Oil that are making record profits. So I hope that we will talk a
little bit more about that at the end of this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules
Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the
underlying legislation. H.R. 1216 would put the future primary care
workforce into question.
The Affordable Care Act included critical funding for several grant
programs designed to increase the size of the health care workforce
and, specifically, to increase the number of general practice and
primary care physicians. Primary care has long been neglected in our
country and it has been well documented that our country faces a
looming shortage of primary care providers.
The Affordable Care Act will help train and develop 16,000 new
primary care providers. That means 16,000 more primary care doctors to
help keep our children and families healthy, as studies strongly
associate healthier outcomes with regular access to care.
Unfortunately, the bill before us would call all of this into
question. If this bill were enacted, we would no longer have the
pipeline of primary care providers to meet demand and we would continue
the status quo, which for too many is either foregoing care or seeking
care in the emergency room. This perpetuates the onset of chronic
conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. This is
increasing costs and costing lives.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to vote down this bill
for the future of our physical and fiscal health of our constituents
and our country.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.
And to my friend on the other side of the aisle, I want to say that I
will be offering an amendment to the defense authorization bill which
would defund the war in Libya. The war is unconstitutional. The
President did not come to this Congress. He went to the U.N. Security
Council. He went to a number of international bodies. He didn't come to
the United States Congress. Last week, the President did not observe
the tolling of the War Powers Act; so he is in violation of the
statute.
The action over in Libya has already exceeded the U.N. mandate. It's
in violation of the U.N. mandate, and there have been violations of
international law. What are we doing there? What does anyone think we
can afford, and why aren't we trying to find a path to peace so we
aren't called upon to spend more money there?
I mean, these are questions we have to be asking. That is why
Congress should start by saying, look, you are not going to spend any
more money over there. And there are people who are saying, Mr.
Speaker, that, well, it's not the United States; it's NATO.
Now, think about this. The Guardian UK did this study where 93
percent of the cruise missiles are paid for by the US; 66 percent of
the personnel involved in Libya, against Libya, from the U.S.; 50
percent of the aircraft, 50 percent of all ships. And they're saying
this is a NATO operation?
Come on. I mean, we really have to recognize what's going on here,
which is an expansion of the war power by the Executive, and it's time
that we challenge that. And one thing we certainly shouldn't do is to
support the amendment offered by my friend Mr. McKeon that wants to
hand over to the President Congress' constitutional authority to
declare an authorized war, substantially altering the delicate balance
of power which the Founding Fathers envisioned.
The annual reauthorization of the Department of Defense contains
unprecedented and dangerous language, which gives the President
virtually unchecked power to take this country to war and to keep us
there.
The bill substantially undermines the Constitution, the institution
that the Constitution set up, that is, Congress, and sets the United
States on a path to permanent war.
Congress has to protect the American people from the overreach of any
Chief Executive--Democrat, Republican--any Chief Executive who is
enamored with unilateralism, preemption, first strike, and the power to
prosecute war without constitutional authority or statutory
prescriptions.
Permanent global war isn't the answer. It's not going to increase our
national security. Far from ridding the world of terrorism, it will
become a terrorist recruitment program. The war in Iraq, based on lies.
The war in Afghanistan, based on a misreading of history. Yet in Iraq
we will spend over $3 trillion. In Afghanistan we have already spent
over a half trillion dollars.
We have people out of work here. We have people who are losing their
homes, losing their health care, losing their retirement security, and
all we hear from the White House is they want more war or they want
authorization for more war. We have to stop that. And while we're
stopping that, we have to stop this national security state and stop
the extension of the Patriot Act, which is also in this bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to my colleague from
Massachusetts, as I do almost every time that we are on the floor
together, and I do enjoy being on the floor with him, that he always
brings up the fact that we had a surplus when President Clinton left
office. Well, the reason we had a surplus, Mr. Speaker, when President
Clinton left office had nothing to do with President Clinton. It had
all to do with the fact that we had Republicans in charge of the
Congress.
[[Page H3358]]
And just before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, as my
colleague from Massachusetts so well knows, the CBO projected that
there would be a surplus in the United States. However, the Democrats
took over in January of 2007 and immediately we began running deficits
because of their profligate spending.
I would also like to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts, as
he so well knows, that the Democrats who are in control of the Senate
held a vote last week on whether or not to change the Tax Code in order
to disallow incentives that are given to the oil companies for securing
oil for this country. And as he knows, again, it's controlled by the
Democrats. It was turned down by the Senate.
So I would like to point out to him that Republicans are not
responsible for the deficit and Republicans are not responsible for
denying legal tax exemptions to oil companies. It is the Democrats who
are responsible for that.
I will allow my colleague to make comments, but I won't allow him to
rewrite history.
{time} 1350
Mr. Speaker, we have great political unrest in the Middle East, and
the growing demand from China threatens our ability to secure long-term
reserves of oil from foreign entities. That's why we must pursue an
alternative energy policy in this country, one that puts to use our
domestic supplies and technologies.
Republicans are going to continue to pursue an all-of-the-above
energy plan aimed at increasing our domestic production to bring down
energy prices while creating jobs here at home and ending our
dependence on foreign sources of oil.
What that means, Mr. Speaker, is we believe in conservation, we
believe in alternatives, but we also believe in using the resources
that the good Lord gave us here in this country which are being denied
to the American people by our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. Mr. Speaker, American families cannot wait any longer for relief
at the pump. American families cannot wait any longer for increased
jobs.
As we head back to our districts for the Memorial Day holiday, it's
fitting that we should all give thanks to those who have given their
lives in defense of the freedom that we very much cherish. Every day,
courageous young men and women from all over America volunteer to serve
our country in the military. They do not join for the great pay,
luxurious lifestyle and swanky accommodations. They join the military
and serve with dignity and honor because they love this country and
they love what we stand for. They serve a much higher purpose than
themselves. What our troops provide for us can be summarized in one
word: America.
We need now to all come together as supporters of the young men and
women of the Armed Forces and their families as proud Americans and
provide them with the tools and resources that these brave volunteers
deserve, which is why my colleagues and I all need to vote for the
underlying bill, the Defense authorization bill.
But we also need to vote for the rule, which is going to allow for
almost an unlimited number of amendments to be offered, Mr. Speaker,
unlike what our colleagues did when they were in charge in the 110th
and 111th Congresses.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, you're entitled to
your own opinions, but not your own facts. And the fact is, Mr.
Speaker, when this record surplus was turned into a record deficit, I
will remind the gentlelady that the Republicans controlled the House,
they controlled the Senate, and they controlled the White House. And
that is when we passed these tax cuts for the richest people in the
world, and they were not paid for. And that is when we embarked on two
wars that were not paid for.
It appears that the gentlelady wants to continue these wars. I want
to end them. But if you're going to continue them, then pay for them,
because it is not fair to the men and women who are sacrificing their
lives and the men and women who are in harm's way and their families to
just accumulate all this debt and pass it on to them, their children
and their grandchildren. If we are going to go to war, we all ought to
take some responsibility.
And, finally, on the issue of the taxpayer subsidies for oil
companies, we have not had a debate on this House floor or a vote on
this House floor on this. I don't care what the Senate did or did not
do. I'm not a Member of the United States Senate. I'm a Member of the
United States House of Representatives. And under this new and open
process that we were promised, by the way, not a single open rule yet--
not a single open rule--but under this new and open process, we can't
bring an amendment to the floor to be able to debate this issue.
So I would respectfully suggest that maybe my colleague from North
Carolina and the Rules Committee will once in a while vote for an open
rule so we can bring some of these things to the floor.
At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill in its current form.
By delaying the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, this bill will
weaken our Armed Forces and further confuse an issue that our country
and our military have simply moved past. This bill in its current form
says to gay and lesbian servicemembers, you're welcome to fight and die
for our country as long as you live in secret.
Mr. Speaker, Don't Ask, Don't Tell requires brave men and women in
our military to live in constant fear of being dismissed for an aspect
of their personal lives that has no bearing on their job performance.
It's a law that serves no purpose. It's a law that hinders our
military's effectiveness. It's a law that Congress has already voted to
appeal. And it's a law, frankly, that's un-American. Yet here we are,
again, considering a bill that would continue to codify discrimination.
We should not go back to those dark days, and we will not go back.
In April, the service chiefs reported to the House Armed Services
Committee that the process of certifying the end of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell is moving forward, and the response from servicemembers has been
overwhelmingly positive. Vice Admiral Gortney, staff director for the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported the appeals process was moving ahead
without incident. Clifford Stanley, under Secretary of Defense for
personnel and readiness, told the committee that training programs to
prepare for the repeal are going ``extremely well.''
So we know the military supports moving forward, as do the vast
majority of the American people: 72 percent support the repeal of Don't
Ask, Don't Tell.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell hurts military readiness and national security
every day. To date, over 13,000 servicemembers who have been trained at
taxpayer expense have been forced out of the military under this
policy. It's hard to believe that dismissing mission-critical
servicemembers or linguists fluent in Arabic, Korean and Farsi will
somehow make us more effective or combat ready. The Commander in Chief,
the Secretary of Defense, who I might add was originally appointed by
President Bush, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, support repeal.
Mr. Speaker, it's time for Don't Ask, Don't Tell to move from the law
books to the dustbins of history. Its only value is as a lesson to
future generations that our Nation is stronger when we welcome all
members of the American family and weaker when we divide and
discriminate.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule
and support the gentleman's motion to move the previous question. This
motion demonstrates we are serious about creating jobs, growing the
economy, and lowering gas prices.
My Republican colleagues are instead relitigating an issue that was
debated exhaustively over the past year. As I traveled all across my
district last week, not surprisingly, not a single one
[[Page H3359]]
of my constituents said the health reform should be altered to fund
graduate medical education in qualified teaching health centers through
direct appropriations. Rather, my constituents want to hear what
Congress is doing now to lower the price of a gallon of gas. They want
to know how we are responding to turmoil in the Middle East and
speculation by Wall Street, which are causing this price spike.
In Montauk Point, the eastern most point of my district, regular
unleaded gas cost $4.89 a gallon yesterday. Recreational and commercial
fishermen, small businesses and the whole local economy are all being
squeezed by gas prices.
My constituents want to know what Congress is doing in response and
how we plan to create jobs and expand our economy. But since the new
Republican majority took over this year, we haven't debated a single
jobs initiative or any meaningful proposal to reduce the price of gas
for consumers--not one. In the 140 days since the 112th Congress began,
we have debated zero job bills and only a handful of bills related to
energy, most of which focus on reducing the price of gas 10 years from
now, maybe.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question so that we can focus on our priorities: Reducing gas prices,
creating jobs and helping middle class American keep up in today's
economy.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I ask how much time I have remaining, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 9 minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to support the efforts of my colleague from New
York (Mr. Bishop). And let me just say the American people are sending
a clear message to Republicans: Show us the jobs. After 140 days of the
new GOP majority, they keep pursuing their agenda that destroys jobs
and stalls our economic growth.
This week is no different. And today, Republicans are only making
matters worse, voting to kill graduate medical education in qualified
teaching health care centers.
The previous question, as Mr. Bishop referred to it, is based on H.R.
964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. And it takes a stand for
working families facing tough times and paying so much more at the
pump. During an international oil crisis, as declared by the President,
this legislation makes it illegal to sell gasoline at excessive prices
and prevents Big Oil from taking advantage of consumers and engaging in
price gouging.
{time} 1400
The cost of a barrel of oil and a gallon of gas has reached their
highest level in years, with no end in sight, and America's middle
class is paying the price.
Republicans must join with Democrats to oppose price gouging and to
ease the burden on our middle class. We must work together to create
jobs, strengthen the middle class, and responsibly reduce the deficit.
To help consumers at the pump and provide some relief to small
businesses and families struggling with high gas prices, this
legislation expands the authority of the President to release oil from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to combat market manipulation and bring
down the price, and makes it a Federal crime to sell gasoline at
excessive prices.
The legislation also protects taxpayers, holds Big Oil accountable,
repeals the largest tax breaks for the Big Five Oil companies, and
ensures that oil companies pay billions of dollars owed to taxpayers
for drilling on public lands. This is part of our multifaceted effort
to lower the price of gas now, bring relief to consumers and taxpayers,
strengthen our energy security, reduce our dependence on foreign oil,
and hold Big Oil accountable.
Republicans' ``drill-only, oil above all'' plan is really a boon for
Big Oil and does nothing to reduce the pain at the pump for America's
middle class families who are facing these prices each and every day.
Republicans are simply returning to the Bush policies for Big Oil--
continuing to purse ``drill-only'' policies with fewer safeguards and
no accountability, that has us sending a billion dollars a day overseas
for foreign oil.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House
adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging
Prevention Act introduced by Representative Tim Bishop of New York.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that
actually addresses the price of gas. I have tried, Mr. Speaker, on
numerous times in the Rules Committee to bring responsible amendments
to the floor that would get at this issue of taxpayer subsidies to Big
Oil companies, and every single time my Republicans friends have voted
``no.'' Every time there has been an opportunity to try to address this
issue, they have voted ``no.''
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question,
and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
I want to bring our attention to the upcoming Memorial Day because we
are going to be honoring the fallen and praise their service and
sacrifice. We need to remember the families of the fallen and reassure
them that their sacrifice and the life of that hero was not lost in
vain. We are also very proud of our troops who are currently serving,
and we want to make sure that they get that message from us in this
body, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts
that the unemployment rate was 5 percent when they took over the
Congress, or approximately 5 percent when they took over Congress in
January 2007. Under their control and President Obama's, it reached 10
percent, and has stayed at around 9 percent while they were in control.
So I want to again make it clear that we have worked hard to make the
economy work again, and we are going to continue that.
Mr. Speaker, although I have said it also before, it bears repeating:
Americans are sick and tired of reckless government spending, creating
only government jobs which hurts our overall economy and creates high
unemployment. Americans are deeply concerned about the outrageous level
of Federal debt. Our constituents are concerned about the piece of our
economy that is now owned by other countries like China. They are very
concerned about the fact that so much of our tax dollars, the tax
dollars they pay, go toward paying interest on the debt instead of
using it for the country's immediate needs.
Mr. Speaker, that is why Americans are looking at the new House
Republican majority for real answers to their concerns. After 4 years
of a complete lack of leadership in Congress under the Democrats, we
have rolled up our sleeves and are making the tough decisions to get
our economy and fiscal house back in shape. The Federal Government must
learn to live within its means and be accountable for how it spends
taxpayer money.
House Republicans are continuing to fulfill our pledge to America and
keep the promises we made to the American people before the election
last November. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of congressional
oversight and against special interests by voting in favor of this rule
and the underlying bills.
The material referred to previously by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 269 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
964) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and
other fuels, and for other purposes. The first
[[Page H3360]]
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 4 of this
resolution.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adopting the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 179, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 333]
YEAS--233
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--179
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
[[Page H3361]]
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Braley (IA)
Cantor
Clarke (NY)
Cummings
Filner
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Guinta
Hanabusa
Hastings (WA)
King (IA)
Long
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McHenry
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Sullivan
Wu
{time} 1432
Messrs. KEATING, TONKO, RUSH, SIRES, Ms. SEWELL, and Ms. MOORE
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ADERHOLT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 333, I was away from the Capitol
region attending the Civil Rights Freedom Riders' 50th Anniversary
Celebration. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238,
noes 181, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 334]
AYES--238
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hayworth
Heck
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--181
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Braley (IA)
Cantor
Filner
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Hanabusa
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Long
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
Pastor (AZ)
{time} 1440
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 334, I was away from the Capitol
region attending the Civil Rights Freedom Riders' 50th Anniversary
Celebration. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________