[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 55 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1860-H1872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4089, SPORTSMEN'S HERITAGE ACT OF 
                      2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 614 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 624

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4089) to protect and enhance opportunities for 
     recreational hunting, fishing and shooting. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill, it shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 112-19. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. (a) Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution 
     on the budget for fiscal year 2013, the provisions of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 112, as adopted by the House, shall 
     have force and effect in the House as though Congress has 
     adopted such concurrent resolution (with the modifications 
     specified in subsection (b)).
       (b) In section 201(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 112, 
     as adopted by the House, the following amounts shall apply:
       (1) $7,710,000,000 (in lieu of $8,200,000,000) for the 
     period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013 with respect to the 
     Committee on Agriculture; and
       (2) $3,490,000,000 (in lieu of $3,000,000,000) for the 
     period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013 with respect to the 
     Committee on Financial Services.

                              {time}  1230


                             Point of Order

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 614 
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of 
section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily 
out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in 
the underlying bill, H.R. 4089.
  But before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state the inquiry.
  Ms. MOORE. The rule clearly states, ``Pending the adoption of a 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013, the 
provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 112, as adopted by the House, 
shall have the force and effect in the House as though Congress had 
adopted such concurrent resolution.''
  Does this mean that the rule deems that the Senate will have passed 
H. Con. Res. 112?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the resolution 
during its pendency. That is a matter for debate.
  Ms. MOORE. Okay. We will have to debate this. The language, as I have 
construed it, says it shall have force and effect in the House as 
though Congress, which would include the Senate, had adopted such 
concurrent resolution. That is subject to debate.
  So I want the House to be really clear here that, given this 
language, there is a real--it seems probable and likely that if we vote 
``yes'' for House Concurrent Resolution 112, the Republican budget, 
which ends Medicare for a voucher system, ends the entitlement under 
Medicaid, cuts food support, cuts funds by $134 billion over 10 years, 
that we could be deeming this to be passed.
  I am raising again, Mr. Speaker, the question about that use of 
``Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution,'' meaning also the 
Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would reiterate that the issue is 
a matter for debate, and the Chair will not interpret the language of 
the resolution during its pendency.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your lack of clarity.
  I raise this point of order because it's important to uncover whether 
or not the underlying rule for this Natural Resources bill--it's a 
Natural Resources bill--also deems the Republican budget plan to end 
Medicare as we know it, slash funding for SNAP.
  When it comes to the Republican budget, my Democratic colleagues are 
most definitely not asleep at the wheel. And we want to take this 
moment to shed light on what's going on here.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm a member of that prestigious committee, the House 
Committee on the Budget, and a long-time advocate for sound budgetary 
policy. I recognize the importance of tackling our deficit and debt 
head-on, carefully balancing both the spending and revenue-raising 
sides of our ledger.
  But House Republicans, led by my dear colleague from Wisconsin, have 
put out a budget that is neither sound nor balanced. This budget finds 
a jaw-dropping 62 percent of its $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget 
cuts over 10 years from programs that serve the most vulnerable of our 
society, the poor, and I might add in the most vulnerable, women and 
children, since we've just recently established in this last week that 
women were very important in our economy.
  In addition to the sheer magnitude of these raw numbers, I want to 
make it clear that the Republican budget contains major departures from 
current policy. This budget heralds welfare reform as a vital victory 
and plots the next chapter of so-called ``reforms'' for other areas of 
the safety net.
  Our core programs are not spared by this budgetary trick. This budget 
takes an aim at Medicare. We're told that by stripping Medicare of its 
entitled status, cutting $30 billion out of Medicare, that we're going 
to save it. We're going to save Medicare by subtracting $30 billion. 
That's not the kind of math I learned at North Division High.
  And we're going to set seniors adrift in the private market. Now, 
this budget does nothing to cut the cost of health care in the private 
market. It only passes those costs on to seniors.
  The cuts to the SNAP program have not gotten as much attention as the 
Medicare cuts, even though they are cause for collective alarm. As we 
know, over half of our citizens in the United States, working people, 
many of them, found themselves with no other income. They had no job. 
We played phony baloney with the unemployment insurance. They had 
nothing except SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.

                              {time}  1240

  And so they had no other income other than the food stamp program,

[[Page H1861]]

SNAP, but yet we're going to cut $134 million out of this program and 
convert it again to a block grant and handcuff SNAP's ability to 
respond to its increased need.
  Mr. Speaker, can I ask you how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MOORE. I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and neighbor from the 
great State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in 
support of her point of order.
  All this talk of ``deeming and passing,'' those words mean nothing to 
the American people, but the vote we are about to take means a lot.
  What Republicans are trying to do is to jam through the Republican 
budget and pretend that it's the law of the land. They have to play 
these games because last year the American people rejected this budget 
the first time around. But instead of doing some soul-searching and 
offering a bill that reflects the true priorities of this Nation, the 
Republicans have doubled down, and the results are truly astonishing.
  As has been mentioned, this budget ends the Medicare guarantee while 
raising health costs for seniors who have an average income of just 
$19,000 a year. It increases defense spending while placing a cap on 
food assistance and cutting Medicaid. It gives the average multi-
millionaire--listen to this--a tax break of $394,000 while raising 
taxes on the middle class. It protects subsidies for oil companies and 
corporations that ship jobs overseas while slashing investments that 
create jobs and rebuild the middle class. The cuts are so severe that 
if their policies are carried out, by 2050 there is almost nothing left 
of discretionary spending but defense. As the Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities has said, most of the rest of the government will 
simply ``cease to exist.''
  But it doesn't have to be this way. Yesterday, Republicans in the 
Senate rejected a perfectly reasonable proposal--that millionaires and 
billionaires shouldn't pay a lower tax rate than a middle class family 
does. They should have passed the Buffett rule in the Senate, which 
would have been an important first step toward addressing our fiscal 
challenges in a fair way--a way that cuts waste, not opportunity; 
protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; creates jobs and 
builds the economy; and asks more from those who can afford it.
  This Republican budget is not a serious effort. It's a radical 
proposal. But I'll give them credit for one thing: at least they're 
honest in proposing this irresponsible budget.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MOORE. I reserve the balance of my time. I would love to hear 
what the opponents to my point of order have to say.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition 
to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to be down here for this procedural 
issue that is before us. The question before the House is: Should the 
House now consider House Resolution 614? While the resolution waives 
all point of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is 
not aware of any points of order.
  The waiver is prophylactic in nature. The Congressional Budget Office 
has stated that H.R. 4089 contains no intergovernmental or private 
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and would 
impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. Again, Mr. 
Speaker, this waiver is prophylactic, and the motion from the 
gentlelady from Wisconsin is dilatory.
  In order for the House to continue our scheduled business for today, 
we need to continue on with this proposal and dealing with the rule 
that is before us.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he would yield 
to a question.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Well, I would be happy to, but I don't control 
the time.
  Ms. MOORE. I would yield my time for the purpose of your answering my 
question.
  The Speaker has declined to answer my parliamentary query and said 
that that would be settled during the debate. So is it your 
understanding that passage of this resolution will or will not deem the 
Republican budget to have been passed in all of the Congress?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would not dare to try and supersede my 
interpretation over the Speaker's interpretation. That is his 
responsibility. However----
  Ms. MOORE. No, no, no. He said it would be determined during debate.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Would you allow me to answer the question?
  Ms. MOORE. Yes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That is still the Speaker's responsibility. 
However, what deeming applies to is that these are for procedural 
considerations allowed to go forward until such time as an actual 
budget has indeed passed. So the answer to your question is actually 
both: Temporarily, yes; long term, obviously no.
  Ms. MOORE. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. At some time, the Senate has to do their work. 
Hopefully, they will do it soon and then this issue would be moot.
  Ms. MOORE. Reclaiming my time from the point at which I said I was 
reclaiming my time. And I ask that he be taxed for that extra time 
because he already gave me his answer--that, yes, it would be deemed to 
be passed.
  I just want to remind people, in this week when we have learned how 
important it is to have a stable, good budget for women, that this 
program slashes funding for Medicaid--two-thirds of adults are women 
who depend on it. It slashes Medicare--two-thirds of the recipients are 
women. And 85 percent of Medicare recipients that are older than 85 
depend on it.
  It cuts support for key programs like childcare, which are important 
to women, and job training. It cuts core programs like food stamps. Our 
Presidential candidate said that 93 percent of women lost jobs during 
the recession. Why would we want to take away the safety net of food 
stamps when women put food on the table every day trying to feed their 
babies?
  Mr. Speaker, this program--which will be deemed to be passed--needs 
more review, and I would ask you to find my point of order in order.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. MOORE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. I want to thank the gentleman for a vigorous debate--at 
least on my part--and I would ask my colleagues to take a closer look.
  This is the Congress of the United States of America. We are supposed 
to do things very carefully. This is the budget that we're setting out, 
the moral document for how this country is to be run, and we should not 
be deeming it as passed, as this resolution calls for.
  I would ask all my colleagues to support my point of order and ask 
them to vote against this resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, once again, I wish to remind the 
body that we are dealing with a procedural issue. We've heard a great 
deal of policy debate here, but what we are dealing with is a 
procedural issue.
  The policy of the debate has been debated on this floor and will be 
debated in the future as well under two criteria: one, either allowing 
our committees to move forward with its authorization, appropriations, 
and reconciliation efforts, in which case certain procedural techniques 
must take place; or, two, actually allowing the Senate to do their work 
and pass a budget, going to a conference, and then moving forward in 
that manner. One way or the other, the procedure must go forward. This 
is not policy we're debating here, it's procedure.
  There is precedence for what we are doing. Indeed, in the last 
Congress, H.R. 1500, the opposition party, the minority party, also 
deemed resolutions and brought them forward--actually, it's happened 
six times in our history. The only difference between the deeming that 
we have here and the deeming

[[Page H1862]]

that happened in the last session of Congress is that this particular 
budget--which will be debated again--actually went through a committee 
and had a vote on the floor. Unfortunately, when the Democrat Party did 
that a couple years ago, they had not gone through a committee, they 
did not have a debate on the floor or in committee or a vote on 
anything. Actually, the numbers that were deemed at that time were less 
than 1-day's notice before they were actually voted on the floor. And 
everyone who has spoken against this procedure voted for that 
particular deeming a couple of years ago in the last Congress.

                              {time}  1250

  There is precedence for this, and the precedence is solely a 
procedural issue. This is not the time to talk about the policy. There 
was a time before, and there will be time in the future. This is a 
procedural precedent, and we can only move forward in doing the work of 
this Congress--and I appreciate the other side for at least admitting 
that the Republicans are trying to move forward in the work of this 
Congress--if we have certain procedural issues done in advance. That's 
what we are attempting to do.
  So, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business of 
this day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of the 
consideration of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 175, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 154]

                               YEAS--234

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     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
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     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
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--175

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     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--22

     Andrews
     Austria
     Burton (IN)
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Cohen
     Costello
     Cummings
     Denham
     Doggett
     Filner
     Fincher
     Hirono
     Johnson (IL)
     Marino
     McIntyre
     Napolitano
     Rangel
     Scott (VA)
     Slaughter
     Walberg
     Whitfield
  Ms. CHU, Messrs. OLVER and GARAMENDI changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. SHIMKUS and Mrs. MILLER of Michigan changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''

                              {time}  1317

  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  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 154, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 154 due to a family health emergency. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Question of 
Consideration of H. Res. 614, the resolution providing for 
consideration of the bill H.R. 4089, to protect and enhance 
opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for 
other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, to continue on, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The resolution provides for a structured rule for 
the consideration of H.R. 4089, a bill to protect the traditional 
rights of American sportsmen to fish and hunt on public lands free from 
undue and illogical bureaucratic restrictions and unwarranted and 
irrational limitations, and

[[Page H1863]]

provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I am actually pleased to stand before this House today 
and support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation. Far too 
often decisions are made to placate certain political special interest 
groups who are headquartered far away from the locations they seek to 
dominate and control, and too often the needs of local citizens and 
local taxpayers who live in those areas in which the impact will occur 
are ignored. This asks for our consideration.
  Too often local and State considerations are not taken into account. 
Too often there are inconsistencies within the public domain where the 
BLM, Fish and Wildlife, and the National Park Service will have 
different rules. And the difficulty, obviously, for a citizen is not 
knowing where one starts and where one ends. This bill tries to bring 
some consistency. And though I don't know how much of the debate will 
occur on this particular issue, it is about hunting and fishing on 
public lands.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, technically, this rule allows for 
consideration of H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen's Heritage Act, a patchwork 
quilt of four different bills that ease restrictions on guns and 
hunting. This bill, a sop to the gun lobby, deserves to be defeated by 
the House.
  But that's not the most important part or most egregious part of this 
rule. That's because of the language slipped into this rule at the last 
minute by the Rules Committee--language that sets the budget numbers 
for the next fiscal year, and language that, Mr. Speaker, once again 
ends the Medicare guarantee for America's seniors.
  That's right, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the Republicans on the Rules 
Committee pulled a switcheroo just before our vote on the rule. Now, 
these weren't just harmless, innocuous provisions. No, Mr. Speaker. 
These provisions would effectively enact the Ryan budget and require 
that Congress use it as a framework for the rest of the year.
  The irony is that by adopting this language now, the Republican 
leadership is admitting that their awful budget resolution isn't going 
anywhere and that this so-called ``deeming resolution'' is the only way 
forward. It's ironic because they are using parliamentary tricks and 
sleight-of-hand to pretend that their budget has the force of law. 
Where are the Tea Party folks who used to be so outraged at this kind 
of abuse of regular order? Why aren't they yelling and screaming?
  There hasn't been a single committee debate or markup on this 
language. These provisions undercut the bipartisan budget floor 
negotiated by President Obama and Speaker Boehner in the Budget Control 
Act. And worst of all, these provisions end the Medicare guarantee 
again.
  The American people get it. They said ``no'' to the Ryan budget last 
year. They don't want Medicare to turn into a voucher program. They 
don't want to see their health care rationed or cut. They don't want 
Washington politicians trying to pull the rug out from underneath them 
after years of contributing to this important program.
  We made a promise to America's seniors, Mr. Speaker. And once again, 
the Republican leadership is breaking their promise.
  Mr. Speaker, it's bad enough that the Republican leadership doesn't 
want to focus on getting Americans back to work. It's bad enough that 
they're pushing cuts that will make hunger in America worse. That's 
evidenced by the fact that tomorrow in the Agriculture Committee we're 
going to be asked to vote on a package to cut $33 billion out of the 
SNAP program, increasing hunger in America if that would succeed. But 
their insistence on continuing to push for an end to Medicare is 
indescribable.
  Now, I'm sure my Republican friends will deny that they want to end 
Medicare for America's seniors. They'll say their idea is bipartisan, 
even though it's not. They'll say that the detractors are exaggerating. 
But the truth hurts. This is not bipartisan. Yes, Senator Ron Wyden 
cosponsored health care legislation with Congressman Paul Ryan, but 
Senator Wyden has also said that he does not support the Medicare 
provisions in the Ryan budget. Once again, he said he does not support 
the provisions in the Ryan budget with regard to Medicare. I'm sure 
someone will, once again, try to twist his words around, but they are 
very clear to me, Mr. Speaker.
  This plan is not bipartisan. This is wholly owned by the Republicans 
and the Republican leadership, and I know my friends will say that this 
doesn't change Medicare. That, too, is a misrepresentation of their 
plan. But don't take my word for it. Let me read directly from the 
AARP's letter opposing the Ryan budget:

       By creating a ``premium support'' system for future 
     Medicare beneficiaries, the proposal is likely to simply 
     increase costs for beneficiaries while removing Medicare's 
     promise of secure health coverage.

  AARP goes on to say:

       The premium support method described in the proposal--
     unlike private plan options that currently exist in 
     Medicare--would likely ``price out'' traditional Medicare as 
     a viable option, thus rendering the choice of traditional 
     Medicare as a false promise. The proposal also leaves open 
     the possibility for private plans to tailor their plans to 
     healthy beneficiaries--again, putting traditional Medicare at 
     risk.

  Finally, AARP says:

       Converting Medicare to a series of private options would 
     undermine the market power of Medicare and could lead to 
     higher costs for seniors.

  That's a hard-hitting analysis from a nonpartisan group, and it 
shatters the myth that the Ryan Medicare plan wouldn't harm current or 
future seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats oppose the Ryan budget because it's the wrong 
plan for America, and the deeming language included in this rule would 
force the Ryan budget on this House without a direct vote. That's 
right: there's no up-or-down vote on this plan. No, the rule simply 
``deems'' that the Ryan budget takes effect, despite the lack of a 
budget resolution conference report.
  Americans want us to focus on jobs and the economy, not on partisan 
games designed to throw red meat to the right wing of the right wing. 
Reject this rule and reject the Ryan Medicare plan.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. As was stated on the point of order, when we talk 
about deeming--a term that, obviously, most Americans have never 
heard--a procedural issue, we have had the policy debate, and we will 
have in the future the policy debate. But this point is about 
procedure.
  So, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I'd actually like to go back 
to the topic of the debate we have today and the topic of the rule and, 
indeed, the topic of the bill, which deals with hunting and fishing. 
That ought to be what we are talking about in here, because that is the 
issue before us in the underlying bill--hunting and fishing. And it is 
significant because what this bill asks for those who are sportsmen in 
America is that hunting and fishing be recognized as a historic and 
traditional recreation activity and that our bureaucracy back here in 
Washington will support and protect those hunting and fishing rights, 
although we do not insist that they prioritize them.
  What that means in simple language is if the agencies back here in 
the bureaucracies of Washington decide that some area of public land 
should be closed to public recreation, they have to have a darn good 
reason to do it. In fact, the bill lists some reasons to do it--fire 
safety, public safety, national security, or compliance with State laws 
or regulations, and only then and there. Indeed, in addition to having 
that criteria, unlike other elements when we deal with public-lands 
issues, there is a specific time limit on when these decisions have to 
be made; and if, indeed, the agency will not make those decisions in a 
timely fashion, it reverts back to what it was and these activities may 
go forward.
  Do we need to do this? Of course we do. One Bureau of Land Management 
official implied that recreational hunting should be eliminated on 
public

[[Page H1864]]

lands because, in his words: The urbanites freak out when they hear the 
sound of shots being done on public lands.
  I suggest to you that is not a logical reason on why hunting and 
fishing rights should be prohibited; and, therefore, you need this 
language in here to make sure those hunting and fishing rights are 
indeed protected.
  There will be one amendment that will come forward later on that 
talks about recreational shooting. I want to remind this body that 
under the rules that we have, that includes such things as 
reenactments. If ever the Bureau of Land Management or the National 
Park Service has a reenactment, if that amendment were to be passed, 
you couldn't actually shoot a flintlock because it would violate some 
of the proposed rules here.

                              {time}  1330

  It also goes on to say that Congress has, for a long time, banned EPA 
from making rules or regulations dealing with lead ammunition or flying 
equipment. And yet, once again, we have a nuisance lawsuit that was 
filed on March of this particular year petitioning the EPA to make a 
decision to try and ban this particular process. There is no scientific 
evidence for that petition.
  But we don't know necessarily what some of the agencies in here 
making bureaucratic regulations--in effect, making a legislative 
decision within the body of an executive agency--will do. Therefore, 
this legislation, once again, makes it crystal clear that Congress has 
spoken on this issue, that Congress has primacy on this issue, and that 
Congress' decision on this issue should, indeed, be respected.
  This bill stops red tape by the bureaucracies that has stopped legal 
hunting trophies from coming into this country. I emphasize the word 
``legal'' hunting trophies.
  This bill is supported by every sportsmen's group imaginable.
  Some people would say this is a Second Amendment issue. I don't 
necessarily want to go that far because our Second Amendment is about 
an individual right to self-defense. Hunting was not the purview of the 
Second Amendment when it was adopted. But, indeed, the ability of 
people to bear weapons on public lands to do hunting and fishing when 
it is allowable is important, and it is important for us to step 
forward and say that it should be protected.
  In essence, what this bill does is say to those who like to recreate 
on public lands, and that recreation includes hunting and fishing, that 
is a traditional, that is a historic activity and that should be 
maintained, and any of those efforts by special interest groups to try 
and curtail that will be rejected by this Congress. That's why this 
bill is here, that's why this bill is significant, that's why this bill 
is important, and that's why this bill should be passed, including the 
rule to start forward in that process.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, we will talk about other elements, I'm sure, 
that will come up, but we can do that at a later time, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I can see why my good friend from Utah is so desperate 
not to talk about the deem-and-pass language which is included in this 
rule. I would remind him, and I remind others on the other side, that 
back in March of 2010, Speaker John Boehner said that the deem-and-pass 
strategy was ``one of the most outrageous things I have seen since I 
have been in Congress.'' That's what the current Speaker of the House 
said back in March of 2010. And now, astonishingly, everybody on the 
other side of the aisle is quiet about that.
  Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. This place is becoming an 
institution where trivial matters get debated passionately and 
important ones not at all. My friend from Utah is saying this is all 
about the guns, the gun issue. Well, that's the least important part of 
what this rule does.
  This rule deems the Ryan budget. It basically says that we're going 
to operate under those very difficult numbers that Congressman Ryan and 
the Republicans' Budget Committee have passed. And what it means is 
that we're going to end Medicare as we know it. That's more important 
to talk about than guns. What it means is that we're going to force 
more people into food insecurity and hunger because it's going to 
result in drastic cuts in food and nutrition programs. That's more 
important to talk about than guns.
  The fact of the matter is this rule undercuts the social safety net 
in this country. This rule, if it is passed and these numbers become 
what the House operates under, I think will destroy the middle class 
and will force more people in the middle into poverty. It undercuts 
programs in education, and it undercuts programs in environmental 
protection and investments in our infrastructure and aid to cities and 
towns helping our police, helping our firefighters.
  As I said--I cannot say this enough--this ends Medicare as we know 
it. If people want to end Medicare, then vote for this rule, because 
that's exactly what this rule will require. And I think that's 
outrageous. There are some things worth fighting for; and the 
protection of Medicare is one of those things, at least on our side of 
the aisle, we think is worth fighting for.
  So please do not be fooled that this is some innocuous rule that 
would merely bring up a bill dealing with guns. This bill deems the 
Ryan budget as basically passed, as if it has gone through the House 
and the Senate, and the numbers that we're going to operate under in 
all of our committees.
  I think that as the American people pay closer attention to what is 
happening here, they get more and more outraged by the activities of 
the Republican leadership. This is not what the American people want. 
They rejected this attempt to undercut Medicare last year, and they're 
going to reject it again.

  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this 
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Again, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I appreciate the concerns of some people who do not live in areas 
that have a vast amount of public lands owned and controlled by the 
Federal Government, who don't see the need for some of those situations 
to be modified, rectified, and secured.
  For those of us who have the joy of the Federal Government as an 
absentee landlord, this bill is actually of significance. It's not just 
another gun bill; it's dealing with ways of life and recreation 
opportunities that should and ought to be maintained at all times.
  But, Mr. Speaker, there is the deeming portion of this that happens 
to be there. Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, that name that goes 
back to my childhood, once gave a wonderful article in which he told 
people that if you were a Senator not to worry about the rules of the 
Senate because none of the Senators know what they are, so just go 
ahead and try what you want to. He also said that if you're a House 
Member, rules of the House are too complex, so just ask the 
Parliamentarians; don't try to learn them. There's a load of wisdom in 
that, because what we have in here, in this particular deeming section, 
is a procedural issue, something that must take place according to our 
rules if we, indeed, are to go forward with the work of what Congress 
is supposed to be.
  Unlike the rhetoric that we have heard so far, this is not the debate 
on the policy issue. That has happened in the past. That will come 
again in the future. This rule is simply about the procedure if we 
allow Congress to move forward with our work.
  I have said there is precedent for this. Six times in the history of 
the House these kind of deeming provisions have been written into the 
budget. Is it good? Of course not. No one wants to do it this way. But 
it has to go forward simply because of the dynamics of the two Houses 
that we have here right now.
  As I said, this has precedent for it.
  In 2010, indeed, there was another deeming motion that was made here 
on the floor in House Resolution 1500 of that particular year. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts was the sponsor of that on the floor, as 
well, in which, at that time, under Democratic control, we also deemed. 
There was a difference, though, in that deeming of that time. Under 
this time, there has been a budget that has gone through the Budget 
Committee and that was voted on in the Budget Committee and was debated 
on the floor and passed on the floor.

[[Page H1865]]

  In 2010, there was no budget that went through a Budget Committee and 
did not have a vote. Indeed, the numbers were only given a day before 
the actual vote took place under martial law. At that time, in 2010, 
this House resolution was hereby adopted. We're not doing that this 
time. What we are simply doing is allowing the process to go forward.
  Now, there are two ways of doing this: either we can pass this 
deeming concept for the House so that the appropriation bills and the 
authorization bills and the reconciliation bills within their committee 
can go forward with some kind of standard on what they are doing. To do 
so without that is like playing a baseball game without any umpires 
where no one is there to say what is a ball and what is a strike and if 
there is an out or a safe. That's what this concept would do.
  There's another way of solving that same problem, and that's asking 
our good friends on the other side of this Chamber, the Senate, to 
finally pass a budget so that we can work together and move forward.
  Look, the Senate has refused to pass a budget in, now, 1,081 days; 
1,081 days the Senate has refused to do a budget on their side. And we 
should not be paralyzed because of their inaction. In 1,081 days, Henry 
VIII married, divorced, and beheaded his wife in less time than that.
  The Senate should be willing to move forward, and if they did, if 
they passed the budget and we have this conference committee, we could 
actually move forward in that time. But without that, we have to do 
something else procedural so that our committees can actually pass 
authorization bills, appropriation bills, and reconciliation bills and 
bring them here to the floor in some kind of order.
  We have to have a budget if you don't want to have a government 
shutdown. You have to have a budget if you want a reconciliation that 
will solve what Secretary Panetta says is that sequester meat ax that 
would happen to the defense of this country.

                              {time}  1340

  You have to have a budget because the Senate refuses to do a budget. 
I find it surprising that some on the other side are basically arguing 
not to do anything, which would actually lead to shutting down the 
government or draconian cuts, or basically telling us we're not 
supposed to do our work. That is ridiculous.
  This is not a great concept. I'm not happy that we're doing this. It 
would be much better if the Senate would do their work and let us work 
together.
  Or maybe there's a third option. Congressman Berger of Wisconsin, 
back in the 1920s, suggested that a constitutional amendment would be 
passed to dissolve the U.S. Senate and leave only the House. That is a 
third option that would solve our problems, and perhaps our friends on 
the other side would like that option better.
  Sans that opportunity, we've got to move forward. This is a 
procedural issue to move us forward with precedents, having been done 
in the last Congress, precedents. I ask that you consider that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that if this were nothing, 
my friends on the other side of the aisle would not be hiding this 
deeming language in a rule dealing with guns. We'd have a straight up-
or-down-vote on the floor on the deeming provision.
  The fact of the matter is that this rule magically puts the Ryan 
budget into effect, and what that means is an end to Medicare as we 
know it. And we're going to fight my friends on the other side of the 
aisle who want to destroy one of the most important social programs 
that we have in this country.
  At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
giving us all this opportunity to speak about what is happening on the 
floor today. It's happening just as we have returned from 2 weeks with 
our constituents, listening to them talk about core challenges facing 
the American people and the key priorities our families, businesses, 
and workers are facing.
  Americans have made it clear over and over again. It is their 
constant message. We must work together to create jobs and grow our 
economy. We must preserve the economic security of our seniors, the 
middle class, and small business owners. This is all the backbone of 
the middle class, the backbone of our democracy.
  We must protect Medicare and not dismantle it. And yet, Mr. Speaker, 
our Republican colleagues are at it again. Not once, not twice, not 
three times, but now four times are they voting to cut the Medicare 
guarantee. We must protect Medicare.
  We must enact a budget that reflects our Nation's values of fairness 
and opportunity and puts the American Dream in reach for every 
American. Yet, House Republicans simply refuse to listen to what the 
American people are saying to us. Instead, they have decided to pull a 
stunt here today and ``deem and pass'' their devastating budget. They 
know their budget cannot stand the scrutiny of the House, the Senate 
and the rest, so they want to deem and pass it using a procedural trick 
to pretend that both the House and the Senate have signed off on their 
radical agenda.
  But the American people know better. They know that the Republican 
budget ends the Medicare guarantee, making seniors pay more to get less 
on the way to severing the Medicare guarantee completely; that this 
budget destroys more than 4 million jobs in the next 2 years, destroys 
jobs. And three, gives a tax cut of nearly $400,000 to people making 
more than $1 million per year, protects tax breaks for special 
interests and Big Oil, and forces the middle class to foot the bill. 
Ends the Medicare guarantee, is a job killer to the tune of 4 million 
jobs, gives over $400,000 in tax cuts to people making over $1 million 
a year. How can that be a statement of our national values?
  We also know that the Republican budget will undermine Medicaid for 
the elderly and people with disabilities, slash critical investments in 
education--education, where all innovation springs from, education, the 
source of America's competitiveness internationally, education, the 
source of people reaching their aspirations in life. Education, jobs, 
and health care would be slashed.
  And we know that cuts have to be made, and important spending 
decisions must be made. But you just can't say let seniors pay more for 
Medicare, let's not invest in education and the rest, while we give tax 
breaks to the wealthiest people in our country.
  So this bill, called a budget bill, breaks the deal. It breaks the 
debt agreement. It makes matters worse for the deficit. It breaks the 
deal struck last summer, abandoning a firm bipartisan promise to the 
American people.
  Americans already rejected the Republican budget plan last year, and 
this year is no different, except the Republicans think so--by bringing 
it up over and over again, and this time by saying we know it can't 
pass the Senate, so we'll just deem it passed in the House.
  Rather than trying to fool the American people, the Republicans are 
being called upon to join us today in opposing today's previous 
question and simply allowing the House to vote. And our measure would 
say, if the Republicans contend--and they do--that their bill does not 
hurt Medicare, then let the House go on record and say that our measure 
would prohibit any plan to eliminate Medicare, raise costs, ration 
care, or reduce the benefits for seniors and people with disabilities.
  By supporting our proposal we can keep the bedrock promise to our 
seniors that, after a lifetime of work, all Americans should be able to 
retire with dignity and security.
  As Members of Congress, we each have a responsibility to protect 
Medicare for our seniors, to create jobs for our workers, to grow our 
economy, to build a strong, all-inclusive, and thriving middle class.
  As Democrats, we are committed to reigniting the American Dream, to 
building ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by 
the rules, and take responsibility. And we want them all to succeed. We 
just don't want people that make over $1 million to climb up their 
ladder, make over $1 million a year, and then pull up the ladder so 
that no one else can even reach some level of success.
  We ask our House Republican friends, please let us work together to 
reach

[[Page H1866]]

our shared goals to strengthen families, to secure a future of 
prosperity for all people in our country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to stop 
the drive to deem and pass a measure that will end the Medicare 
guarantee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the former Speaker's visit to the 
floor, and I have a comment to make about the verbiage of deem and 
pass.
  But first, before we get there, I'd like to actually have someone 
talk about the resolution itself. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) to actually go back to what it's supposed 
to be about, hunting and fishing.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the legislation and the rule as well.
  Our Nation has been blessed with such magnificent natural wonders 
that provide great enjoyment for those who hunt and fish, and today, 
our sportsmen continue a wonderful and a great tradition that has 
defined our Nation.
  Unfortunately, far too often sportsmen are stymied in their efforts 
to build upon this great American tradition and heritage because of 
overzealous bureaucrats and activists who seem to want to go to almost 
any means, really, to stop hunting and fishing.
  Today, by passing the Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012, we will make 
a statement of support for our Nation's sportsmen and -women. This bill 
states clearly that fishing and hunting and shooting are important 
activities that create jobs and must continue on public land, and it 
requires those that manage the land to make it accessible and holds 
them accountable.
  It takes away the power from the bureaucrats to limit types of 
ammunition and fishing tackle that they've been trying to limit that 
can be used on public lands. And it removes red tape that keeps hunters 
from bringing home a limited number of legally-taken trophies from 
Canada as well.

                              {time}  1350

  And today, Mr. Speaker, we will send a very clear message to American 
sportsmen and American sportswomen that we are on your side. We value 
the important role that you play in upholding our national heritage and 
its great tradition of America, and the jobs that you create through 
your activities as well.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this very 
important legislation and this rule as well.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat, this rule has very 
little to do with sportsmen, but it has an awful lot to do with ending 
the Medicare guarantee as we know it.
  At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate. 
First of all, I would like to strongly agree with the previous speakers 
on our side of the aisle that this is trying to shield the public from 
the full consequences of the Republican budget.
  We just left the Budget Committee, where we had an opportunity for 
people to start looking at what is going to happen were their budget to 
move forward. And make no mistake, if our friends on the other side of 
the aisle thought that this ``deem and pass'' was just a little modest 
procedural thing to do and it was a good idea, we would be having the 
budget discussion here with trumpets blaring. The reason we're not is 
what you saw in a moment of candor by the Presidential nominee--
evidently--Romney talking about what's going to happen. About 
Departments like Housing and Education that are going to be shrunk or 
eliminated, talking about the massive tax increases that are going to 
be necessary on middle America if they're going to give these 
additional tax reductions for people who need it least.
  There's a reason why this is being shuffled through without a full, 
honest debate about the consequences. I'm hopeful that this falls 
short. But make no mistake, this is a sad effort to back away from 
assertions from the Republicans that they were going to try and open up 
the process, be inclusive, engage people in a broad discussion. Instead 
we get legislation like this.
  I listened to my good friend from Michigan just sort of passing over, 
for example, the little item about being able to bring in trophies 
animals that have been hunted in Canada. Back up and look at what's 
happening here. This encourages people to hunt for trophies the polar 
bears, which are threatened and endangered. They know that they're not 
supposed to import it back into the United States, but now these people 
go out and kill these animals for trophy, for sport. Now they're going 
to be able to bring them here to the United States even though for 
years it's been inappropriate to do so. What sort of incentive is this 
to respect our efforts to protect threatened and endangered species 
like the polar bear?
  Opening up public lands? We're all in favor of being able to use 
public lands. I come from the West. I'm one of those States where the 
Federal stewardship is over half the land. I represent Federal areas in 
my district, and I represent a lot of people who hunt and fish. I also 
represent a lot of people who like to hike, people who like the 
wilderness experience, people who respect efforts to try and manage our 
forests.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. This legislation, if it were enacted--and mercifully 
it won't be--would enable some bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. to trump 
the decisions of local land managers to try and protect, for example, 
in condition of high fire hazard. We saw forest fires in Colorado 
started by recreational target shooting.
  Now, of course our friends on the other side of the aisle aren't 
concerned about increased global warming, increased drought, extreme 
weather conditions; but for heavens sakes, taking away the ability of 
the local managers to be good stewards of the land, to take away the 
authority of the EPA to ever deal with appropriate regulations on 
things like lead is just silly. It's not appropriate, it's not good 
policy, and it's part of an effort to obscure the real efforts that are 
under way, and that has to do with being able to weasel this Republican 
budget legislation through with as little public scrutiny as possible.
  I strongly urge rejection of the rule.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for being here. 
It was exhilarating to hear someone actually talking about the bill 
before us. Unfortunately, it was slightly inaccurate as well, so if I 
could make a couple of corrections.
  The trophy concept that is there is not opening it up for new 
elements. It is simply saying those trophies that were already legally 
hunted and have been denied access to this country can be accessed into 
this country. It doesn't expand anything. Indeed, rather than actually 
taking away State and local control, one of the provisions of this bill 
is that the rules will be attuned to State and local laws, which means 
State and local authorities actually have a great deal of authority 
under this particular bill. They have more authority than a bureaucrat 
sitting here in Washington.
  But let me go back to what the other people wish to talk about, and 
that is this deeming concept again--even though that is one of the 
provisions and is still not the basis of the bill.
  I taught debate for almost a dozen years, and I had a debate coach 
when I was younger who used to say when you're totally lost on an issue 
and you don't know what to do, just find an argument and keep drilling 
it in over and over again and just maybe the judge will vote for you. 
You've heard that happening today. No decision is being made on this 
procedural vote. We did actually have a debate and vote 3 weeks ago. 
That debate would have been appropriate, was appropriate 3 weeks ago, 
and will be appropriate in the future, but not necessarily. This is a 
procedural vote on how we move forward; it is not a policy vote on how 
we move forward.
  Words do have consequences and meaning. The Speaker was kind enough 
to come in here and talk about how we are deeming and passing 
something. I have to take umbrage of that slightly. We are not deeming 
something and passing something. That actually took place in 2010 when 
Speaker Pelosi presided over House Resolution 1500 that, indeed, deemed 
and then passed something--passed something that had not

[[Page H1867]]

gone through committee, had not been discussed or voted by anybody. And 
with less than a day of actually looking at the numbers, that was 
deemed and then passed.
  What we are talking about here is passing something which happened 3 
weeks ago and now, so that we can go forward with the discussion in our 
committees, deeming it simply because the Senate, once again, in over 
1,000 days has failed to allow us, in a traditional way, to move 
forward. That's why this is a procedural vote. This is not about 
policy. This is not an effort where you have to pass something to find 
out what's in it. This is the procedure in which we will go forward on 
something we have already passed out of committee, on something which 
is in the nature of what is going forward, which has been debated here 
on the floor, and now allow it to be debated further. This is 
procedural. This is procedural.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Isn't it the case that, in passing this rule, we 
provide the process by which the budget will be implemented in the 
House of Representatives? Isn't that the case?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate that. And reclaiming the time very 
briefly because I know you're the next speaker and you're going to go 
over this issue one more time, yeah, that's exactly what--there has to 
be a procedure to go forward. But, once again, unlike what happened in 
2010, we're not pulling the numbers out of thin air. You actually had 
the chance to debate that earlier in your Budget Committee and will 
have the chance to debate that again on the floor as well as in the 
committee. That's process; it's a process. If you want to, again, go 
across the rotunda and talk to your friends over on the other side, 
maybe we wouldn't have to do that. But until they're willing to do 
something, we have a procedural problem here.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time and look forward to 
hearing the gentleman.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the ranking member of 
the Budget Committee, again, I want to make it clear to everybody who's 
watching this that this rule is about a lot more than a gun bill. This 
rule is about how we're going to proceed with the appropriations for 
the various committees. So, again, if this wasn't so controversial, my 
Republican friends would have brought up this deeming language on its 
own; but instead, they're hiding it in this gun bill, and they're 
trying not to talk about what this means. What this means is an end to 
the Medicare guarantee, among other things. It means an end to the 
social safety net in this country.
  I think this is a horrible, horrible way to proceed. I think the 
budget that was passed by the House is horrible. But to move forward in 
this manner I think is very, very disruptive.
  People need to understand that this is not just a rule that allows a 
gun bill to come to the floor and, oh, by the way, there's a few little 
minor procedural things that are contained in this rule. This is a big 
deal, this is a huge deal, and my colleagues need to know that.
  At this point, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend, Mr. McGovern. He is absolutely 
right. The next vote will be a vote to double down on the Republican 
budget.
  I appreciate the answer from my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop). 
What the next vote will allow, the vote on the rule, is for the House 
to proceed with the implementation of the Republican budget. Therefore, 
if you think that budget is the wrong direction for this country, you 
should vote against the rule and not give the House the authority to 
move forward, because that's what the next vote is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, let's just remember what that budget does. I would just 
remind my colleagues that the issue in the debate was not whether or 
not we reduce the long-term deficit in this country. We've got to do 
that. The issue was how we do that. The Republican budget did not 
follow the advice of every bipartisan group that has looked at the 
challenge of deficit reduction, because those bipartisan groups have 
said that we need to take a balanced approach--meaning, we've got to 
make some tough cuts.
  We passed some of the Budget Control Act, and we needed to do more. 
They also said that we needed to deal with the revenue side of the 
equation, but the Republican budget doesn't ask for one penny--one 
penny--from millionaires for the purposes of deficit reduction. It 
doesn't close one single tax loophole for the purposes of deficit 
reduction--not one. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our 
Republican colleagues have signed a pledge saying they won't do that, 
that they won't close one tax loophole for the purpose of deficit 
reduction. Now, the American people understand the math of the budget. 
If you say that we're not going to ask the wealthiest to do a little 
more as part of reducing the deficit, it means you've got to sock it to 
everybody else even harder.
  Just this week, we saw this play out. Yesterday, in the Senate, they 
had a vote on the Buffett rule. It is a very simple proposition: let's 
ask millionaires to pay the same effective tax rate as their 
secretaries. Every Democratic Senator but one voted for it. Every 
Republican Senator but one voted against it.
  Contrast that to what's going to happen in the House on Thursday. 
Here in the House on Thursday, they're going to do another tax break. 
Look at the Joint Tax Committee, a nonpartisan group. Where did the 
bulk of those funds go--to hedge funds? to Washington law firms? There 
was $50 billion added to the deficit in 1 year, and it would be $500 
billion over 10 years. When you give tax cuts like that and if you also 
want to reduce the deficit, it means you cut into everything else. So 
what do you cut? You do cut the Medicare guarantee. You hit seniors on 
Medicare. I'll just show you a chart that shows exactly what they do 
here.
  If you look at this chart, it shows the current support that seniors 
receive under the Medicare program. That's the blue line. This is the 
percentage of support they get from the Medicare program. As you can 
see, if you continue the Medicare program at the current levels of 
support, it maintains that at that level. This green line is the level 
of support that Members of Congress get as part of the Federal 
employees' health benefit plan. Members of Congress get a fixed 
percentage of the premium costs as part of their plan. When the costs 
go up, Members of Congress' support for the plan goes up accordingly, 
and that's why the level of support from Members of Congress--that's 
the green line--stays constant over time. As for the Medicare voucher 
plan, huh-uh. Under the Medicare voucher plan, as costs for health care 
rise, the amount of the vouchers seniors get will not keep pace. That's 
how they reduce the deficit.
  In other words, it's another round of tax cuts for millionaires; but 
for seniors who have a median income today of under $22,000, they're 
going to give them a voucher that doesn't keep pace with health care 
costs. For Members of Congress, your plan keeps pace with rising health 
care costs; not so for seniors on Medicare. Why? Again, it's not a 
balanced approach.
  What else does it do? We just had a hearing today in the Budget 
Committee on what it does to Medicaid. It shreds the social safety net. 
It cuts Medicaid by $800 billion over the next 10 years. According to 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, by the year 2022, Medicaid 
will be cut by 30 percent and, by the year 2050, by 75 percent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would remind my colleagues that two-thirds of 
Medicaid funding goes to seniors in nursing homes and to care for 
disabled individuals, and another 20 percent goes to kids from low-
income families. They would whack that in their budgets, in the 
Republican budget, by $800 billion. At the same time, if you'd just 
take the portion of the tax cut in the Republican budget that extends 
the Bush tax cuts for the folks at the very top, that's $961 billion, 
but they don't want

[[Page H1868]]

to ask those Americans to go back to paying the same rates that they 
were paying during the Clinton administration--the same rates. The 
economy was booming and 20 million jobs were created--but no, they want 
to give the folks at the very high end a tax break and cut Medicaid by 
$810 billion.
  Those are the choices that are made in the Republican budget, and 
that's what this vote on this rule is all about: whether we should 
allow this body to go forward and implement that budget. It's wrong for 
the country. It's displaced priorities.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My old debate coach is looking down on our actions and is smiling, 
saying his advice was right. Just keep making the same arguments over 
and over again, and maybe someone will actually believe those. This, 
actually, still is about a sportsmen bill and about hunting and fishing 
rights on public property.
  What the gentleman from Maryland just said is 99 percent accurate. 
There is one slight difference in what he said, and that is that this 
would be deemed until such time as there is a conference report. If 
there, indeed, is another avenue to go, ask the Senate to do its work, 
to do its job, to have a conference committee, and to actually move 
forward in that manner. Otherwise, we have to either do it in an 
improvised way, which is this, or you have to simply not do it at all.
  Actually, one of the end results of what the other side is telling us 
to do is to simply not do anything. Do not go forward with any ideas. 
Do not go forward with reconciliation, and have a defense sequestration 
go into effect that would devastate the military that Secretary Panetta 
is begging you not to do. You have to do something procedurally to move 
forward. This vote does not implement anything. This vote allows our 
committees to go back and do the work that we were supposed to do. You 
defeat this, and we go back to a policy of doing nothing.
  As I said before, there is precedent for what we are doing. I don't 
know why we say we are burying this in a hunting bill; but in 2010 when 
we did this deeming practice over another administration, it was buried 
in section 4 of House Resolution 1500. Once again, in going through a 
different process back then because no committee had ever looked at 
those numbers before, they were deemed and passed. This time, we 
actually passed a bill. We debated it in committee. We debated it on 
the floor. Now we are going to deem those numbers until such time as 
the Senate is responsible enough to do its work and have a conference 
committee report so that the House at least does what we are charged to 
do, and that is the work of the American people.
  This is a procedural resolution that allows our committees to go 
forward to find solutions and to do it with some order to it. It 
doesn't presuppose what the final decision will be. That's the argument 
that's being made here. It does not presuppose the final decision. It 
is the procedure to go forward, Madam Speaker, and that is why we so 
desperately need to do this--so the House can do its work when the 
Senate refuses to do its work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just remind my colleagues that, by deeming these numbers, what 
my colleagues will be doing if they vote for this rule will be to give 
the Republican leadership the green light to go ahead and dismantle 
Medicare, to end the Medicare guarantee for our senior citizens.

                              {time}  1410

  It will be a green light to go after anti-hunger and nutrition 
programs. It's the green light to go after education programs. As the 
ranking member on the Budget Committee said very clearly, we all want 
to balance the budget, we all understand we need to deal with our debt. 
But the way my friends on the other side of the aisle have outlined 
their plan, it is so one-sided. The burden is all on middle-income 
families, all on those who are poor.
  Their way of balancing the budget is to lower the quality of life for 
the middle class in this country. And there are other choices to be 
made. For example, making sure that Donald Trump pays his fair share or 
that we close some of these corporate tax loopholes or go after some of 
these subsidies for the big oil companies. Instead, all of the plans 
that have been put forward by my Republican friends are all aimed at 
those in the middle and those struggling to get into the middle. That 
is why we are so outraged here today. We believe in Medicare. We don't 
want to end the Medicare guarantee for our senior citizens.
  At this point, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, our good friend from the State of Utah 
posed the question: What do the American people want?
  I suppose that most of us would like to hunt on public land and fish, 
and the underlying bill does that. Unfortunately, tacked on to that 
bill--should this rule actually pass the House--will be something that 
I'm sure the American people do not want. And that is the crux of this 
current debate. The debate here is really about what will be added to 
the hunting and fishing legislation.
  Let's consider for a moment exactly what it is. It is the end of 
Medicare as we know it. It sets up a program that will, as surely as we 
are here on the floor at this moment, terminate Medicare. It's also a 
bill that will immediately double the interest rate on every student 
loan taken out here in the United States. It's also a bill that will 
put 200,000 students out of school, out of college because the Pell 
Grants are reduced. It's also a bill that will take $80 billion a year 
out of Medicaid, some 62 percent, 63 percent of which goes to nursing 
homes. So seniors will not be able to get into nursing homes and those 
who are there may not be able to stay.
  What is being tacked onto the hunting and fishing bill here is 
something that the American public does not want. The American public 
does not want to see students thrown out of school, does not want to 
see Medicare end for seniors, does not want to see seniors no longer 
able to go to a nursing home, does not want to see the food stamps 
terminated as unemployment increases and as we find some 20 percent of 
American children in poverty unable to get a decent meal 7 days a week. 
That's what the American public does not want, but what the Republicans 
are offering with this rule is precisely that.
  We ought to vote ``no'' on this rule. If you must deem, put it in a 
separate bill and let's have an up-and-down vote on that.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member from the Committee on 
Natural Resources, Mr. Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  The Republican budget reads like the legislative version of the 
``Hunger Games,'' pitting American families in an unfair and losing 
battle against billionaires and Big Oil.
  One, the Republican budget doles out tax breaks that the wealthiest 
don't need and we can't afford; two, gives away $4 billion in annual 
tax breaks for oil companies; three, abandons grandma and grandpa, 
forcing them to pay more for health care or forgo coverage altogether; 
four, takes food out of the mouths of hungry children all across our 
country.
  Just yesterday, Senate Republicans refused to fix a broken system 
that allows CEOs to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Here 
in the House, the Republican leadership has called the Buffett rule a 
hoax. The real hoax is the Republican budget. The GOP used to stand for 
Grand Old Party. Now it stands for Guaranteed Oil Profits; now it 
stands for Gut and Get Old People; now it stands for Greed Over 
Principle. One hundred years after the Titanic sank, the Republican 
budget throws working Americans overboard while saving the lifeboats 
for the wealthiest.
  The ``Hunger Games,'' that's what the Republicans are playing. For 
the entertainment of the billionaires and the oil companies, we--that 
is the Republicans--are now going to sacrifice

[[Page H1869]]

the programs that help the neediest children in our country. It is a 
budget that does not deserve the support of any Member of this 
institution.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I would urge the gentleman to pay 
particular attention to some of the amendments that are proposed under 
this rule, one of which would actually probably prohibit those 
Hollywood people from making movies on public lands again if any kind 
of hunting and fishing action were to be required.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I would just like to say to my friend that as the lone 
Republican who represents Hollywood, I don't like aspersions being cast 
at my very distinguished constituents, as my friend has just chosen to 
do.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, Madam Speaker, let me yield 5 minutes 
to the chairman of the Rules Committee, who is here to clean up the 
mess I have made so far.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, it's going to take more than 5 minutes to clean up 
that mess.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say that while I am here to clean up Mr. 
Bishop's mess, I've got to say I never in my wildest dreams believed 
that the ship that my grandmother almost rode on, but didn't quite get 
on, the Titanic, would be brought into this debate. I'm very impressed 
that my friend from Massachusetts has proceeded to do that.
  But I will say that another of his lines, Madam Speaker, was just 
absolutely incredible: taking food from the mouths of hungry children. 
Come on, give me a break. Madam Speaker, the notion that anyone--
Democrat or Republican alike--would in any way embrace the notion of 
taking food from the mouths of hungry children is one of the most 
preposterous things imaginable. We want to ensure that every single 
child in this country has opportunity, as well as food. We want to make 
sure that we're able to get our fiscal house in order. And frankly, as 
I listened to all of the complaints being leveled about the action that 
we will take with passage of this rule, it is simply unhappiness over 
the fact that our friends on the other side of the aisle have lost the 
budget debate.
  Madam Speaker, what we're doing is very simply doing the work that 
this body has charged us with doing. The work that we've been charged 
with doing is to put into place a reconciliation package, getting the 
authorizing committees to work on the charge of a budget.
  One of the words that we regularly hear the American people use to 
malign all of Washington, D.C., is the word ``gridlock.'' I'm not one 
of those. I subscribe to the George Will view that sometimes the notion 
of having a President of one party and a Congress of a different party 
is not necessarily a bad thing. But we know that the term ``gridlock'' 
is used as a pejorative.
  Madam Speaker, I can think of not much that would exacerbate gridlock 
more than our saying the House passed its budget and we all know that 
the Senate has failed in more than 3 years and 100-some-odd days since 
they've passed a budget, that the Senate has failed to pass a budget. 
So we have the responsibility, since we have been able to pass a budget 
here, to do our work.
  This notion of calling it deem and pass and somehow likening it to 
the outrageous proposal that--fortunately the American people stood up 
and said it was not acceptable, and finally the House responded by not 
deeming and passing that incredible health care bill, which is 
potentially unconstitutional. We'll see what the Supreme Court says 
sometime this summer. But the idea of characterizing that with our 
doing exactly what Democrats did when it came to the budget in the past 
and that is that since the work hadn't been done, the reconciliation 
process had to begin, we had to do the work that follows the passage of 
a budget. That's exactly what we're doing.

                              {time}  1420

  To somehow describe this as extraordinary is, again, a gross 
mischaracterization of what it is that we have before us.
  Madam Speaker, I will say that for us to proceed with this rule and 
consideration of this very important measure, we have a $15.5 trillion 
national debt. We have budget deficits as far as the eye can see. The 
so-called Buffett rule, I mean its author in the Senate acknowledged 
yesterday that it would do nothing--Senator Whitehouse said it would do 
nothing to create jobs, and he threw out there, he said, it's not going 
to solve all the ailments of society. It's not going to cure all the 
ailments of society.
  The fact is we need to focus on job creation, on economic growth, and 
that's exactly what we're trying to do with this budget. This budget is 
designed to get our economy growing, and at the same time it's designed 
to, yes, ensure, with the social safety net, that those who are truly 
in need are able to benefit from those programs. But it's designed to 
make sure that those programs will not go into extinction completely. 
And it's designed to ensure that we create opportunity for every man 
and women in this country, as many people have been discouraged, as 
many people are struggling to have the opportunity to find a job. The 
budget that we have is designed to encourage the kind of government 
structure which will make it possible for that to happen.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say with that, I encourage an ``aye'' vote 
on this rule. Let's get down to work. That's what the American people 
want us to do.
  And I hope and pray that I have cleaned up for Mr. Bishop.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I just want to respond to something that 
my distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said. You know, he 
implied that when my colleague from Massachusetts said that the 
Republican budget plans would literally take the food out of the mouths 
of children, that somehow we were engaged in hyperbole or some kind of 
empty rhetoric.
  I don't know whether my chairman knows that tomorrow in the House 
Agriculture Committee, under the direction of the Republican 
leadership, that they are going to cut $33 billion out of the SNAP 
program.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I would say to my friend, obviously we have to deal with 
very, very serious fiscal challenges that exist here, and I know that 
these State-run programs are designed to ensure that those who are 
truly in need are able to benefit, and so no one has the desire to take 
food from the mouths of hungry children.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. But $33 billion in cuts will reduce benefits to people. 
It will take, literally, food off the table for many families and a lot 
of working families, too.
  Under the Republican leadership's direction, the Agriculture 
Committee is not going after excessive subsidies and big agri-
businesses. It's going after SNAP, food stamps. I am going to have an 
amendment in the Rules Committee today, when we bring up the 
transportation bill I think for, like, the 15th time I have offered it, 
to go after the billions of dollars that we give to oil companies in 
subsidies. Taxpayers subsidize these programs. We never get an 
opportunity to vote on the House floor.
  But the Republican leadership is not only not allowing me to do that, 
they are not saying we should go after and trim this corporate welfare. 
What they are saying is $33 billion in cuts to SNAP. That is 
outrageous.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I will yield to the gentleman in 1 second.
  I know these are difficult budgetary times. I mean, you know, to not 
ask the Donald Trumps of the world to pay a little bit more and rather, 
instead, to cut $33 billion in SNAP, or to not insist that we pay for 
these wars that seem to go on forever, and let that add to our debt, 
but go after poor people who are on SNAP, that's where the outrage is. 
I can't believe that that's the first place we are turning.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that I 
agree with part of his statement here, that being that we need to look 
at overall tax reform. I concur with the notion of

[[Page H1870]]

reducing any kind of subsidies. I don't like the idea of engaging in 
social planning through tax policy, and so I hope in the context of 
overall tax reform that we will be able to do exactly what my friend is 
arguing when it comes to the issue of subsidization. I thank my friend 
for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentleman from Utah how many more 
speakers he has?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. How many would you like me to have?
  Mr. McGOVERN. As many as you want.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Then we will have that many, but I hope I will be 
the last.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will close for our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for up to 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that Republicans can't 
use so-called reconciliation procedures to force through the 
elimination of Medicare as we know it or force through cuts to Medicare 
benefits for seniors or people with disabilities.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we have a choice here. We can either 
balance our budget and deal with our deficit and our debt in a fair and 
balanced manner, or we can do it in the way that the Republican 
leadership has proposed, which is to basically put the burden on 
middle-income families and those struggling to get into the middle, and 
to put an added burden on our senior citizens.
  Make no mistake about it: if you vote for this rule, you are voting 
to end the Medicare guarantee. That is their plan, and that is what 
they have said. There is no question about it.
  I think it is outrageous. I think when Warren Buffett pays a lower 
tax rate than his secretary there is something wrong with our tax 
system. When corporations get all these special loopholes so they don't 
have to pay taxes but middle-income families have to, there is 
something wrong with this system. We need some balance.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, there is, as I finish this, a 
couple of areas I want to talk about. There are children who are 
preparing to go to preschool today who have lived their entire lives 
without seeing the Senate actually pass a budget. Were that not the 
case, we would not be here with this particular issue, and if they 
actually were to pass a budget, we would go forward without this 
particular issue.

  Once again, the merits of the budget notwithstanding, this vote does 
not implement anything; it allows us the procedure to go forward to 
implement something. The underlying bill still does talk about the 
ability of those of us who live in public land States to have hunting 
and fishing rights guaranteed and protected without the heavy hand of 
Washington bureaucrats stopping that concept. Indeed, State law will 
have to be considered before they do any kind of concept.
  I also want to put one other concept before you, just in closing, 
that illustrates the problem we have with the American people on how we 
waste money and, indeed, that needs to be one of the first things of 
our consideration.
  CBO has scored this bill as potentially costing $12 million. It 
doesn't make a difference. There is nothing mandated in here that needs 
to have a review under the NEPA process of these bills. The 
administration said that we might have to go through this process, 
therefore, you should score it at $12 million.
  Let's make an assumption that you actually had to go through the 
reprocessing of going through all of the land management plans. And I 
would ask the people the question: Does it make sense that it would 
take $12 million for the Park Service and the BLM to decide whether 
hunting would or would not be allowed? Could that not be done with the 
Secretary and a cell phone within a week if we actually were decent 
about what we were attempting to do?
  When, indeed, we have bills like this in which the administration and 
the government is trying to say, well, it will cost $12 million to make 
the decision of whether hunting is allowed or not, it puts all of our 
efforts into question. It does not make sense. And it may be one of the 
reasons why we need to look at what we are doing internally first, and 
that would be an appropriate thing to take place.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate that this is still a 
procedural vote on a rule that is extremely fair, and it is appropriate 
to the underlying legislation of H.R. 4089, which does talk about 
fishing and hunting rights, preserving that time-honored tradition and, 
indeed, allowing those of us in the West to make sure that we are not 
precluded from those traditional areas of activity. It's a good bill 
and, more importantly, this is a fair rule, and I urge you to adopt it.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 614 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITING USE OF RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES FOR 
                   ELIMINATION OF MEDICARE PROGRAM AND INCREASED 
                   COSTS OR REDUCED BENEFITS TO SENIORS AND PEOPLE 
                   WITH DISABILITIES.

       (a) No measure reported by a committee pursuant to 
     reconciliation directives in House Concurrent Resolution 112 
     shall be considered a reconciliation bill for purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if it contains a provision 
     that, with respect to the Medicare program under title XVIII 
     of the Social Security Act, furthers, promotes, provides for, 
     or implements any of the following:
       (1) Eliminating guaranteed health insurance benefits for 
     seniors or people with disabilities under such program.
       (2) Establishing a Medicare voucher plan that provides 
     limited payments to seniors or people with disabilities to 
     purchase health care in the private health insurance market 
     or otherwise increasing Medicare beneficiary costs.
       (b) No measure reported by a committee pursuant to 
     reconciliation directives in House Concurrent Resolution 112 
     shall be considered a reconciliation bill for purposes of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if it contains a provision 
     that, with respect to seniors or people with disabilities, 
     furthers, promotes, provides for, or implements any of the 
     following:
       (1) Rationing health care.
       (2) Raising revenues or premiums for seniors or people with 
     disabilities under section 1818 of the Social Security Act, 
     section 1818A of such Act, or section 1839A of such Act.
       (3) Increasing cost-sharing (including deductibles, 
     coinsurance, and copayments) under the Medicare program for 
     seniors or people with disabilities.
       (4) Otherwise restricting benefits or modifying eligibility 
     criteria under such program for seniors or people with 
     disabilities.
       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the

[[Page H1871]]

     vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to 
     proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . 
     [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications 
     whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. 
     Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative 
     Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th 
     edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the 
     previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is 
     generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority 
     Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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-minutes votes on adopting House Resolution 614, if 
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1815.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 179, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 155]

                               YEAS--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     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
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     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
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--179

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     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)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     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
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     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--17

     Akin
     Andrews
     Cardoza
     Cohen
     Costello
     Davis (IL)
     Filner
     Fincher
     Gallegly
     Lewis (GA)
     Marino
     McIntyre
     Napolitano
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Slaughter
     Walsh (IL)

                              {time}  1455

  Messrs. SCOTT of Virginia, CLYBURN, and Ms. BERKLEY 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. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 155, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 155 due to a family health emergency. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Ordering the Previous 
Question of H. Res. 614, the resolution providing for consideration of 
the bill H.R. 4089, to protect and enhance opportunities for 
recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 184, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 156]

                               AYES--228

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco

[[Page H1872]]


     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     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
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     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
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--184

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     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
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     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)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     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
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Akin
     Andrews
     Burton (IN)
     Cardoza
     Cohen
     Costello
     Filner
     Fincher
     Gallegly
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Marino
     McIntyre
     Napolitano
     Pitts
     Rangel
     Slaughter
     Terry
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1505

  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. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 156, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 156 due to a family health emergency. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to the 
resolution of H. Res. 614, the resolution providing for consideration 
of the bill H.R. 4089, to protect and enhance opportunities for 
recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________