[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2337-H2346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5326, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013; WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF
CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN
RESOLUTIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 643 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 643
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. 5326) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the
committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a
recommendation that the bill do pass, 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. House Resolution 614 is amended in section 2(a) by
inserting ``and the allocations of spending authority printed
in Tables 11 and 12 of House Report 112-421 shall be
considered for all purposes in the House to be the
allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974'' before the period.
Sec. 3. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported on May 10, 2012,
providing for consideration or disposition of any measure
reported by the Committee on the Budget relating to section
201 of House Concurrent Resolution 112.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
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.
Mr. Speaker, I always look around when I hear the Reading Clerk
reading the rule because I can't tell if folks are glossing over or if
they are excited about it, like I am. If you paid close attention to
the Reading Clerk this morning, Mr. Speaker, you're excited about it.
You're excited about it because we're here to do the first
appropriations bill of the FY 2013 cycle. Now, Mr. Speaker, as you
know, there is about two-thirds of the budget that is the mandatory
spending--that budget that gets spent whether Congress shows up to work
or not. It's just money that gets borrowed from our children and goes
right out the door.
[[Page H2338]]
This one-third of the budget, the discretionary spending side, is the
part that doesn't go out the door unless the House comes together and
passes a bill, sends it to the Senate, and gets the Senate to pass a
bill, and it goes to the President's desk for signature. This is the
first of those bills that we're going to have a chance to do in this
Congress. And as we began the year last year, we are going to begin the
year this year--with an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, an open rule allows any Member of this body
to bring any idea that they have and offer it as an amendment to the
underlying bill. You don't have to be a high-ranking Republican to get
an amendment to this bill. You don't have to be a senior Democrat to
get an amendment to this bill. You just have to be a representative of
constituents back home, and you can show up on this floor and have a
say. This is going to be Congress at its best, Mr. Speaker. When you
hear it read, it sounds like a lot of legalistic mumbo jumbo, but when
you see it in action, it is this House as our Founding Fathers intended
this House to be.
This is House Resolution 643, Mr. Speaker, and it is an open rule for
consideration of H.R. 5326, the fiscal year 2013 Commerce-Justice-
Science appropriations bill.
You know, last year, Mr. Speaker, we only got through 6\1/2\ of the
appropriations bills in this House before it became apparent the
process was going to break down, and we went to a minibus to finish the
deal. But we considered 350 amendments--350 different ideas, Mr.
Speaker--350 lines that came from the body right here that said we have
a better way than what the committee has reported to us.
{time} 1230
Now, this is a special day, as my colleague from Florida knows,
because this appropriations bill passed out of subcommittee by a voice
vote--a voice vote. Democrats and Republicans came together in
subcommittee, passed this bill, and sent it on to the full committee
where, again, Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans came together to
pass out of full committee this bill on a voice vote, and now we bring
it to the House floor today. Goodness knows, we may be able to pass
this rule on a voice vote, I say to my colleague from Florida, and
perhaps the underlying legislation as well. This is the House working
as the folks back home intended the House to work.
Now, this is funding for the Commerce Department, Mr. Speaker. All of
those programs intended to grow jobs in this country, to promote trade
in this country, Commerce Department, funded under this bill. This is
the bill that funds the Justice Department, funds our U.S. Marshals,
funds our FBI, funds those parts of our society that we know need
special attention, Mr. Speaker, in these difficult times.
This is the bill that funds NASA, Mr. Speaker. This is the bill that
funds the National Science Foundation. This is the bill that funds the
U.S. Trade Representative and the International Trade Commission. Mr.
Speaker, I will quote the subcommittee chairman, Frank Wolf, who said:
This legislation builds on significant spending reductions
achieved in last year's bill while continuing to preserve
core priorities. Those priorities continue to be job
creation, fighting crime and terrorism--with a focus on
cybersecurity--and boosting U.S. competitiveness through
smart investments in science. This bill makes job creation a
priority by maintaining and expanding manufacturing and job
repatriation initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, these are tough times. I don't know if you've seen all
the young people outside this Chamber today, Mr. Speaker, folks in town
with their schools, folks in town visiting Washington, D.C. You know,
40 cents out of every dollar that this Chamber spends, Mr. Speaker, we
borrow from those children. We heard lots of 1-minutes this morning
about the student loan program. Of course, every penny that goes out
the door is a penny that we borrowed from the next generation of
Americans.
This bill, passed out of subcommittee and full committee on a voice
vote, represents a 1-percent reduction from the President's request in
this title. A lot of folks in this body would like it to be more than 1
percent. I suspect we'll have some amendments on this floor during this
wonderful open amendment process that will in fact try to change that
number to be greater than 1 percent. But what folks came together to
say is these are priorities for this country. These all are important
funding priorities that only the national and the Federal Government
can do. So we want to fund those in a responsible way that both focuses
on not borrowing from the next generation, but still maintaining
important core priorities that I think we would all agree are important
to this Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. And, again, I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Woodall,
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
I also appreciated his comments about the fact that we are borrowing
from the next generation. I gather that the previous generation
borrowed from us. I don't know when the borrowing stops, but at least
that seems to be the way of the world until we get to a point where we
can be self-sustaining, as rightly we should be.
This rule provides for consideration of Commerce-Justice-Science
appropriations for fiscal year 2013.
Many of my Republican colleagues have been patting themselves on the
back for the open rule associated with this bill. They claim that this
effort demonstrates transparency and their commitment to regular order.
Putting aside for the moment whether a single open rule in 304 days
makes for an open legislation process, the fact is that now the
Republicans are using this rule to correct a mistake they made in their
previous effort to deem and pass the Ryan budget.
It seems, Mr. Speaker, that the deem and pass didn't work the first
time around. It was supposed to break the spending agreement made by my
friends in the Republican Party in the Budget Control Act, but they
bungled that effort a couple weeks ago and now have to try to go back
on their word. It seems to me that if you're going to break an
agreement that you made in good faith, you ought to get it right the
first time. Doing this twice just calls attention to what little regard
there is for bipartisan cooperation and agreement.
I heard my colleague, Mr. Woodall, comment about this coming out of
the subcommittee and the committee by voice vote, and there is no
disagreement in that regard. I guess to some that is to be a
commendable effort. But he also suggested that we may very well, if we
were to choose, carry this on voice vote. I would disabuse him of that
notion. That is not going to happen. The deem and pass was wrong the
first time around, and it's still wrong the second time around--and
shouldn't have been placed in here--and it will be wrong the third,
fourth, and however many more times around there are, in spite of open
rules, if you put it in it, until the Republicans have repudiated every
last promise they made.
If breaking the Budget Control Act agreement wasn't enough, the
Republican majority is also using this rule to silence Members on the
upcoming reconciliation legislation being considered by this body later
this week. Rather than using regular order--and I stick a tack in that
to compliment my colleague on the Rules Committee, who does believe and
has made it manifestly clear that he believes in regular order--but
rather than using regular order to debate the merits of breaking their
promises, Republicans are imposing martial law to prevent Members from
properly considering the legislation and having their say.
Forcing same-day consideration--that's what we mean when we say
``martial law''--of the legislation simply reinforces the majority's
intent to use this legislation for partisan gain. Instead of working
with Democrats on a bipartisan process, Republicans want to jeopardize
funding for essential government programs so they can both go back on
their agreements and force the House to consider the legislation sight
unseen.
This is an unfortunate situation because Democrats would have been
pleased to support this open rule. Had the Republicans followed regular
order, Democrats would support this rule; and I, for one, would argue
that we should do so by voice if it had been that way. If the Budget
Committee Democrats end up taking the entire 3 days that they are
entitled to under the rules of the House before they finish their
[[Page H2339]]
views, we could consider the reconciliation bill on Monday instead of
Thursday.
This is no way to run a budget process and no way to conduct the
business of the House. I'd be amused at the Republicans' failed efforts
here, Mr. Speaker, except that I'm dismayed to point out that millions
of Americans depend on the programs considered under the appropriations
process.
An agreement was made with the Budget Control Act, and under the
agreement the Republicans promised certain levels of funding for
essential programs. That funding is now in jeopardy because the
majority wants to spend time trying to go back on what they promised.
Let me remind this body that the House and Senate both passed the
Budget Control Act. The Senate has not passed the Ryan budget.
{time} 1240
And deeming and passing does nothing but force this body, as I say
all the time, to pretend that the budget, as offered, is in effect.
As I said in the Rules Committee when the Republicans tried to do
this the first time around, if we're going to pass legislation that
pretends things exist, then I guess we don't need either the Senate or
the President of the United States since we can just pretend that the
laws have passed when, in fact, they have not.
I don't have my copy of ``I'm Just a Bill,'' and my colleague wasn't
here when I read it in committee at one point in time, but I'm pretty
sure it doesn't mention that the way to pass legislation is to first
pass one agreement and then try twice to pretend it never happened.
I don't know what that looks like in a cartoon version, but probably
less like ``Schoolhouse Rock'' and more like Wile E. Coyote falling
straight off a cliff, because if we're going to get out of the business
of reality and into the business of pretending, let's just pretend that
every American has a job, that every student can go to college, and
that no child goes to bed hungry. Let's pretend that the billions we
wasted on unnecessary wars were, instead, actually invested right here
in the United States of America. Let's pretend that Thanksgiving is in
June and Christmas is in July and the election season is over and the
deficit is gone.
And since we've now pretended that everything is fine in our great
country, let's go tell all of the unemployed, the middle class, the
hungry and the poor that their problems aren't real. Or better yet,
let's just pretend those people don't exist, because that's exactly
what I believe the majority's budget does.
Rather than using the power of the Federal budget to lead this
country into a new era of economic growth, Republicans want to cut
taxes for those that are wealthy among us, including those of us that
serve in the House of Representatives, cut services for everyone else,
and then feel like they've set the country on the right track.
Instead of spending our time debating the merits of the
appropriations legislation before us, we're, again, trying to convince
the majority to stick with the promises they made in the first place.
Rather than uniting in bipartisan fashion to support an open and
transparent legislative process, Republicans are using partisan
gimmickry to silence debate.
Rather than debating this legislation under the Budget Control Act,
we have to debate whether the Republican majority should even have to
keep their promises.
And rather than considering whether the inadequate levels of funding
in this legislation, particularly in certain arenas--let me use one:
the COPS program that I thought it was wrong when Democrats cut that
program, and I think it's wrong now that Republicans are talking about
less money for a program that all of us know is desperately needed in
our various communities.
We have to consider doing more for struggling Americans, and we have
to consider whether we ought to be cutting even more, as my colleagues
would have it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you, I don't actually prepare
remarks when I come down here to sit opposite my friend from Florida,
because I always know his opening statement is going to be that line by
line by line that reminds me of absolutely everything that I want to
say. And generally speaking, it reminds me of absolutely everything I'm
proud of, and sometimes things that my friend from Florida wishes had
not happened.
You know, folks ask me back home, Mr. Speaker--I'm a freshman here.
They say, Rob, what have you learned in your first term in Congress?
And I say, What I have learned is that when you watch the House floor
on C SPAN, it looks like theater. And what I've learned is that the
comments from my friends on the other side of aisle, it's not theater
at all, it is heartfelt belief in absolutely every word that comes out
of their mouth. And that's instructive, because if it were theater, we
could go into a dark back room somewhere and try to sort it out around
the edges. But when it's heartfelt belief about what direction we ought
to take this country, it requires the full and open hearing that we
give it here on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you were here for the deem and pass of
the budget several Congresses ago before I was elected, but the
gentleman's absolutely right. Deeming a budget as being passed by both
Houses of Congress is a terrible way to run this institution. He is
absolutely right.
Now, I'm proud that he and I did not shirk our responsibilities. We
passed a budget here in this House under yet another open process. We
asked any Member of this House that had an idea about what the budget
ought to look like in this country to bring that budget to the floor of
this House and we'd have a vote and a debate on it. And we did, and we
passed a budget here in the House of Representatives.
Now, sadly, our friends on the Senate side have chosen for the 3rd
year in a row not to pass a budget. And I would say again, those areas
on which we agree, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's absolutely right. In
the absence of actually having a budget that has passed the Senate--and
not just because they haven't passed one, Mr. Speaker, but because they
have said affirmatively and apparently with some pride they do not plan
on passing a budget. So what's the responsible body here on the other
side of the Capitol supposed to do? Well, what we said is we need to
move forward with our appropriations process, and so we are going to
move forward under the budget that has passed this entire U.S. House of
Representatives.
Now, the truth is we did that in a rule a couple of weeks back and we
got it wrong. This is not the first time we've had to make up for the
Senate's mistake. You would think, as often as we've had to take up for
those folks, we'd have figured out how to do it right. But sadly, we
didn't get it quite right, and I hope we don't get into the habit of
getting it right. I hope we get into the habit of actually passing a
budget over there, bringing a budget to conference, and having a budget
that controls all of Capitol Hill.
But in an effort to make up for what's not happening there, we did
absolutely, in this rule that's before us today, Mr. Speaker, specify
that the caps that we created, the 435 of us created in the budget that
we passed, will be the caps that regulate the activity that the 435 of
us engage in for the rest of the year. And I welcome the Senate to join
in that debate.
You know, to be fair to my colleague from Florida, we just see the
Budget Control Act differently. I think we both voted for the Budget
Control Act last fall. I viewed it as budget caps. In fact, if you open
up the legislation, it says budgetary caps. And when I read the word
``caps,'' Mr. Speaker, what I see is you can't spend any more than
that. I was never under any illusion that I was obligated to spend
absolutely all of it.
And, candidly, I think that's one of the issues we have here in this
body, Mr. Speaker. You may hear other speakers come down here today on
the other side of the aisle who believe exactly that, that because we
signed an
[[Page H2340]]
agreement with the President that we would not spend a penny more than
$1.047 trillion this year that we are, in fact, now obligated to spend
every single penny of that $1.047 trillion.
As we talked about, 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend in
this town, Mr. Speaker, is borrowed, borrowed from our children, from
our grandchildren. Forty cents out of every dollar is money that we do
not have but we are borrowing against the next generation's prosperity
to spend on our priorities today.
My friend from Florida brings up the COPS program. The COPS program
is a neat program, provides dollars to local law enforcement agencies
to help them succeed in their local law enforcement mission. But the
clever little secret that sometimes we don't talk about, Mr. Speaker,
is that my community back home takes all the tax money out of their
pocket and they send it to Washington, D.C. We don't have access to any
money in my part of the world, my little Seventh District there in
northeast Georgia. There's no money that we get back that we didn't
send in to begin with.
We can prioritize those local priorities locally. We can control
those outcomes locally. Forty cents out of every dollar we're
borrowing. Not one budget.
I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that in this open process we
allowed every Member of Congress to bring any budget they wanted to the
House floor for debate and consideration. Not one of those budgets, not
one, balanced next year. Not one. Not one budget. And some of the
brightest leaders I hope that our Nation has to offer, Mr. Speaker, sit
here in these chairs in this body, and not one of them had a proposal
for how to right this ship next year. Not one.
So the question is: What, do we just quit trying? Do we just quit
trying, Mr. Speaker? Do we just concede that the economic security of
this Nation is just going to drip, drip, drip away with deficit
spending year after year after year? Are we going to concede that the
50 percent increase in the public debt that's occurred over the last 4
years is just the way it's going to be; that's a pattern that is going
to continue, instead of a pattern that needs to be stopped?
{time} 1250
But here is the good news. I have heartfelt feelings on that issue,
and my friend from Florida has heartfelt feelings on that issue. The
rule that we from the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker--my colleague from
Florida and I--have brought to the floor today is going to open up that
debate so that absolutely all Members can have their passions and
feelings heard on this issue.
One more point of pride, Mr. Speaker, because I really do like coming
down here on open rule days.
What we don't talk about sometimes from that Budget Control Act is
that those caps--that $1.047 trillion I mentioned earlier, which is the
most that we could possibly spend--that's only good from October 1 to
the first week of January because that very same agreement said that in
the failure of the Joint Select Committee last fall to act--and I will
tell you it was quite the failure--it was going to lead to 8 percent
across-the-board reductions in every single account that we're talking
about here on the floor today--8 percent across-the-board reductions.
What our budget does and what our caps do is recognize that failure,
Mr. Speaker, that the House Representatives on that Joint Select
Committee and that the Senator representatives on that Joint Select
Committee did not come to an agreement on deficit reduction. Thus those
caps, those 8 percent across-the-board reductions, are barreling down
the road towards this institution, Mr. Speaker, and picking up speed
every day.
Now, we can either tell the American people that all is well and
let's go ahead and spend the maximum amount possible--but, oh, watch
out; here come those across-the-board cuts that nobody planned for--or
we can do the responsible thing, and the responsible thing is to plan
for that contingency. I say ``contingency.'' I dare say, Mr. Speaker,
it's almost a certainty that we're not going to find a way around those
across-the-board cuts but that we can find a way around them with the
budget that this institution passed. With the numbers that this
institution passed, we can replace those revenues--replace that
spending that was going to be saved with across-the-board cuts--with
targeted cuts, with targeted cuts to programs that we in this body
agree on.
Mr. Speaker, I didn't come to this body to do across-the-board cuts.
There is good spending and there is bad spending. I didn't come to this
body to use the meat ax to go after everything. I came to this body to
set the priorities that my constituents sent me here to set. Far from
being an abomination of the process, this House-passed budget, this
House reconciliation bill that's coming at the end of this week--and
yes, this first appropriations bill, the FY 2013-cycle--is the way this
process is supposed to be done.
I rise in strong support of this rule, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment
to the rule to make sure that we bring up the bill by Mr. Tierney of
Massachusetts in order to prevent a doubling of student loan interest
rates, which would be fully paid for by repealing tax giveaways for big
oil companies.
To discuss our amendment to the rule, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, the
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, Mr.
Miller.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman from Florida
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. This rule
provides for the consideration of the Commerce-Justice appropriations,
but it adds some extraneous matters, things like martial law for
reconciliation. If we are going to consider other matters in this rule,
we ought to be allowed, as the gentleman from Florida said, to be able
to consider the question of the doubling of the interest rates of
student loans.
The House Democrats, months ago, asked for this action to be taken so
that interest rates would not double on students this July 1, doubling
from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Calls for bipartisanship were met with
silence, silence, silence, and silence for months. All of a sudden, the
Republicans in Congress started to understand this issue when President
Obama took it to the parents and to the students of this country and
explained to them what was at stake. Then, 2 weeks ago, the Republicans
surprised us with a bill on the floor when they said they all now agree
with it. Even though they had voted against it 2 weeks earlier, they
agreed that there shouldn't be a doubling of the student loan rates.
But what did they decide to do?
In deciding on not doubling the student loan rates, they gave the
House a choice in which they would take it out on women's health,
denying women early screenings for breast cancer, for cervical cancer,
denying newborn infants early screenings for birth defects. That's how
they decided they would pay for it.
We tried to offer a Democratic alternative, the legislation of Mr.
Tierney of Massachusetts, which would have taken away the unjustified,
unfair tax breaks to the largest oil companies in the country at a time
of record profits and use some of that money to pay for making sure
that the interest rates don't double, but the Republicans wouldn't
allow us to offer that.
Today, what we're trying to do is to defeat the previous question so
that we will be able to offer the Democratic substitute, which would
keep the interest rates from doubling. We would pay for it by taking
away the unfair tax cuts to the largest oil companies and not do what
the Republicans did, which is to say you can have your student loan
subsidy, but you're going to have to take it out of the hides of
newborn infants, of children's immunizations, and of the preventative
care and early screenings for women with cervical and breast cancer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We know that that decision, that
early screening, is a matter of life and death
[[Page H2341]]
for those women, but that was of no matter to the Republicans. Now we
see today a recent poll out that suggested over half of the country
supports the student loans not doubling, paying for it in the manner in
which the Democrats did, as opposed to 30 percent of the country that
think the Republicans are on the right track in going after women's
health, children's health and children's immunizations.
So I would hope that we will defeat the previous question, that Mr.
Hastings will be allowed to move to consider the legislation by Mr.
Tierney, and that we can put this issue to rest so that families and
students now sitting around trying to figure out how they're going to
pay for the college educations of their children who have just been
accepted to college or who are continuing in college can do that with
the peace of mind of knowing that the interest rates won't double on
July 1.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume to say I've
just gotten the sad news that our friends on the Senate side hadn't
just stuck it to us by not passing a budget last year and didn't just
stick it to us by not passing a budget this year, but have just stuck
it to us one more time by failing to move forward on the student loan
legislation there.
I don't know what to do down here, Mr. Speaker. I mean, on the one
hand, my colleagues say--rightfully so--that they don't want us just
running on our own down here, doing our own thing all the time,
pretending as if the Senate doesn't exist. On the other hand, we've
dealt with the student loan issue--we've preserved rates at their
current low levels--and the Senate can't get its work done. I don't
know what more we can do.
Folks are prepared to go over for a vigil outside the Senate Chamber.
I want you to put me on your invitation list. I'll go by there with
you, and we'll see what we can do to shake things up over there, but
those 6-year term limits are not quite as effective at motivating
action as are 2-year term limits here on the House side.
Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today isn't actually about student
loans. You might not have believed that in listening to the last
speaker. It's about the Commerce Department; it's about the Justice
Department; and it's about science funding in this body. Now, the good
news is we're going to be able to deal with all of these issues one by
one by one.
I came to this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, in wanting to move away from the
2,000-page bills that I'd seen in past Congresses. I came to this
Chamber in wanting to deal with one issue at a time, in wanting to deal
with things so you didn't have to vote for all or nothing but so that
you could vote for the individual items that you actually believe in
and vote against those items that you don't believe in. That's the
process we have today.
This is the first of a dozen different bills that are going to come
down through this Chamber, and folks will be able to offer amendments
line item by line item. If I didn't say it before, Mr. Speaker, I want
to say it now: that that's actually what can happen here. This isn't a
``take it or leave it'' proposition today. This rule, again, I can't
take all the credit for. I was actually tied up in the reconciliation
markup yesterday. My friend from Florida was actually as responsible as
anyone for bringing a rule to the floor that would allow every single
line of the underlying bill to be considered by the 435 folks in this
Chamber.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, you have a subcommittee, and that's a small
group of folks who knows a lot about the issue on which it works. This
is the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee over there. Then you
have a full committee, and the full committee has a lot of really smart
people who know a lot about their topic here. In this case, that's the
Appropriations Committee, the full Appropriations Committee, and, of
course, they both passed that out by a voice vote.
If you're like me, Mr. Speaker, if you serve on the Budget Committee
and on the Rules Committee, you don't ever get a say in appropriations
spending. There are a lot of really smart guys on that subcommittee and
a lot of really smart men and women on that full committee. But what
about my say? What about the 920,000 people I represent, Mr. Speaker?
And that's the solution that the Rules Committee brought out last
night.
They said you have not gotten your say yet for the Seventh District
of Georgia, Mr. Woodall, but you will get it during this process--and
not just you, but you and you and you and you. Every single Member of
this House, by virtue of the fact that they were elected by American
citizens back home, will have the opportunity to come to this floor and
have their voices heard.
{time} 1300
Mr. Speaker, this isn't a tough decision today. This is one of the
proudest decisions we get to make in this House, and that is to have
its membership work its will and report out the very best bill that we
can, send that over to the Senate, and see what happens next.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, my good
friend, Mr. Courtney.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to
allow the Tierney amendment to move forward, which would allow a real
solution to the 53-day ticking time bomb for college students and
middle class families all across this country.
Today, literally, as we're standing here, high school seniors are
getting notices in the mail about whether they've been admitted to
college; students are now packing up and leaving for the end of the
spring term already thinking about next year; financial aid offices are
trying to plan with families about how to pay for next year's tuition;
and yet what they have before them is a situation where on July 1, the
rates will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.
On July 23, the President of the United States stood on that podium
and challenged Congress to avoid that rate increase from going through.
And for 3 months, we had a Republican majority which stonewalled this
issue with no bill, no markup, no hearing. I filed legislation the day
after that speech. We have over 150 cosponsors to permanently lock in
the lower rate. Yet, as Mr. Miller indicated, what we heard from the
House Republicans was a bill 10 days ago which bypassed committees,
nothing from the Education and the Workforce Committee, rammed it
through the Rules Committee, and paid for in the most disgraceful,
grotesque fashion.
It wipes out a fund to pay for prevention of heart disease, diabetes,
cancer, and early-childhood diseases. That is not a solution. The
President made it clear when that scam was presented that it would be
vetoed immediately. It is a dead letter. It is time for us to, yes,
debate a CJS appropriations bill, which is very important. But those
kids, those families need a horizon before them as they deal with one
of the most exciting opportunities and challenges before them, which is
how to pay for higher education.
We should defeat this rule. We should allow a motion to go forward
which will defuse this ticking time bomb for middle class families all
across America, push aside that joke of a bill that passed 10 days ago,
and get down to the business of addressing middle class families' needs
and young people's needs to help solve the problems of this country and
give them the opportunity to succeed.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I actually had this conversation with some schoolchildren in my
district over the break, as I'm sure everybody in this body did. They
call it a break, Mr. Speaker. The truth is, it's a district work
period. You're working every bit as hard down in your home State as you
are here and probably harder back home.
I was talking to young people and I said, Does anybody here have a
parent that just let's them eat anything they want to, drink all the
soda they want, eat all the candy they want? There wasn't a single hand
that went up. Apparently, parents had some discipline incorporated in
the lives of each one of these children. I asked, Who thinks their
parents love them? The answer was every child in that room felt loved
by their parents. They didn't get everything they wanted all the time,
there were limits to it, but they felt loved.
[[Page H2342]]
Mr. Speaker, we're in the business of spending other people's money.
It's not my money; it's not my colleague from Florida's money. It is
other people's money in this body. Not only are we spending every penny
of the money that they send us, Mr. Speaker. We are borrowing even
more. If you think about it, we talk about how we borrow 40 cents out
of every dollar that we spend. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is we
collect every penny that America is willing to give us, and we borrow
66 percent more. Communities back home aren't operating under that kind
of funny mathematics. They understand they can only spend the money
that they have. Families back home aren't operating under those kinds
of funny mathematics. It's only here.
So in the case of these programs--again, student loans are in
absolutely no way at issue in the underlying bill, and they are
absolutely in no way at issue in this rule. But just to touch on that
topic for a moment--and we had the Speaker of this House come down and
give a passionate plea for votes in support of the very provision that
is being discussed here today. Not only did he speak on behalf of those
provisions; this Chamber passed it.
We talk about the ticking time bomb. That's the ticking time bomb in
action in the Senate. This body has acted. Now, what did we do? I
happen to be one of those folks who took out student loans, Mr.
Speaker. So I know a little bit about the student loan process. I
happened to take mine out from a private institution. We were using
competition to keep the marketplace regulated in those days. Now the
Federal Government is the only place you can go for a student loan.
That was courtesy of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Again,
it was heartfelt. They believed in their heart that it was going to be
a better program if only the Federal Government ran it instead of
letting private financial institutions who lend money for a living
manage it.
But 6.8 percent is the below-market rate that's available for folks
who borrow Stafford loan money. You may have had a Stafford loan, Mr.
Speaker. Other folks out here might have had a Stafford loan. But there
are two kinds of Stafford loans. There is the Stafford loan that you
pay interest on after you've borrowed the money. Imagine that, you
borrow the money, you pay interest on it. Then there is the Stafford
loan that's called the subsidized Stafford loan. That's a much smaller
piece of the pie, Mr. Speaker.
We have the loans that families have to go out and get on their own
to help pay for their children's education. We have savings that folks
are going out and spending on their children's education. We have grant
programs that are scholarship programs all that are out there to help
with education. We have the PLUS program out there, which is a loan
that parents and students can take out together. Then, in addition to
all those programs, we have the Stafford loans, which, again, some of
them are loans you pay interest on immediately and some of them--a very
small fraction of them--are loans that are subsidized while you're in
school.
This conversation we're having here today is about whether or not
this subsidized Stafford loan, that was over 7 percent when I borrowed
it--it's 6.8 percent in normal times; but the rate was reduced to 3.4
percent by my colleagues. This conversation is about whether or not
that rate should be allowed to return to normal levels.
Again I say to folks, there is no money that's coming out of
anybody's pocket in this room. This is America's money, America's money
that we're borrowing, that we're spending. If we want to borrow that
money to cut artificially low rates in half, make them artificially
lower, we absolutely can. Not only can, we did. We talk about this as
if it is something that might happen one day. We did it. It was 2 weeks
ago. I was down here on the House floor. In fact, I sat right over
there. I remember the vote happening. It's done here.
Did we pay for it, Mr. Speaker? We did. We paid for it with a program
that I would characterize as a slush fund. It is $15 billion that
exists over there in the Health and Human Services Department. It came
out of the Affordable Care Act. The President looked at it and said,
You know what, that really was too much of a slush fund. He cut it by
almost a third. Now we said, You know what, perhaps we should go after
the rest of it because accountability is an issue here, Mr. Speaker.
We hear folks talk about prevention and cancer and women and
children. I wish that's where the money went. I went and got the list
of where those projects are, Mr. Speaker. In my part of the world, it
was a $2.5 million grant to the county I grew up in to help with
obesity training in schools. I'm in favor of that. I think we ought to
absolutely work on obesity. I hope my home school district is already
working on those issues. In other parts of the country, New York, for
example, this is money that went to lobby in favor of soda taxes.
That's right. This money that is being described by my friends on the
other side of the aisle as critical to protecting the health of women
so that they can get breast cancer screenings was spent in New York
City to lobby in favor of job-killing taxes for my home State of
Georgia.
This is not about women and children, Mr. Speaker. This is about
unaccountability when you start handing out slush funds to bureaucrats.
In Philadelphia, it was to lobby against cigarettes. Is that something
we ought to do? Well, golly, we can go out and do that on our own every
day. Does the Federal Government need to borrow from our children and
our grandchildren to help Philadelphia lobby against cigarette taxes?
In California, it's going to put up signs so folks can find the local
parks in the name of obesity training, Mr. Speaker. Do we need signs to
help us find the local parks? We have them in our community. I thought
they had them in other communities. Do I need to borrow from my
children and my grandchildren to put up more signs for parks? Mr.
Speaker, we don't.
{time} 1310
This is not a priority that the American people stood up and voted
for. This is a slush fund that is used by bureaucrats to focus on
whatever their priority of the day is. And what's so disappointing is
that this responsible government endorsed by a vote of this full House,
is being described by my colleagues as an assault on women's health. It
is offensive to me.
There are so many things that we legitimately disagree about. Go back
where we began, Mr. Speaker. We disagree from the heart about so many
directions in this country. There is not one person in this body--not
one--that wants to put women's health at risk. Not one.
This is about responsible government and cutting out the waste,
cutting out the low-priority spending, cutting out the dollars that
come from taxpayers' pockets in my district to spend for job-killing
legislation in New York.
Mr. Speaker, we're going to have a full debate on this, a full
debate. Every Member of this body will be able to bring their voice to
the floor. I look forward to that full debate. I believe in this
country. I believe in this institution. I believe that full debate is
going to take us exactly where we need to be.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my very good friend, Mr. Tierney from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for acknowledging this.
Americans need to know that their family member is going to be able
to afford a college degree, whether it is a 2-year degree or a 4-year
degree. Too many people are afraid that their child is not going to be
able to get through college. Too many students don't think they can
meet the cost of it. And that's what we need to deal with.
Public dollars for schools, Pell Grants, lower interest rates, work-
study, those are things that we've done together to allow people to
have the opportunity of college so that everybody can try to achieve
their goal, to have an equal opportunity to achieve those goals with
things we have done together in the past.
We have been helping businesses find very educated and skilled people
to drive our economy. It doesn't matter if you earn $20,000, $30,000,
$60,000 or if you are suddenly unemployed because you lost a job. It
feels the same if your kids are pushed out of school if they can't
afford to pay for it. Getting a degree really makes a difference for
[[Page H2343]]
many people, whether or not they're going to be able to get a good job.
And helping them do that is something we've all decided to invest in.
Carrying a huge loan debt, it may mean that you have to delay
starting a family, delay buying a house, taking a job that you
otherwise wouldn't take. Pell Grants, work-study, lower interest rates,
all of those things for higher education, one of the opportunities that
we all helped to create so that people that have long been benefiting
from special favors, from tax loopholes, corporations and people that
are extremely wealthy, they need to do their part. That's simply what
we're asking them to do.
We can keep this country moving forward if we can invest in our
future. What we want to do is find a way and make a time that those who
have benefited so extraordinarily realize that they too have to step up
to the plate and join the rest of us to help pay for those
opportunities to make sure that we can move forward.
This is a good time to invest in America and Americans. We have 250
tax expenditures in the Tax Code. Those are special tax rates, special
favors, credits, deductions. Our friends on the other side of the aisle
apparently think that's what America should borrow for, that that is
what they should borrow for and pay corporations that made $130 billion
last year, to give them more money instead of helping people get
through college and get a degree that they need to get a good job.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. TIERNEY. I filed a bill last week that would have lowered the
interest rates, back at a time when the Republican budget would have
let it double, back when the Speaker and the chairman of the Education
Committee and the second-ranking Member of the Republican Party all
voted to keep it at 6.8 percent. I filed a bill, and I found a way to
pay for it. It was paid for by taking one tax credit from Big Oil that
made $130 billion last year, one tax credit that they weren't
originally intended to have even benefited from but had managed to sort
of squeak their way into eventually.
So there's a way to pay for it. Now, if you didn't agree with it, the
Republicans didn't agree with it, then they could have found one that
wasn't noxious, one that everybody could agree on. But instead, they
finally came around to deciding that they wanted to lower the interest
rates because they couldn't take the political heat when the President
was out there talking to American families. And American parents and
American students said, What are you doing? Why are you borrowing and
giving oil companies $130 billion of profits plus tax credits when we
could be having a way to make sure that our family members get the
education they need to get a job and move forward in their lives?
So the Republicans finally came along and said, Okay, we will lower
the interest rates. We can't take the heat. But we are going to find a
poison pill. We are going to look at what the President has planned to
do with preventive funds, which are screenings for breast cancer,
screenings for cervical cancer, immunizations for children; and we'll
use that.
I will suggest to my friends on the other side, stop waiting for the
Senate. Use some leadership. Come across the aisle and look at those
250 tax expenditures. Let's find one we can agree on, not wait for the
Senate and not blame it on them. Let's move forward on that. Stop being
so partisan and stop being so ideological. And let's move forward.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my
friend from Massachusetts that there is only one bill in this
institution that abolishes not just the oil company tax credits that he
wants to go after, not just all the corporate welfare that he wants to
go after, not just all the benefits and exclusions and exemptions that
the wealthy in this country utilize to lower their tax bills. There is
one bill in this Congress that abolishes every single special
exemption, deduction, carve-out, and giveaway in the entire United
States Tax Code. It's H.R. 25. I'm the sponsor of that legislation. I
join you in your desire to eliminate all those special interest tax
breaks and deductions. I welcome your cosponsorship of that
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would inform my colleague that I am the
last speaker. I don't know whether he is, but I am prepared to close.
Mr. WOODALL. As am I.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment
in 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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the majority tried once 2 weeks
ago to go back on what they agreed to. It did not work. So now here we
are again, trying to ``re-deem'' ourselves. But this is no way to run
an economy, no way to run a budget process, and no way to stick up for
the millions of struggling Americans who need us to focus on improving
the economy.
We can ``pretend'' that the Ryan budget has passed when, in fact, it
has not. We can deem it or come here to re-deem it. But while we are
living in legislative fantasyland, millions of other Americans will
still be struggling to find jobs, to pay off their student loans, to
access affordable health care and decent housing, and, really, in the
final analysis, just to survive in an economy that--not just this year
or last, not just in the last decade or the decade before--but in an
economy that favors those who have the most, rather than look out for
those who have the least.
In the celebrated cartoon that carries Wile E. Coyote, he used to
pretend that there was going to be some kind of rubberized floor mat
when he landed off a cliff, only to find that soon after that, he was
in a very long and painful fall to the bottom.
I've said before and I will repeat: we are better people than what's
happening here. I agree with my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) that
we see things differently. And in our heart of hearts, both of us and
many of the Members of this body are in agreement and want things to be
better.
{time} 1320
As long as Republicans insist on replacing substantive debate with
partisan gimmicks, broken promises, and misplaced priorities, the fall
to the bottom is going to seem very long and is likely to be very
painful for millions of Americans.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule for the reason that it
is deeming something that is being pretended to be passed. I'd ask them
to oppose this rule for the reason that it includes in it martial law
that disallows the open discussion that my colleague rightly points to
in an open rule. But this particular provision disallows that as it
pertains to the reconciliation. And that is just no way for us to go
about trying to come to terms with the enormous consequences and
circumstances that we face by not having faced them many, many, many
years ago.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for
joining me here for this debate today. And there really are some things
that we disagree about here in this body at large. But one thing we
don't disagree about is the importance of bringing open rules to this
floor to debate appropriations bills.
This appropriations bill that we're bringing under this rule, Mr.
Speaker, is a 1 percent reduction from the levels the President has
proposed. As we hear folks talk about the doom and the gloom and the
kicking of children and the punishing of women--1 percent. There's a
long, hard fall to the bottom coming all right, and it's coming in the
American economy. And I'll tell you who gets hurt the most in a bad
economy: it's the poorest and the weakest among us. We all know it.
We're asking for 1 percent less than what the President proposed in
the name of taking a small step in the right direction. You could have
gotten me for 20 or 25 percent less, just to be
[[Page H2344]]
clear. You could've gotten me on board if we'd gone 20 or 25 percent
less. But this body is trying to move in a responsible fashion.
There's only one budget that's passed in this town, Mr. Speaker. The
President's budget didn't pass. It got zero votes last year in the
Senate. It got zero votes this year in the House. It didn't even get
introduced last year in the House. There's only one budget in this town
that has passed. That's the one that came out of the open process that
we had right here.
We can take our toys and go home or we can try to do our
appropriations bills under the one proposal that has garnered a
majority vote in this entire Nation. I vote for the latter. And a vote
for this rule is a vote for the latter.
Let's go ahead and start that process. Let's go ahead and do for the
American people what we promised them we would do; and that is, operate
this institution so that everybody has a voice, and at the end of the
day we move our very best legislation forward.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 643 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4816) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the
reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce and the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration
of H.R. 4816.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. With that, Mr. Speaker, 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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 643, if
ordered; and approval of the Journal, by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 174, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 199]
YEAS--235
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
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
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
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
[[Page H2345]]
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--174
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
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
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--22
Bonner
Butterfield
Cantor
Carson (IN)
Costa
Donnelly (IN)
Ellmers
Filner
Gibson
Hinojosa
Jones
Kucinich
McHenry
Moore
Palazzo
Pence
Reichert
Royce
Ruppersberger
Schakowsky
Slaughter
Tonko
{time} 1348
Messrs. ENGEL, CROWLEY, PETERSON, CLEAVER, RICHMOND, PASCRELL and
RANGEL and Ms. TSONGAS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PAUL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 199, had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 199, had I been present,
I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 199, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 181, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 200]
AYES--228
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
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
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
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
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--181
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
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
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
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
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--22
Bonner
Butterfield
Cantor
Carson (IN)
Chaffetz
Donnelly (IN)
Ellmers
Filner
Gibson
Hinojosa
Jones
Kucinich
McHenry
Meehan
Moore
Myrick
Palazzo
Pence
Reichert
Royce
Slaughter
Tonko
{time} 1357
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 for:
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 200, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the
following vote. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:
Rollcall vote 200, H. Res. 643--Providing for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5326) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce
[[Page H2346]]
and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2013, and for other purposes; waiving a requirement of
clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain
resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules; and for other
purposes--I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 200, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
____________________