[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 194 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H9812-H9821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2055,
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 3672, DISASTER RELIEF APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 94, CORRECTING THE ENROLLMENT OF H.R.
3672; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 500 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 500
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2055) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
conference report to its adoption without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to
recommit if applicable.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3672) making
appropriations for disaster relief requirements for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in
order to consider in the House the
[[Page H9813]]
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 94) directing the Clerk
of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the
enrollment of H.R. 3672. All points of order against
consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. The
concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the concurrent resolution to its adoption without
intervening motion except: (1) 20 minutes of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion
to recommit which may not contain instructions.
Sec. 4. The Clerk shall not transmit to the Senate a
message that the House has passed H.R. 3672 until notified by
the Speaker or by message from the Senate that the Senate has
taken the question on adoption of House Concurrent Resolution
94 as adopted by the House.
Sec. 5. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of December 16, 2011, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though
under clause 1(c) of rule XV, relating to a measure
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2012.
Sec. 6. 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 December 31, 2011, providing for
consideration or disposition of any of the following
measures:
(1) A measure relating to expiring provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(2) A measure relating to the Medicare payment system for
physicians.
(3) A measure relating to appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2012.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman
from California is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York
(Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 500 provides for the consideration
of three measures that will ensure that the government is funded
through the end of the fiscal year; and this rule, as was outlined by
the reading Clerk, provides very important tools to deal with important
issues that have yet to be resolved.
{time} 1000
Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that, as we sit here at 3 minutes of 10
o'clock this morning, we are faced at midnight tonight with the
prospect of a government shutdown. There is a bipartisan consensus on
the need to ensure that we don't face a government shutdown; and it's
very important that we take action to prevent that from taking place,
and that's exactly what our opportunity is here today.
At the same time, it's important for us to realize that it is
absolutely imperative, if we are going to get our economy growing and
create jobs, for us to reduce the size and scope and reach of the
Federal Government. That's the message the American people have sent to
us overwhelmingly, and that's why I have to say that I believe this
bipartisan compromise, which has been worked out with Members of the
House and the Senate and the White House, moves us in the direction of
doing just that.
Why? Because we are actually bringing about in this conference report
a $95 billion reduction in discretionary spending, merely a drop in the
bucket. We all recognize that it's not enough. We all recognize that
much, much more remains to be done, but, Mr. Speaker, this is an
important first step. And the fact that it's been done in a bipartisan,
bicameral way, working not only with the first but the second branch of
government as well, is, I believe, a positive indicator for us.
As I think about the challenges that we have--and I said this during
the management of our jobs bill that we had, the so-called extenders
measure that deals with the question of extending unemployment
insurance, doing everything we possibly can to keep taxes low by
extending for a year the payroll tax holiday, ensuring that people have
access to Medicare dollars, and, of course, focusing on job creation by
proceeding with the Keystone XL pipeline. As I pointed out during that
debate, right now, our job is jobs. The American people want us to
focus on job creation and economic growth, and I believe that this
bipartisan, bicameral compromise will help us in that quest.
It hasn't been pretty getting here. We all know the famous Otto von
Bismarck line, that you don't want to watch sausage or laws being made.
This has been ugly.
And, actually, I was not going to say what I'm about to say right
now, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to proceed and I will explain to you
why.
It's been a painful and difficult and ugly and messy process which,
frankly, is exactly what James Madison wanted. He is looking down at us
saying, The process is working just as I envisaged it, because he
wanted there to be this clash of ideas and a struggle. But, at the end
of the day, he wanted there to be a compromise; and he wanted there to
be an agreement at the end of the day, recognizing that that needed to
be done.
We know that the chairs of the Committee on Appropriations, Messrs.
Rogers and Inouye, shook hands on Monday and had an agreement. Again, I
was not going to say this; but the Rules Committee completed its work
early this morning, and I got a few hours of sleep, and I woke up to
National Public Radio, which I do. That's what wakes me up in the
morning, Mr. Speaker. And I know that there are some of my Republican
friends who are not fans of National Public Radio. I like to watch
MSNBC TV and listen to National Public Radio. It keeps my blood
circulating very well, Mr. Speaker.
But I woke up this morning to listen to a report on this conference
agreement. I am very happy to see my good friend from Seattle, the
distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, arrive on
the floor. And I wasn't going to say this, but because of this report
on NPR, I'm going to share it.
Tamara Keith, who is the congressional correspondent for NPR on
Morning Edition, characterized why it is that we are here on Friday
rather than having met the 3-day layover requirement and all these
things that we wanted to do when the agreement was struck on Monday,
and what she said was that Senate Democrats held this bill hostage.
Those are not my words, again, Mr. Speaker. Those are the words of
Tamara Keith who reported on National Public Radio this morning that
this measure was held hostage by Senate Democrats. And she went on a
second time, using the word ``hostage.'' She said, Well, finally the
hostages have been released. Again, those are not my words. Those are
the words of National Public Radio.
So some people wanted me to say it, but I decided not to say it
myself. But when I heard it early this morning, I couldn't help but say
it. So that's the reason I'm looking across the Chamber right now at
3,000 pages stacked this high right next to the distinguished ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules, right across the aisle from
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations,
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. Speaker, we've had to waive the 3-day layover requirement
because, again, according to NPR, we had this conference report held
hostage, but we've finally gotten here. Now that we're here, I'm happy
to say that, while I'm not ecstatic with every measure in it--just as I
know that Mr. Dicks is not ecstatic with every measure in it; I know
that Ms. Slaughter is not ecstatic with every measure in it; I'm not
ecstatic with the process that has gotten us here because of the
challenges and ugliness and messiness we've gone through this week. We
are here because it is absolutely essential that we not see the
government shut down in several hours at midnight tonight.
So I believe that we need to realize--and I know Mr. Dicks and I have
had this conversation repeatedly, along with our friend Mr. Rogers of
Kentucky, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations--that we want
a clean slate as we head into next year so that Mr. Dicks and Mr.
Rogers will be able to go through regular order, bring the
appropriations bills to the floor and, we hope and pray, get each bill
done ad seriatim, the way they're supposed to be done, rather than
dealing with what has been characterized as an
[[Page H9814]]
omnibus, a mini-bus, a megabus. But the term that I like that was given
by the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations last
night is this is ``the rest of the bus.'' And that's really where we
are.
But it's essential for the American people, for those who are
representing us so diligently around the world in conflicts in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other spots, for people who rely and need to have
support from government programs that do exist, it's essential that we
get this measure passed, and pass it with what I hope will be strong
bipartisan support.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say that I am happy that we are
doing the things that will be outlined, I know, very thoughtfully by
the distinguished former chair and current ranking member of the
Committee on Rules. I will say that we have got 3,000 pages.
By the way, I should say, before my friend begins this, that on
Monday, virtually all of that was available, and it was put online at
12:30 Wednesday night. Right after midnight Wednesday, it was made
available online. And so while we have not actually met the exact 3-day
layover requirement, I should point to the fact that we always said--
and I'm so proud of the fact that we have been able to do it. But when
we faced what is really a very, very important deadline, that being the
closure of the government that would take place 14 hours from now, I
think it is very important that we take this action and do it as
quickly and as well as we possibly can.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague is absolutely right. This is
``the rest of the bus.'' But it's going to be a little while before we
realize whether we are on that bus or whether we've been thrown under
it. Obviously, as Mr. Dreier called attention to it, this is the bill
that we have today. None of us will make any pretense at all of having
read it.
Now, I have been around long enough to know that things happen this
way. The country is about to shut down tonight; the agencies are all
prepared to close, and we can't have that. So we find ourselves
confronted here today with this completed and going through this
conference.
{time} 1010
A lot of people are breathing a sigh of relief this morning, frankly,
particularly the Federal workers and the rest of the country, that they
are not going to be faced with a shutdown of Federal agencies.
But although we were able to avert that crisis today, this 2,000-page
legislative package is not a cause for celebration--and I don't believe
Mr. Dreier thinks it is either--but it is a demonstration of failure.
As I have said, I have known cases and have been a participant in cases
where things like this have happened before. But for a Congress that
had promised at the beginning part of the campaign and what we were
promised at the beginning of this term was that this would not happen
anymore. Instead, it has happened over and over again. Over the past 12
months, we have witnessed the utter failure to responsibly legislate--a
failure that has led to this massive bill that we are considering
today.
You've heard all of this before, but in the fall of 2010 when the
majority took over, Speaker Boehner said: We'll do away with the
concept of comprehensive spending bills.
He's been around awhile too, and he knows that there are times when
things happen that really don't fall in line with what we want. But
nonetheless, he made that promise. Despite this call for a deliberate
appropriations process, the House was recently asked to consider a $180
billion minibus, totaling 354 pages of legislation.
And today, less than 24 hours--we're about halfway, I think--we are
offered a $1 trillion megabus appropriations bill. It was given to the
Members of the House today, and we're asked to vote on that. We will,
of course, do that because, as I've said, the looming layoff and
shutdown of the Federal Government is something that we cannot stand at
this juncture, or any other time.
So despite the earlier promises by the GOP to separate the
controversial legislation from the must-pass bill, the megabus was
delayed by a battle over controversial riders. We know this could have
been done much sooner, but there were five riders that had to be
resolved--everything from the reproductive rights of the citizens of
the District of Columbia to energy-saving lightbulbs.
Mr. Speaker, this House has spent more time debating lightbulbs than
we have putting American people to work. It has really been an
outrage--we have talked about this so many times before. But
nonetheless, in all the contemplations, all the conference work,
lightbulbs have survived. I know that's a sigh of relief to everybody
in America who had no idea we were spending so much time micromanaging
their lightbulbs.
But this is a sign, I think, of a larger failure, a failure of their
vision of governing. It is a vision that we've gone through all this
year that was based on brinksmanship and threats--an all-or-nothing
game of chicken with their colleagues and the American people. And
everybody is exhausted from, will we do it? Won't we do it? Can we do
it? Must we do it? Part of that has resulted in a lessening of the
credit rating of the United States of America for the very first time.
So instead of spending the year finding common ground with their
Democrat colleagues, the majority spent the year advancing legislation
to dismantle the EPA and to talk about lightbulbs and to open federally
protected lands to foreign mining companies. I find in my constituency
the idea that we were going to give land to Russia around the Grand
Canyon to mine for uranium mind-boggling to people. We really ought to
be worried about that. This is a very serious problem.
Instead of spending the year finding common ground, we have done
nothing about that. So throwing bipartisanship to the side, the
majority pushed forward with its ideological battles at the expense of
the Nation's welfare. And what we see this morning is the result of
their divisive efforts.
What we know is that a process that began with brinksmanship and
threats, and ends with this 2,000-page, $1 trillion megabus crammed
through the House as the clock hits zero is all we have. This is our
chance to keep the government from shutting down.
With proper priorities and a serious effort to engage legislators
from both sides of the aisle, we could truly have a process and a
product that would make the American people proud. But that's not what
we have here today, and it is not what has been done this year.
I hope sincerely, and I know that many people on both sides of the
aisle hope sincerely, that as the calendar turns to 2012, we can put an
end to the zero-sum leadership that has been provided and finally give
the American people the responsible, bipartisan leadership that they
want and deserve.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as my good friends from the Appropriations
Committee, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks, congratulate each other in the
well, I will ask them to move out of the well so that I am able to
yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Grandfather Community, who left
the Rules Committee at 1 o'clock this morning and went down to her
office to work before going down to the White House at 7:30 for a tour
for her constituents.
So I underscore the fact that Virginia Foxx is extraordinarily
dedicated, and for that reason and many others, I am happy to yield her
3 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from
California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, to whom we all look
for wisdom, especially at times like this. I think he has been
extraordinarily generous in his comments this morning in talking about
the bipartisan approach. We all praised the chairman and the ranking
member of the Appropriations Committee early this morning when the
Rules Committee was meeting. It is important that we celebrate the
bipartisan nature of this bill.
As everybody will say I'm sure today, it's not a perfect bill that's
coming up. It's not pleasing everybody. It's pleasing very few people.
But it is sausage-making and rulemaking at its finest.
[[Page H9815]]
And I appreciate the fact that it is the Christmas season and we want
to be a little friendly to each during this time, as we are when we're
in our home districts. We are here in Congress, too; and, so, I'm
mindful of the season and I'm mindful of the fact that we have reached
a bipartisan agreement. But I do want to say to my colleagues across
the aisle, there's an old saying that people who live in glass houses
should not throw stones.
Again, as my colleague from California said, we're not happy that we
have a rather large bill and a somewhat short perspective in time to
deal with it. But this bill was out there on Monday, as he pointed out.
And were it not for the dilatory tactics of the Senate, we could have
had this bill on the floor earlier this week, and it has certainly been
out there for everybody to read.
I want to say to my colleague from across the aisle from New York who
said there was a lot of wasted time on lightbulbs. Mr. Speaker,
lightbulbs are a symptom of the problem with this executive
administration and our friends across the aisle. Talk about wanting to
micromanage--they want to control what kind of lightbulbs we have. It
was a debate between the Senate Democrats and the President of the
United States on whether we're going to continue to control the kind of
lightbulbs we have that delayed this process yesterday for many, many
hours.
But we need to talk about some positive things that the Republicans
in this House have done this year. We've stopped spending money we
don't have. We've cut discretionary spending for the second year in a
row for the first time since World War II. Thanks to the changes in the
way this Congress works, that Republicans brought here under the
leadership of our Speaker, instead of shoveling ever-larger piles of
money into the Federal government black hole, this bill represents
another step towards reducing the size, scope, and cost of the Federal
government.
We've been working hard to cut spending, grow the economy, and create
jobs. We've protected hardworking taxpayers from Washington's waste by
eliminating 42 government programs.
And thanks to Republicans' efforts to stop wasteful pork-barrel
spending, while the Democrats included 18,000 earmarks in their final 2
years of spending----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield my colleague an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
House Republicans fulfilled our pledge to Americans by including no
earmarks--no earmarks--in the 2011 and 2012 spending bills. This is a
huge success. After years of status quo pork-barrel spending,
Republicans have changed the culture of spending in America.
There's much work to do, but this bill takes us in the right
direction. That's why I'm urging my colleagues to support this rule and
the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
{time} 1020
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Congresswoman
Slaughter, the gentlelady from New York, for her leadership and for
yielding.
This is not the open and transparent process the Republicans have
promised the American people. Instead, we have had a closed-door
process that has stacked this critical spending bill, a bill that is
necessary to make our government and our Nation function, with a bunch
of special-interest riders. For example:
Gutting the budget of the IRS, that will not reduce deficits caused
by the Bush tax cuts for the 1 percent, and that's in this bill.
Helping to spread HIV and hepatitis C through dirty needles will not
help our economic recovery. Yes, that will happen in this bill.
Denying the women of Washington, DC, the right which other women have
throughout the country, the right to health services, the right to have
an abortion with the city's own money--not Federal funds, mind you, not
Federal funds but other funds. We are denying, again, low-income,
mostly African American minority women that right in this bill. Why in
the world would we want to include this type of a rider in a bill to
fund our government? It makes no sense. It's mean-spirited and it's
wrong.
Also, why would we want to continue to have provisions to pollute the
air that we breathe and the water that we drink? That's in this bill,
with some of these riders. That will not raise the failing median
income of American workers. Unfortunately, again, this bill does that.
Funding abstinence-only sex education, we know that fails. That won't
create the millions of jobs necessary to grow the American middle class
and to help more people from falling deeper into poverty.
This recession--and for many, it's still a depression--is hurting
millions. Half of all Americans are either in poverty, near poor, or
low income. We should be focused on lifting these families up and
reigniting the American Dream.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. LEE of California. Thank you.
In this bill, we should have focused on creating these ladders of
opportunity, removing barriers and helping to reignite the American
Dream for all Americans. Instead, we're scoring, I believe, political
points on the backs of Washington, DC, women and millions of poor and
struggling individuals and families in this country.
The process that this bill underwent as we brought it forward to this
floor was not a good process. I think had we had regular order, due
process, we would have been able to figure some of these issues out.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to simply make a
couple of very important points, and that is we are here faced with
this situation because of the inability of our colleagues in the other
body, the United States Senate, to act.
I am just looking at the list of the conferees, and I listened to my
friends criticize the bill--and I actually don't know whether my friend
from Rochester is going to end up supporting the conference report or
not. I didn't get a conclusion on that--but I will say that every
single House Member, Democrat and Republican, every subcommittee
chairman, every ranking member of a subcommittee, the so-called
cardinals, the chairs of the subcommittees, signed this conference
report. It is bipartisan.
Unfortunately, in the Senate, we have a number of Members of the
Senate who didn't sign the conference report. But I believe that we
need to realize that we went for 963 days--nearly 1,000 days, Mr.
Speaker--without a budget having passed from the United States Senate.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that we didn't have any appropriations bills done
last year. We're trying to clean this process up.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a very
thoughtful, diligent new member of the Committee on Rules, the
gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman for yielding the time, and I want to
thank my chairman for his work on opening this process up in the House.
He's teamed up with our new Speaker to say that regular order is the
better way to do things.
I want to say, and it needs to be said, it's too easy when all you do
is read the headlines in this town to start pointing the finger of
blame. Here is National Journal, one of our dailies: Dems Sign
Conference Report. The White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid had blocked passage of the measure.
It's not about where the blame is; it's about where the successes
are.
When you look behind me, Mr. Speaker, at this stack of pages that
represents this bill, what that represents is the work that didn't get
done last year but that Norm Dicks and that Hal Rogers have come
together to get done this year. When we talk about regular order and
the regular order that hasn't happened this year, what we need to talk
about is the fact that we had no regular order on appropriations bills
last year. We got six of them passed through appropriations, the
regular order process, this year. That's half. That's 50 percent of the
way
[[Page H9816]]
there, and I know we have a commitment from the Appropriations
Committee to get the rest of them there next year.
This is a success story. This is not a failure. Is this the way that
I wanted to legislate, 2,300 pages? No, it's not. And it's not the way
that the Appropriations Committee wants to legislate, and it's not the
way any Member of this House wants to legislate, and it's 50 percent
better than what we did last year. We're going to get back to regular
order. We're going to get back to regular order by clearing out the
work from 2012--I'm sorry, 2011 was this year. We are now finishing
2012 today. We're going to be able to start 2013.
I sit on the Budget Committee. My commitment to my friends on the
Appropriations Committee is we're going to move that budget. We're
going to move it early. We're going to move it on time, and we're going
to be done by the end of March so that you all can begin your important
work. It's not just about the spending of the money. It's about the
oversight of how the money is spent. And that's why regular order is so
important.
Do you know that there is only one committee in this House that comes
to the Rules Committee day in and day out and says this: I want an open
rule on my bill so that all Members can be heard. I do not want waivers
to go along with it, and I want the House to operate under regular
order? There's only one, and it's the Appropriations Committee.
When you see what's going on today and what we're doing in the name
of completing our business for the year, understand that this is the
one committee in the House that wants to give everybody a say. This is
the one committee in the House that tries to make every Member's
opinion count. And if we can successfully deal with this in the same
bipartisan way that we have been throughout the year, we can move this
business today and begin anew, as we all want to, on January 1 of next
year.
I thank my chairman, and I thank the appropriators for their very
hard work.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr.
McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Chairman Rogers and Ranking
Member Dicks for their tireless work on this bill, and I'm pleased that
we're finally going to finish the appropriations process for this year.
I especially want to thank the White House, Senator Reid, and other
key Senate and House negotiators for removing the House Cuba provision
from the final conference report. Not only was it a direct attack on
the prerogatives of the Executive, but it was cruel and inhumane. It
would have ripped apart Cuban American families from their relatives on
the island.
Family communication, connection, and reunification have always been
a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. It has promoted great good in the
case of Cuba, and it deserves the support of this Congress. And
hopefully, some day soon, we can scrap our whole Cuba policy and lift
the travel restrictions so every American can go visit that country.
But, Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity go without commenting
a little bit on the process. My friend from Georgia talked about
regular order. Regular order my foot. I mean, all points of order were
waived against this bill. Half of the bills that are in this--this is
pretty heavy--no one had an opportunity to offer a single amendment on.
``Read the bill.'' That's what my Republican friends shouted last year,
``Read the bill.'' They used this rallying cry to promote their Pledge
to America where they promised to read the bill. No one read that bill
at all. Where are the Tea Party people when you want them?
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. When I'm finished, I'll yield.
Mr. DREIER. I look forward to it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Let me read a quote:
``We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public
square by publishing the text online for at least 3 days before coming
up for a vote in the House of Representatives.''
That's directly from their pledge. Yet here we are today considering
a 2,300-page bill that was introduced at 11:45 p.m.--last night. That's
not 3 days. That's not even 12 hours. Twenty-three hundred pages were
presented to this House in the dead of night. The Rules Committee
didn't finish until close to 1 a.m. this morning, and here we are.
Who knows for sure what's in this bill? Who in this body has had the
time to read this bill as it is currently drafted? This is not the way
my friends promised to run this House.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I said to the gentleman I won't yield
until I'm finished, and I would appreciate not being interrupted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls
the time.
Mr. McGOVERN. This is not the way you promised to run the House. This
is not how you said you would do the people's business. You said you
would bring up every appropriations bill under an open rule, but you
barely manage to bring up half of them. Half of the appropriations
bills were never brought up before Members of this House.
{time} 1030
What happened to the Labor-HHS bill? What happened to the
Transportation bill? The Financial Services bill? The Interior bill?
The State and Foreign Ops bill? The CJS bill? That's not the Senate's
fault; that's not Barack Obama's fault. You're in control of this House
of Representatives; you have the power to bring bills up to the floor.
You couldn't be bothered to bring them up.
Sure, you found time to bring up bills to defund Planned Parenthood
and National Public Radio. You had time to bring up bills that would
allow unsafe people to carry concealed weapons from one State to
another. Oh, and my favorite, you found time to reaffirm our national
motto. That's what all the American people are worried about, whether
we're going to reaffirm our national motto.
But you couldn't find time to debate bills funding our Nation's
roads, bridges, national parks, and community health centers. You
couldn't find to time to do your job.
Now, I'm glad the appropriators reached an agreement, but it's sad
that this Republican Congress has once again broken the promise they
made to the American people. A 2,300-page bill--something this
important and detailed--can't be read and examined in a few hours.
That's why you promised 3 days to read the bill, but you couldn't even
keep that promise. I remember when they were in charge at an earlier
time when immunity for prescription drug companies was inserted into an
appropriations bill without anyone knowing about it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 1 additional
minute.
Mr. McGOVERN. I have the utmost respect for the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. And I take him at his word when he says there
are no earmarks in this bill, that there are no special provisions,
that there is nothing snuck in here at the last minute. I'm a trusting
guy; but I also believe in verifying things, because in the past,
things have been snuck into these bills without us knowing about it.
But look at this bill. Look at this bill. It's 2,300 pages. It was
just introduced in the dead of night. It was reported out of the Rules
Committee almost at 1 a.m. in the morning. And this is different than
what was posted a few days ago. Read the bill, Mr. Speaker. The new
Republican Congress promised that we could read the bill. Too bad
they're breaking their Pledge to America.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that next year we will go back to regular order,
where all the appropriations bills will come to the floor and they will
all be debated individually, under an open process. I hope we get to
that point.
But I want to say, finally, that the fact that these bills were not
all brought up has nothing to do with the Senate, it has nothing to do
with the President. It has everything to do with
[[Page H9817]]
the leadership of this House that chose not to do it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I say to my friend from Rochester, would you yield time
to the gentleman so I can engage in a discussion with him?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts
has expired.
Who seeks time?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 16\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'd like to yield to my friend from Worcester to engage in a
discussion. I'm sorry, would the gentlewoman like me to yield? I'm
happy to yield to my friend from Rochester if she would like me to
yield. Would the gentlewoman like me to yield to her? I've just been
recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to address the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman from New York like me to yield to
her, Mr. Speaker?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I do not. If I could be allowed to say something here.
Mr. DREIER. Then I will reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is not
recognized. The gentleman from California controls the time.
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend from Rochester if she
would like to ask me a question or ask the Chair a question. I am more
than happy to yield to her, I would say, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, in the spirit of recognizing that we
need to ensure that the government doesn't shut down at midnight, I'd
like to engage in a discussion with my friend from Worcester, as I was
trying to when he was in the well, to say a few things.
First of all, as we all know, last year no appropriations bills were
passed. Nothing was completed in the last Congress--nothing at all. And
we have spent, with Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks, virtually this entire
year cleaning up the work of the last Congress. And the gentleman will
recognize that, I'm sure. I mean, the gentleman acknowledges that, Mr.
Speaker, that we have spent this year working to clean up the fact that
no appropriations work was done last year.
I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. McGOVERN. I think we're talking about this year, aren't we?
Mr. DREIER. Yes, absolutely. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker,
I would say absolutely, we're talking about this year. And the
responsibility that was thrust on us this year was so overwhelming
because last year nothing was done, nothing was accomplished. And so
what's happened, Mr. Speaker, is we are in a position where the
appropriators have been shouldering this responsibility. And,
unfortunately, our colleagues in the other body, the majority
leadership there, Senator Reid and others, according to the National
Public Radio report, as I discussed this morning, as others have
acknowledged, it was pointed out in the publications out this morning,
this was held hostage, and that's why we are where we are.
Now, my friends are enjoying holding up the 2,300-page conference
report and the additional 700 pages of the joint managers' report that
is included in there. But guess what, Mr. Speaker, all of that was
available on Monday, 5 days ago. And the only exception in this measure
is one item has been pulled out. That one item pulled out happens to be
the Cuba language that was there, and there was obviously a lot of
concern about that. That was pulled out. Then one item was added, and
that has to do with the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation. And so,
as our colleagues hold up these thousands of pages, we need to realize
it's been available since Monday. This is Friday, Mr. Speaker. That's
more than the 3-day layover requirement. And we've pointed to these
minor modifications.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the very
distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations, my very good
friend from Somerset, Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding.
And I want to thank the members of the Rules Committee. Chairman
Dreier and all of the members of that committee are required to work at
all hours of the day and night. In fact, we were testifying before the
committee last night at 12:30 seeking the rule on this bill; but that's
par for the course for the Rules Committee, who work long, laborious
hours with very little thanks. But I want to thank them.
And I want to say to Chairman Dreier and the gentlelady, the ranking
member, there has got to be a special place reserved in heaven for
those who labor in this vineyard. So thank you for the hard work that
you do.
I want to say thanks to my colleague, my ranking member on the full
committee, Mr. Dicks, who is with us in the Chamber. He and I have
worked hand in hand in this process all year long. It's a very
productive relationship. I value his advice and his help and he has
been free to give that advice and help all year long. And this is the
product of our work, a bipartisan, comprehensive effort to fund the
government. And we want to get us back to regular order.
For the last several years, before we took over this body,
appropriations was a mess. We didn't do any appropriations. We lurched
from one continuing resolution to another, leaving the public
bewildered. And so Mr. Dicks and I have determined, along with Senator
Inouye and our colleagues in the Senate, to restore regular order,
bringing one bill at a time to this floor and letting it be amended and
debated at length, and then into a conference with our colleagues
across the way. That's what we want to get back to.
Now, this bill that's before us today is a huge bill. I do not like
omnibus bills; neither one of us does. We're not going to have them.
But in order to clean up the mess that was left us, we had no choice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional
30 seconds. And I would ask my friend to yield to me, if he would.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
I would like to just say that I misspoke. The agreement was reached
between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Inouye on Monday, and the pages were not
made available until it was filed at 12:27, at just after midnight on
Wednesday.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky has
expired.
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
So I just want to say that I did misspeak when I said the agreement
was struck on Monday. It was made available after midnight on
Wednesday.
I would like to yield an additional 30 seconds to my friend from
Somerset.
{time} 1040
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. We're here because this bill is the product
of our committee, but most importantly, it's a product of our
subcommittees, Republicans and Democrats. They're the ones who put this
bill together. Collectively all of those nine subcommittees are
represented in this package here. It's been vetted by Republicans and
Democrats, House and Senate, all the way through, there are no earmarks
here, there are no air-dropped provisions in this bill, it is a good
bill. It's not perfect. I don't like omnibus bills.
But in cleaning up the mess left us, this bill is a good-faith effort
to get '012 out of the way so that in '013, this January, we will be
able to go to work on getting the 2013 bills done in the regular way.
I want to thank the staff for all the hard work they have done all
year long, and I thank our colleagues.
[[Page H9818]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Let me say all I was trying to do after last month was to say that if
Mr. Dreier's 16 minutes were not adequate for him, I would be pleased
to yield him one of my 13. That was my aim there.
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the
ranking member of Appropriations, Mr. Dicks, who has worked so hard.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the ranking member of the Rules Committee for
yielding.
I just want to say that this has been a bipartisan collaborative,
bipartisan effort to put this bill here, and Mr. McGovern and others
have explained some of the concerns about the process, and they're
legitimate, and we hope to do better next year. I am committed to
working together with the chairman to bring all 12 appropriations bills
to the floor separately next year so that we can exercise regular
order.
We did have to do H.R. 1 in the spring, which was all 12 bills from
'11, and we spent a week on it, and we also had over 500 amendments.
And it just showed that the Members want to have a chance to amend
these bills. And if you don't bring them to the floor under regular
order, you don't have an opportunity to do that.
So we're going to try to improve on our record. We got six to the
floor this year. I think we can do better next year if we get started
early, so we make a pledge to work from that.
I want to compliment our chairman, Mr. Rogers, for his openness, his
willingness to consider all points of view. He could not have done a
better job, and to have the patience of Job to listen to everybody, and
still debating the last few items in this bill this week.
Now, my good friend, Mr. Dreier, whom I have enormous respect for, we
work together on trade issues all the time. The only thing I would say
about the other body is that they weren't doing something that was
evil. They were trying to get an unemployment compensation bill
enacted; they're trying to get an extension of the payroll tax bill and
some other important provisions that are crucial to the American
people.
And so what they did by slowing us down a little bit was to give an
opportunity to get that work done.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DICKS. As much as I would have preferred to go forward, we had to
acknowledge that this was important work that needed to be
accomplished.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I've heard a rumor around here that today is
sort of a special day for the gentleman. Is it true that a few years
ago you were born on this date?
Mr. DICKS. It was not just a few years ago, Mr. Chairman. Well, this
is my birthday. We didn't plan it this way. I want to make sure that
the chairman of the Rules Committee--
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Happy birthday.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Washington
has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I say to my friend, first of all, happy birthday.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you.
Mr. DREIER. And the great birthday present is that we will not shut
the government down, and we obviously will see this measure passed
today.
I also want to say to my friend that I believe we've made history
here. To have any Member of the House stand up, especially on his
birthday, Mr. Speaker, and speak in complimentary ways of the other
body is, in fact, historic in and of itself.
Mr. DICKS. I just wanted to make sure everybody got the full picture.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 7\1/4\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
This is the end of the year, and so the Republicans need a few
presents for the oil industry, for the coal industry, and that's what
this final weekend is all about: How do we get those presents? And so
they tried and tried in this bill to roll back many, many environmental
laws, but they have been unable to do so. But what they have said is
just give us one thing, give us one trinket, perhaps, a symbol of our
success in rolling back the laws of energy efficiency in our country.
And so within this bill, the Republicans have now successfully
inserted a provision which rolls back the lightbulb efficiency laws,
which the companies of our country and the rest of the world must
comply with.
Now, what does that mean? Well, for consumers in our country, it will
be $6 billion per year that they will have to pay in higher electricity
bills every year that they are alive.
What else does it mean? Well, it means that the coal industry is
happy because they generate half the electricity in our country, so
they'll burn more coal in order to generate that electricity in order
for the American people to use less efficient lightbulbs. And that
greenhouse gas will go up into the atmosphere, and since the
Republicans don't believe the planet is warming, what do they care?
Just roll back the lightbulb efficiency standards.
What's the next bill that's up? Oh that one, can we give a payroll
tax break to the ordinary Americans? Can we have unemployment insurance
for the millions of people who are unemployed? They are saying, well,
we'll consider it, but you can't tax billionaires to find the money for
that. And, by the way, we want a trinket there as well.
Let's make sure that that final bill, they're saying, has an
exemption for environmental law so you can build a huge pipeline, the
Keystone XL Pipeline, extra large pipeline right through the middle of
America, waiving the environmental laws, and at the same time, ladies
and gentlemen, having no guarantee that the oil that comes from Canada
through the United States will be sold in the United States. They won't
accept that provision, neither TransCanada nor the Republicans, even
though they say we would do it for our national security.
So here we are at the end of the year, lightbulb efficiency out the
door. They like to do the same thing, by the way, for increased
efficiency in the vehicles we drive, the planes which we fly in, the
boats which we sail here in the United States, as we see the Middle
East in turmoil, as we see Iran and Iraq perhaps growing closer
together, they're trying to reduce the efficiency of our country by
making it more likely we consume oil.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. MARKEY. So here we have, again, misunderstanding on the part of
the Republicans on our key national security issue, and that is
changing our relationship with the energy sources which we consume,
because it comes disproportionately out of the Straits of Hormuz, out
of the Middle East into our country. And so this issue goes right to
the core, this lightbulb efficiency. It's a small symbol of all the
other things that they oppose in terms of increasing the efficiency of
our society, and it's stuck right in the middle of this so-called
omnibus bill, and they wouldn't be happy unless they got it.
Mind you, this attempt that was defeated earlier this year on the
House floor, when Members could vote for it, must be snuck into the
omnibus end-of-the year bill. So whether it be the XL pipeline for the
oil industry, whether it be the lightbulb bill for the coal industry,
whether it be the billionaire tax break staying on the books, rather
than helping to make sure ordinary people get tax breaks; billionaires,
oil or coal industry, that is what the agenda is all about.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
{time} 1050
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend from Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the chairman.
[[Page H9819]]
One of the useless sorts of pieces of trivia I carry around in my
head is that the originator of Superman comics was from Cleveland,
Ohio. I think he sold the rights to it for a pittance and was very
sorry after that. One of the things I could never get my arms around in
the Superman series was the Bizarro Superman. As I listen to this
debate, I think that I have landed in a ``bizarro'' world.
To go to another children's story, everyone knows the story of the
three little pigs. Those who are criticizing the process or the
criticism of the process, not those, the criticism of the process that
has brought this bill to the floor, is a little bit like there is a
fourth little pig that didn't even bother to build a straw house or a
wood house but gets to the brick house where the wolf can't get in and
is complaining that the brick furniture is too hard.
Now, listen. No budget was produced in the last Congress. Not one.
And so, for the process lovers around here, you know where all of the
numbers came from that we had to deal with in the appropriations
committee? In the mind of one man from Wisconsin who is now retired.
That didn't happen. The budget was passed. You know what else? The
budget this year gave lower numbers for the second time straight under
this majority, and it is a little more difficult to spend less money
than more money. It's easier to spend more money.
But Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers did something that was never done under
the stewardship of the previous Speaker, and that is we had bills come
up in subcommittee. You know what? Any Member could offer an
amendment--good amendments, bad amendments, stupid amendments,
wonderful amendments--and we voted on them. They went to full
committee. The same thing occurred.
I'm going to tell you, the bills came to the floor under open rules.
I think I could count on--I wouldn't have to take off my shoes to
figure out the number of open rules under the previous Speaker's
administration, as they privatized the Nation's health care, one-
seventh of the economy of the United States, as they put in place a
national carbon tax with no amendments. So for those who are squealing
about process, it's really an inappropriate exercise.
And relative to the other body, and I have nothing but respect for
Mr. Dicks, but to say that the Senate wasn't doing anything nefarious
by linking this bill that was going to put on furlough and shut down
the government at midnight tonight and link that to the payroll tax
cuts and others, listen, the Senate has become again and again and
again the place where legislation goes to die. It is not enough to sit
over there in the lofty Senate Chamber and say, ``We don't like what
you did, House,'' and not produce a product.
The time has come for them to pass a bill, and then the process is
we're only one-third of the government. You can't have this bill unless
the Senate passes it and the President signs it.
So again, Merry Christmas to all, and we should get on with this.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi, the ranking member on Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
rule and the underlying measure, the conference report on H.R. 2055.
When presented with this 1,219-page funding bill, it's hard to know
where to start. As the ranking member of the Homeland Security
Committee, I choose to start by looking at how it will affect our
Nation's first responders and the communities they protect.
This package, 10 years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, is a
dangerous departure from the path we've been on as a Nation to build up
our preparedness and our response capabilities. It abandons the men and
women we count on to save lives.
Since 9/11 there has been a general recognition that, as a Nation, we
are dangerously unprepared for the emerging threats we face. That is
why past Congresses established an array of Federal grant programs
targeted to specific homeland security gaps and needs. Across the
country, we've seen the benefits of the path lead by the Congresses
towards preparedness as evidenced by the response to this year's wave
of disasters.
Today, however, this Congress not only strays from the path but
bulldozes it.
The conference report slashes more than $2 billion from first
responder funding. Last year, $3.38 billion was provided to communities
across the country under FEMA's grant program, most notably: the State
Homeland Security Grant program, Urban Area Security Initiative,
Metropolitan Medical Response System, Operation Stonegarden, Citizen
Corps program, Port Security Grant Program, transit security grant
programs, interoperability community grant programs, and emergency
operation centers. This year, under this package, just $1.35 billion is
designated for all of the grant programs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. That is less than half of what we were
provided this last year.
To make matters worse, this package punts responsibility for the
tough decisions about funding levels for each program to Secretary
Napolitano.
The approach taken here should surprise no one. Tough decisions about
funding have been punted throughout this session, and as a result, the
Congress has moved from shutdown crisis to shutdown crisis.
If this package is enacted, the Congress will be punting
responsibility for meeting the Homeland Security challenges of a post-
9/11 world to State, local, and tribal governments. The timing of the
shift of responsibility could not be worse.
We must not ignore the cause from public safety and first responder
organizations that have warned us about devastating effects of cuts.
For this reason and probably a hundred more, I oppose the conference
report.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend how many
speakers she has remaining on her side.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. We have no further speakers.
May I inquire if my colleague has any.
Mr. DREIER. I plan to close and then move the previous question so we
can move ahead to ensure we don't shut down the government.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and the martial law rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We all know that the American people are hurting. We have a
protracted unemployment problem that has gone on for an extended period
of time, the longest period of time since the Great Depression, and
it's important for us to realize the reasons for this.
One of the very important reasons for this is that we have seen a
dramatic expansion of the size and scope and reach of government.
During the 4 years that my friends on the other side of the aisle were
in the majority, we witnessed an 82 percent increase in non-defense
discretionary spending.
We now have a $15 trillion national debt, and I think Democrats and
Republicans alike acknowledge that that cannot be sustained.
As I've been saying throughout this week, our job is jobs. Right now
our job is jobs. We need to have a laser-like focus on creating job
opportunities for our fellow Americans, people who are so frustrated
they've given up the effort to look for work.
So that's why the things that we're dealing with today are so
critically important to address those needs.
Now, since there has been bipartisan recognition that we can't
continue down the road with an 82 percent increase in non-defense
discretionary spending which we witnessed over the past several years,
it's important for us to come together, and that's exactly what's
happened.
This is Norm Dicks' birthday, and we're very happy about that. We're
happy that on his birthday we're going to see a bipartisan agreement
that will bring about a $95 billion reduction in non-defense
discretionary spending. And that's what this work product does, Mr.
Speaker.
And again, bipartisan recognition and even bicameral recognition, and
even recognition from down Pennsylvania Avenue with the second branch
[[Page H9820]]
of government, that we are right now altering the course that we had
been on of dramatically increasing spending. And we're doing it, Mr.
Speaker, in a very fair and balanced and open way.
{time} 1100
I don't like the process that got us to where we are right now. I
said earlier that I believe that this multi-thousand-page package was
available on Monday; it was agreed to on Monday; but it wasn't made
available until early Thursday morning. Yet we are where we are, and
there was an agreement. Mr. Inouye and Mr. Rogers came to this
agreement on Monday.
We could have done this earlier, but we know that our friends in the
other body chose--and as I said, I wasn't going to say it earlier, but
it has been characterized in the media as having held hostage this very
important appropriations bill. We also dealt with the threat of a
government shutdown that would take place 13 hours from now. We are not
going to see that happen. We are not going to see that happen because
Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers and other members of the Appropriations
Committees in both bodies--and the leadership--came together to ensure
that that doesn't happen.
We still have a long way to go. We still have much work that needs to
be done. But by the passage of this measure today, Mr. Speaker, we are
going to do exactly what is necessary. We are going to finally have a
clean slate. We've all commiserated over the fact that we've had this
mess to clean up of the past. It's been ugly and it's been difficult;
but we have, in fact, by virtue of this agreement cleaned it up so that
we can continue to work down this path towards balancing the budget,
getting our fiscal house in order, and doing what we need to do--our
jobs, which is to create jobs.
I think we have a chance to do that.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule, and I urge support of
the previous question so that we can move ahead and make sure that we
have what's necessary to meet this very important deadline by midnight.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 500, if
ordered; motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment
to H.R. 1892; and motion to suspend the rules on S. 278, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 179, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 937]
YEAS--239
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
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 (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 (NY)
Turner (OH)
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
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
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
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
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
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
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)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Bachmann
Clay
Coble
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Giffords
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Johnson, E. B.
Myrick
Napolitano
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Speier
{time} 1130
Ms. FUDGE, Ms. BERKLEY, Messrs. CLARKE of Michigan, FATTAH, and RUSH
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 937, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 16, 2011, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 937 in order to attend an important
event in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on
the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for
consideration of the Conference Report on H.R. 2055--Consolidated
Appropriations Act, H.R. 3672--Disaster Relief Appropriations Act and
H. Con. Res. 94--Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to
make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 3671.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H9821]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 252,
nays 164, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 938]
YEAS--252
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dicks
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
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
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--164
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
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)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Bachmann
Bishop (UT)
Coble
Connolly (VA)
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Giffords
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Johnson, E. B.
Myrick
Napolitano
Paul
Pingree (ME)
Speier
Velazquez
{time} 1137
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 938, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 16, 2011, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 938 in order to attend an important
event in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on
H. Res. 500--Rule providing for consideration of the Conference Report
on H.R. 2055--Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R. 3672--Disaster
Relief Appropriations Act and H. Con. Res. 94--Directing the Clerk of
the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of
H.R. 3671.
____________________