[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.

                          ____________________