[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.''

                          ____________________