[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 80 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3281-H3289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5743, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION 
  ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5854, 
    MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES 
  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5855, 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013; AND PROVIDING 
   FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5325, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, upon adoption 
of House Resolution 667, amendments number 4 and 6 printed in House 
Report 112 504 be modified to include the amendatory instructions that 
I have placed at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modifications.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendatory instructions for amendment No. 4 printed in 
     House Report 112 504:
       At the end of title III, add the following new section:
       Amendatory instructions for amendment No. 6 printed in 
     House Report 112 504:
       At the end of title IV (page 21, after line 2), add the 
     following new section:

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the modifications?
  Without objection, that will be the order.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 667 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H3282]]

                              H. Res. 667

       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. 5743) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2013 for intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the United States Government, the Community 
     Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency 
     Retirement and Disability System, 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 Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to the committee 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 committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of any bill 
     specified in section 3 of this resolution. The first reading 
     of each such bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of each such bill are waived. 
     General debate on each such bill shall be confined to that 
     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 each such 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. Points of order against provisions in each such bill 
     for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. 
     During consideration of each such 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 any such bill back 
     to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on that bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3.  The bills referred to in section 2 of this 
     resolution are as follows:
        (a) The bill (H.R. 5854) making appropriations for 
     military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2013, and for other purposes.
       (b) The bill (H.R. 5855) making appropriations for the 
     Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.
       (c) The bill (H.R. 5325) making appropriations for energy 
     and water development and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. NUGENT. 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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. 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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution 
and of the four rules that it contains.
  The rules provide for the consideration of critically important 
pieces of legislation meant to fund the Federal Government, provide for 
our Nation's veterans and protect our national security. With this 
resolution, I have the distinct honor of bringing three appropriations 
bills to the House floor under open rules. I'm not sure when the last 
time is that somebody got to say he was bringing three open rules to 
the House floor at one time, but I am proud to be able to do that 
today.
  House Res. 667 continues the majority's promise to the American 
people to bring openness, debate, and transparency back to Congress. As 
a father of three sons in the military and as the Representative of 
over 116,000 veterans, I'm particularly happy that this resolution 
provides an open rule for the bill that funds our Nation's veterans 
programs and meets our military construction needs. We owe our veterans 
a debt that can never be repaid, but the very least we can do is 
provide them with the benefits they so bravely and so selflessly 
earned.
  I applaud the Appropriations Committee for the bipartisan way they 
worked together to fund these programs for our American heroes and 
their families. It shouldn't go unnoticed that at a time when it seems 
difficult to work across the aisle, the Appropriations Committee did 
just that, and they passed it unanimously. We shouldn't play politics 
with our veterans, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations bill doesn't.
  House Res. 667 includes a structured rule for the Intelligence 
Authorization Act for 2013. This is a bill that authorizes our Nation's 
intelligence and intelligence-related activities. It includes our 
National Intelligence Program and Military Intelligence Program. It 
specifically ensures that nothing in this bill gives the government the 
authority to conduct any intelligence activity not otherwise authorized 
by the U.S. Constitution or our laws.
  Although this rule may not be an open rule, it is necessarily so. The 
classified nature of the Intelligence authorization bill means that we 
can't debate a lot of the specifics of the underlying bill on the House 
floor. If we were to debate some of these amendments, we would be put 
in the impossible position of supporting or opposing the amendments 
based on facts that we simply can't discuss for reasons of national 
security. Still, in our efforts to be open, the Rules Committee managed 
to allow nine amendments on this debate. Seven of those amendments are 
Democratic, and two are Republican. This too is a bipartisan bill, and 
the Intelligence Committee passed it unanimously with a 19 0 vote. As 
the minority views of this bill stated, the stakes are simply too high 
to make our intelligence programs political.
  For all of these reasons, I am proud to support this resolution, a 
resolution that provides for an extremely open process while balancing 
the transparency with our national security when it comes to debating 
our intelligence programs.
  With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Florida, my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Departing for the moment at hand, Mr. Speaker, just to identify that, 
today, the bipartisan Foster Youth Program has on the Hill with many of 
us foster care youth from around this Nation. This bill directly 
affects their lives. I have the good fortune of having a constituent, 
Breon Callins, and Washington, D.C. youth Goldie Brown following me 
today, and I hope they hear my remarks and understand the importance to 
them and to all children in America's future.
  The rule provides for the consideration of four bills--the 
Intelligence authorization, Energy and Water appropriations, Homeland 
Security appropriations, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations. While I agree with my colleague Mr.

[[Page H3283]]

Nugent that it is important that this is customarily an open process--
and I commend my Republican colleagues in that regard--I do as I did in 
the Rules Committee--and he was there last evening--object to the 
significant number of amendments that were not allowed, and I am sure 
there are Members who will be present to speak to them.
  Once again, we are looking at broken Republican promises on spending 
levels. Once again, we are shortchanging our future for the selfish 
demands of today.

                              {time}  1250

  And once again, we're missing the opportunity to fully invest in our 
Nation. The choices made in these bills make no sense to me, Mr. 
Speaker. Nuclear weapons instead of nonproliferation. Fossil fuels 
instead of renewable energy. Divisive abortion provisions instead of 
bipartisan agreement on Homeland Security.
  It's almost as if Republicans enjoy jabbing a finger in the eye of 
progress. They seem to be doing everything they can to find ways not to 
grow our economy and create jobs. They do not seem to understand that 
clinging to fossil fuels and nuclear weapons at the expense of 
scientific research and energy efficiency will not bring about the kind 
of progress that this great Nation needs. When you cut the Office of 
Science, when you cut the Advanced Research Projects Agency, and when 
you cut energy-efficiency programs, you harm our ability to invest in 
the kinds of research that lead to innovation and job creation.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go through all of these bills and point out 
everywhere the majority has not sufficiently invested in the kinds of 
programs we need to make progress. It would not be hard, because unless 
it involves military spending or oil, you can be sure that the majority 
has cut it under the argument that we're in a fiscal crisis and cannot 
forward it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reject that notion. We can afford to invest in our 
future, we can afford to create jobs, and we can afford to make the 
choices now that will reap the benefits for future generations, 
including those foster children that I mentioned.
  When President Bush wanted to invade Iraq, Congress spent a trillion 
dollars. When Republicans wanted to cut taxes for the best off among us 
in America, Congress spent a trillion dollars. When Congress wanted to 
fight the war on terror, it appropriated and still does nearly 
unlimited funding to do so. So this is not about the deficit. The 
United States does not lack the money to prioritize our future. What we 
do lack is the political willpower and the leadership necessary to set 
gainful priorities.
  Spend some now, save more later. What is obvious to middle class and 
working poor Americans seems entirely lost to my Republican colleagues. 
This Nation should be benefiting from American ingenuity and products 
made here in America. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
would rather let other countries take the lead in scientific 
advancement, energy efficiency, and clean energy. I'm not just talking 
about this year's appropriations, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking about the 
trend under the Republican majority of defunding and deprioritizing the 
long-term needs of the Nation. It's just plain depressing.
  I know that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
would prefer to see climate change as a liberal hoax, clean energy as a 
Socialist cabal, and science as a Communist plot. But drastic changes 
are upon this country and indeed upon this world, and our failure to 
adequately address these challenges now will cost us more in the 
future.
  We need energy efficiency, not environmental degradation. We need 
nuclear nonproliferation, not more nuclear weapons. And we need more 
investments in science, because the next generation--including those 
foster children that I spoke about--of American scientists and 
innovators might not be one of the billionaires or millionaires so 
beloved by my Republican colleagues, but instead might be a desperate 
entrepreneur in need of a little bit of Federal assistance in order to 
make that great scientific breakthrough.
  The sacrifices continually demanded by the Republican majority--in 
order to provide ever more money for foreign wars and tax cuts for the 
wealthy, including those of us in Congress--are shortchanging the 
future of this Nation. Rather than work with Democrats to develop 
bipartisan policies and funding priorities to address the country's 
challenges, House Republicans are continuing to use the appropriations 
process for partisan gimmickry and political gamesmanship, and 
pretending by deeming something that ain't going to happen in the 
Senate as law.

  I can't tell you what business anti-abortion provisions have in a 
bill about funding the Department of Homeland Security. I can't tell 
you why it's more important for the Republicans to target women's 
health than it is to achieve bipartisan consensus on funding our 
Nation's first responders. And I can't tell you why, Mr. Speaker, we 
still have to debate this issue when there are so many other pressing 
concerns before us today.
  Rather than garner Democrat support for the Homeland Security bill, 
Republicans felt the need to poison the legislation with the erroneous 
abortion provisions regarding the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
agency. Rather than take seriously the need to fund disaster relief--
and, yes, it is true, tomorrow hurricane season begins, and we haven't 
done all or nearly as much as we should have, and there were amendments 
that would have addressed some of the things that we should, in fact, 
be prepared to do. Rather than take seriously firefighter assistance 
grants, cybersecurity efforts that are growing exponentially, the Coast 
Guard, the Secret Service, and other Federal frontline agencies, the 
majority has cast aside cooperation in the name of what I believe is 
reckless ideological point-scoring.
  So in this latest season of appropriations, Mr. Speaker, we find 
ourselves yet again cutting from valuable, worthwhile, and essential 
programs that would create jobs made in America, grow our economy, and 
ensure prosperity for the millions of Americans still struggling to get 
by.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm always at a loss sometimes when I hear certain things, but this 
is really about there is no energy policy in America. We're talking 
about actually investing in some of the resources that we're standing 
on today in America to help us become more energy independent, not more 
energy dependent.
  We've seen what Solyndra did. We've seen what some of these ideas 
have been. While some are very intuitive or can lead to some directions 
that we want to go in, we have resources here today in America that can 
help us become more energy independent. This appropriations bill 
actually increases that R&D, that development of clean coal. We have 
over 300 years of energy just in coal alone. Why would we not look at 
how we can clean it by utilizing technology to do so? This bill does 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, you've got to remember that three of 
these bills are open for amendment. My good friend on the other side 
probably remembers back to the 111th Congress when they never had an 
open rule on appropriations. But with this, we have three open rules 
and one structured rule. So if you don't like something that's 
contained in any one of those three bills, you have the opportunity to 
amend it on the floor. You can do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I personally tire of using one 
bad example on energy creation--Solyndra, which was and is a bad 
example--and ignoring all of the other kinds of investments that we 
have made in this Nation that are going about the business of solar and 
wind. I saw in my congressional district this weekend a wind program 
that is the future that is working with existing energy infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished good friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a former member of the Rules 
Committee.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

[[Page H3284]]

  Mr. Speaker, since I was elected to office in 2005, increasing the 
level of Sacramento's flood protection has been my highest priority. 
Sacramento is the most at-risk metropolitan area for major flooding, as 
it lies at the confluence of two major rivers--the Sacramento and the 
American. Sacramento is home to California's State capitol, an 
international airport, and half a million people. If Sacramento were to 
flood, the economic damages would range up to $40 billion. We have a 
lot at risk.
  We are all well aware of our country's austere budget environment, 
but it is imperative that Sacramento's basic flood protection needs be 
met. The Federal Government must continue to fulfill its commitment to 
protect the lives and the livelihoods of the capital area of the 
largest State in the Union.
  I want to applaud the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee 
for including adequate funding for Sacramento's top flood protection 
projects:
  For the American River Common Features, the bill includes more than 
$6 million, which would be for work within the American River 
watershed, including American River Common Features General 
Reevaluation Report, further design work in support of levee 
improvements in Natomas and levee improvements on the American River.
  For the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project and Dam Raise Project, the 
bill includes more than $87 million to continue construction on the 
auxiliary spillway, which will provide greater efficiency in managing 
flood storage in Folsom Reservoir and critical dam safety work.
  Mr. Speaker, each one of the projects is a critical component in 
improving the flood protection for the entire Sacramento region. Taken 
together, these projects help us to achieve the flood protection levels 
that families and businesses throughout the Sacramento area need and 
deserve. In addition, the legislation includes a reserve fund that will 
allocate over $92.5 million to the Corps for the purpose of funding 
flood protection projects.
  Since I remain concerned that the Corps did not request its full 
capability for Sacramento flood protection projects in their budget, I 
will work vigorously to secure additional funding for Sacramento's 
flood protection priorities during the Corps' reserve fund competitive 
process, as outlined in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I will continue to push for higher levels of funding to 
meet our flood protection needs and priorities, not only for the 
Sacramento area region but for the country as a whole.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I want to thank my good friend for his able management of 
this important rule.
  I say to my friend from Fort Lauderdale, I'm really surprised to see 
Democratic opposition to this rule. Why? Well, we're dealing with an 
issue that has been near and dear to my friend from Ft. Lauderdale for 
years--intelligence issues. He served with distinction on the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence, and we have come up with a structured 
rule.
  That structured rule makes seven amendments in order that were 
submitted by Democrats and two amendments in order that were submitted 
by Republicans. If you look at the litany of those amendments the 
Democratic Members are offering, it's very clear that we have--we will 
have a wide-ranging debate, which, as we all recognize, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, has to be somewhat limited when we're discussing our 
Nation's intelligence issues.
  So we've got a rule that makes in order seven Democratic amendments 
and two Republican amendments to deal with intelligence. Then we have 
three appropriations bills--three appropriations bills--all of which--
all of which--under this proposed rule will be considered under an open 
amendment process, regular order, full, open amendment.
  I have got to say that when I think back to being in the minority--
and we served for 4 years in the minority here--if our friends on the 
other side of the aisle had come up with a structured rule that made 
seven Republican amendments in order and only two Democratic amendments 
in order on the Intelligence authorization bill and they had three 
completely open rules, I would feel very sanguine in saying that we 
would not only embrace, but we would enthusiastically support, that 
kind of rule.
  That's why I've got to say that as the American people continue to 
ask us to work together, I mean, we have the CBO report that came out, 
just came out, talking about the prospect of another economic recession 
coming after the first of the year if we don't deal with issues like 
spending and taxes. And I'm not going to get into a big debate on that. 
We all know where we stand on those issues. But if we don't deal with 
those, we face the threat of another serious economic downturn based on 
this study that the Congressional Budget Office has just put out. 
They're saying to me, as I talk to people in California and around the 
country, they want us to work together. We've come forward with a rule, 
Mr. Speaker, that allows for three open rules.
  To remind my colleagues what that means is it means that any Member, 
Democrat or Republican, will have the opportunity to stand up and 
submit their amendment, debate it here on the House floor and have an 
up-or-down vote on it, and we're going to deal very responsibly in what 
I believe will be a bipartisan way with intelligence issues.
  Now, I understand, to be fair, that there are some concerns of what 
was included in the appropriations bills themselves. But the process 
itself is one which has existed under both Democrats and Republicans. 
It provides protection for the work product of the Appropriations 
Committee but has an open amendment process on floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I hope that as we move 
ahead with these appropriations bills and other items that our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will recognize that we would 
have been grateful--we would have been grateful on our side of the 
aisle when we were in the minority--to have the kind of treatment that 
is now being rejected when we have put it forward on our side. Again, 
this is a very fair opportunity which recognizes the rights of 
Republicans and Democrats alike, and I hope we will have a bipartisan 
vote in support of the rule and then move to this very, very important 
work that we have that lies ahead.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining for both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 18 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) has 21 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my 
classmate and good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, when the Republican majority came to power, 
they promised transparency and greater debate. But today they have once 
again failed to keep that promise by refusing to allow a vote on a 
critical amendment requiring a report on human rights abuses in 
Argentina over 30 years ago.
  For 20 years, I have fought for human rights and transparency in this 
House, and today the majority refuses to spare me 10 minutes for 
debate. But what's worse is they won't spare 10 minutes for the 
hundreds of children born in prison camps, for the thousands of 
grandparents that still hold out hope day after day that they will be 
reunited with their lost loved ones, for the 30,000 people who've 
disappeared at the hands of a brutal military regime and the millions 
of Argentine citizens who still seek justice and closure.
  This amendment has been made in order numerous times in the past and 
has even been accepted without objections by both Democrats and 
Republicans. But it seems this year the House Republican leadership 
doesn't have time for human rights.
  As I have said before, with this amendment we have an opportunity to 
provide answers to thousands of families who have waited for years to 
learn the fates of their loved ones and help

[[Page H3285]]

close this troubling chapter in Argentina's history. To reject my 
amendment would have been one thing, but to silence it entirely is 
unconscionable.
  The majority's handling of this issue is irresponsible and shameful. 
I urge opposition to this rule so these critical facts can be made 
clear for our country and for Argentina.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's amendment, I believe, was 
made in order in 2001 when it was Democratically controlled--and it 
failed in the House. In fiscal year 2012, the Rules Committee actually 
made the amendment in order but the gentleman failed to submit it on 
the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If the fact that something failed in one 
year allows that it's not to be brought up another year, then we would 
be out of business around this joint. But if my colleague is seeking me 
to yield, I understand your point in the end, but I just want to say 
that Mr. Hinchey should have had an opportunity to make his 
presentation.
  Mr. NUGENT. If the gentleman would yield, I understand his position 
as it relates to something that occurred 30 or 40 years ago. But last 
year he didn't even offer it. It was made in order during the fiscal 
year, and he didn't even offer it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Well, he offered it now and we didn't accept 
it. Therefore, perhaps he'll get another chance.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), with whom I served 
on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which covers, in part, 
the Intelligence authorization debate.
  I want to address not what the bill contains, but what it does not. 
It does not contain any prohibition on the executive branch using 
drones to target American citizens for death. I offered a commonsense 
proposal to address this matter, but the Rules Committee declined to 
allow it to come to the floor for a vote.
  Also missing from this bill is any kind of protection for national 
security whistleblowers who seek to report waste, fraud, abuse, or 
criminal conduct to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. I 
offered a proposal to address that problem, expanding on language from 
a whistleblower provision that passed this House in 2002 as part of the 
bill creating the Homeland Security Department--a proposal that 
likewise was blocked from being considered on the floor.
  Finally, among other things, this bill contains no provision to tell 
Americans in simple raw numbers how many Americans have had our private 
communications intercepted by the government over the past several 
years. Just the number is all we were asking for. That proposal as well 
was blocked from floor consideration.
  The Intelligence authorization bill should never serve simply as a 
rubber stamp for funding and programs that the intelligence community 
wishes. This committee, the Intelligence Committee, was created to 
provide oversight of that community, particularly for the most 
controversial programs and practices. The bill before us today fails on 
those counts, which is why the rule and the bill should be opposed.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, my good friend, 
Mr. Davis.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill, H.R. 
5854, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Act, as related to 
project labor agreements. This bill would prohibit the use of project 
labor agreements. It takes away the ability of the Department of 
Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the American Battle 
Monuments Commission, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the 
Arlington National Cemetery to use a project labor agreement business 
model to determine what would be the most optimal and effective way to 
build construction projects.

  Currently, all of these agencies have two choices: either ``yes'' to 
use a project labor agreement or ``no'' to not use a project labor 
agreement. The bill before us eliminates the choice for these agencies 
in seeking the most effective and efficient use of taxpayers' money to 
perform construction projects in the best interest of our brave men and 
women.
  By banning project labor agreements it would contribute to delays in 
new construction and add more cost to the projects. If we want smart 
government, then I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no.'' And 
without passage of the Grimm amendment, I would oppose both the rule 
and the bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friends on the other side, 
remember that that's an open rule. If you don't like a portion of it, 
then amend it. Bring an amendment to the floor. I know they're confused 
about that, and I know they didn't have it in the 111th Congress, but 
in this Congress you have the ability to amend it.
  No piece of legislation is perfect. That's why you have the ability 
for amendments. So I would encourage my friends on the other side, or 
any Member, Republican or Democrat alike, if they want to see something 
different, amend it. That's the beauty of this.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to require that immediately after we 
adopt this resolution, the House will consider H.R. 1519, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act, introduced by my friend, Ms. DeLauro. And I am proud to 
be an original cosponsor of this bill.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, 
my friend, Ms. DeLauro.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the previous question. Defeating 
the previous question will allow the gentleman from Florida to amend 
the rule to include consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act, an act 
that addresses the financial pressures facing women today and the need 
to close the gender wage gap.
  Almost 50 years after Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to end the 
``serious and endemic'' problem of unequal wages, women--now one-half 
of the workforce--are still making only 77 cents on the dollar as 
compared to men. This holds true across occupations and education 
levels.
  Some have called unequal pay a ``myth'' or a ``distraction.'' It is 
neither. Women should be paid the same as men for the same work. That 
is what paycheck fairness is all about--same job, same pay.
  Yesterday, the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee heard from 
two women affected by pay discrimination--Ann Marie Duchon and Terri 
Kelly. Both women were eloquent in sharing their stories of fighting 
for 7 years to see that their pay and equity was remedied.
  And like the nearly-two thirds of women today who are either a 
breadwinner or co-breadwinner, both women said that their families 
depend and rely on their income. Pay discrimination not only affects 
them, but their children and their husbands.
  Pay inequity is at the root of the financial pressures facing women 
today. It is critical that we pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. Take 
steps to stop discrimination in the first place by putting an end to 
pay secrecy, strengthen workers' abilities to challenge discrimination, 
and bring the equal pay law into line with other civil rights law. The 
House has passed the bill twice on a bipartisan basis. Let's do it 
again.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from California, my friend, Mr. 
Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and 
amend this rule to allow consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act. 
This bill is critical to women and families, and its time

[[Page H3286]]

has come. It's not only about basic fairness for women--getting equal 
pay for equal work. It's also an economic issue for families. Getting 
paid less for just being a woman means fewer resources to pay the 
mortgage or to put food on the table.
  Today, women earn 23 percent less than men do for doing the same job. 
But those women don't get a 23 percent cut in their health care costs. 
They don't get 23 percent off their rent. They don't get 23 percent off 
their grocery bill. But they do get 23 percent off their paycheck.
  It's outrageous that this Congress is not doing all it can to 
eliminate pay discrimination, and it's outrageous today that American 
corporations have as a matter of their business plan to pay women less 
than they pay men for the identical jobs, identical responsibilities, 
identical education, and identical experience.

                              {time}  1320

  Corporations have made a decision that they will pay those women 
less, and that's why women earn only 77 cents for every $1 that their 
male counterparts earn for doing the same job.
  Congress ought to let us take up this bill and get rid of this 
inequity to America's women, women who are working to support their 
families and to provide for their families.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you advise again how much 
time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) 
has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time 
to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) with whom I served, again I say, on the Intelligence 
Committee for 8 years.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help end 
the pay disparity between men and women in the workplace. You heard 
that women earn 77 percent of what men earn; that's the average. But 
for African American women, it's 62 percent, and Latinas, it's only 53 
percent. In Illinois, as a group, full-time working women lose 
approximately $21 billion a year due to the wage gap. If the Illinois 
wage gap, which amounts to nearly $12,000 a year, were eliminated, a 
working woman in Illinois would have enough money for approximately 108 
more weeks of food, 7 more months of mortgage and utility payments, 14 
more months of rent, 36 more months of family health insurance 
premiums, and over 3,000 additional gallons of gasoline.
  American families and our economy are paying the price of this wage 
discrimination, and it is time to end it. I urge all my colleagues who 
support fairness, who support women, to support the Paycheck Fairness 
Act.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 1 
minute to another of my classmates, the gentlewoman, my good friend 
from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous 
question and the consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act to correct 
a terrible injustice where women are systematically paid less than men 
for doing the same work.
  On average, women receive 77 cents for every dollar paid to male 
workers. This disparity means a loss of nearly $11,000 a year, or the 
equivalent of 4 months of groceries, 5 months of child care, and over 6 
months of rent and utilities.
  The wage gap is even more pronounced for black and Latina women, who 
receive just 62 cents and 54 cents, respectively, for every dollar paid 
to white men. It is unbelievable that in the 21st century, wage 
discrimination against women remains so rampant in a Nation that values 
family and fairness so highly.
  In good conscience, how can this House do nothing while our wives, 
daughters, mothers, and grandmothers are discriminated against in the 
workplace? Don't they deserve equal pay for equal work and the 
opportunity for a better life?
  I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right thing and help pass 
the Paycheck Fairness Act to fulfill our Nation's promise of fairness, 
equality, and justice for all.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee), who is my good friend and also has served on these committees for 
a long time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Hastings for 
his leadership and for yielding, and also to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro 
for her relentless leadership on the Paycheck Fairness Act and also as 
the ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  I rise to support the Paycheck Fairness Act. It's totally 
unacceptable that in 2012 women continue to be blatantly discriminated 
against in the workplace in terms of equal pay for equal work. This is 
just downright wrong. It contributes to the economic insecurity of 
women, also of children and of men.
  In 2011, African American women earned 62 cents to every dollar 
earned by white males, and for Latinas, it was 62 cents per dollar. 
This discrimination against women of color and all women must end.
  Now it's been nearly 50 years since the passage of the Equal Pay Act, 
but at the rate we're going, if we continue to do nothing, women will 
not have pay equity until the year 2056. So we need a comprehensive 
solution to this historical and systemic discriminatory practice, and 
that is what Congresswoman DeLauro has introduced.
  So I urge consideration and passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. 
Women deserve economic justice.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) with whom I 
served on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act deserves attention, and it deserves 
attention now. We passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act very quickly because 
it was essential. It shows that this House can work together when it 
wants to. We kept the courthouse doors open for recourse for pay 
discrimination. More has to be done to prevent that discrimination from 
happening in the first place.
  My mother worked split shifts when we were growing up. My father 
worked sometimes two jobs, but his income was limited. Every dollar my 
mother brought home was critical to our family and to our household, 
and that's true in so many households across this country today.
  A household's bills don't go down by $10,000 just because a woman is 
treated unfairly and paid less. The clothing bills don't go down; the 
gas bills don't go down; the food bills don't go down. So it's 
important that we get this bill moving at this point in time.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act reasserts the principle that women should 
get equal pay for equal work. It holds employers accountable if they 
discriminate. It puts an end to pay secrecy so women will be able to 
determine whether or not they are getting treated fairly. And it 
prohibits retaliation for someone who wants to talk about paycheck 
fairness.
  This bill is important for families across this country. It deserves 
attention. I urge my colleagues to take it up now and pass it.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask of my good friend 
from Florida whether he intends at this time to have any additional 
speakers other than himself?
  Mr. NUGENT. I do not.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to close.
  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, I do and will urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

[[Page H3287]]

  But at this time, I will close by saying our future economy, national 
security, and way of life depend on harnessing the power of scientific 
advancement, technological progress, and clean energy. And in this 
respect, America has no peers in the world. These efforts will enable 
us to reduce our dependence on oil, develop better energy 
infrastructure, and mitigate the effects of climate change. At the same 
time, we have to ensure our frontline homeland security resources are 
adequately funded and sufficiently prepared to meet new challenges.
  We cannot be distracted by ideological poison pill amendments on 
abortion. We cannot be dissuaded from making the necessary investments 
because of false claims that we cannot afford them. And we cannot be so 
willing to sacrifice our Nation's future prosperity to fund more tax 
cuts for the wealthiest--and I continue to say, including those of us 
in Congress, the wealthiest Americans--and more nuclear weapons for the 
military.
  These appropriations measures are Congress's best opportunity to set 
our Nation's priorities and to invest in our economy. Continually 
defunding these programs is the opposite direction of where we need to 
go. We must provide the funds necessary to make the advances that will 
ensure America's continuing global leadership.

                              {time}  1330

  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to defeat the previous 
question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a responsible use as relates to a budget that we passed in 
this House. These appropriations bills live within the confines of the 
budget that was passed within this House. Now, I can't say that's 
always been the case here. As we look back over the last 4 years prior 
to my coming here, that was definitely not the case in regards to 
living within a budget, living within our means.
  Mr. Speaker, I've heard some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle complain about certain provisions in the underlying 
appropriations bills. Once again, I'd just like to remind our 
colleagues this is not the 111th Congress that you're used to. The 
beauty is that you have an open amendment process, one that did not 
exist in the last Congress. So you can offer whatever amendment you 
want as it relates to any of these issues--strike it, defund it, do 
whatever you want to it. You can do that on this floor. That's why we 
have the open amendment process.
  Remember, it's different than it was in the 111th Congress--at least 
that's what I've read. You know, you get to vote on the issues that are 
important to the American people. I hope that anyone who opposes any 
one of the underlying bills will join me in supporting this rule 
because it gives you the ability to actually amend it and craft it in a 
way that you think is best for this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to 
support it as well. We're talking about issues today that already have 
bipartisan agreement. You hear those on the other side of the aisle 
talk about issues that are in these appropriations bills, but they 
passed out of committee unanimously. Democrats and Republicans alike 
all voted for it unanimously to pass those out of committee. That's 
pretty telling in regards to what's contained within the appropriations 
bill. So I can't say it enough: they were passed out of committee 
unanimously, Democrats and Republicans alike, without dissension.
  We're talking about funding the Federal Government, something that is 
fundamental to what we do, something that we have to do as a Member of 
Congress. And we're doing it in a fiscally responsible way that 
provides for our government, our veterans, our Homeland Security, and 
our intelligence community, while simultaneously taking steps to reduce 
Federal spending, which is what we have to do.
  I commend the Appropriations and Select Intelligence Committees for 
their diligent, bipartisan work on these four underlying pieces of 
legislation. I commend Chairman Dreier and my fellow Rules Committee 
members on bringing these bills to the floor in an open process.
  I know that my good friend from Florida likes the open process. We 
hear about it every time we have a Rules Committee meeting about the 
open process and the ability to amend it on the floor. ``Let the House 
work its will'' is what we talk about, and we have that opportunity. 
While some may not know how to do that because they just haven't had 
the experience, we're all in this together. We're learning as we go 
along what that open process means and allowing Democrats and 
Republicans alike to come to the floor and debate the issues that they 
want to make a piece of underlying legislation better.
  That's what's good about this whole system. We know it can be better, 
and we're making sure that the House does work its will in allowing 
these amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, it's about changing how we do business in this House, 
and we're taking one of the first steps in doing this through our 
appropriations process and having an open process to allow the ability 
to submit amendments on the House floor to make all of these pieces of 
legislation better. That's the goal. I know that's the goal on both 
sides of the aisle when they submit these amendments--I hope that is. 
We'll see how the House works its will on all of the amendments.
  So I support this resolution, I support the open process, and I 
encourage my colleagues to do the same. If they want to make a bill 
better, then offer the amendments on the floor on the three 
appropriations bills that you have the ability to do it on. Under the 
structured bill, there are already seven Democratic amendments made in 
order and two Republican.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An amendment to H. Res. 667 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause (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. 
     1519) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
     provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination 
     in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, 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 
     Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 4 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry,

[[Page H3288]]

     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. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, 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. 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 adopting House Resolution 667, if 
ordered, and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 3541.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 180, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 297]

                               YEAS--233

     Adams
     Akin
     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
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     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
     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
     Jones
     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.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     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
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--180

     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)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     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
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     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
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Aderholt
     Burton (IN)
     Davis (KY)
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     Pascrell
     Rangel
     Roby
     Slaughter
     Velazquez
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1359

  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, HONDA, LYNCH, GARAMENDI, and Ms. SEWELL 
changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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 246, 
noes 166, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 298]

                               AYES--246

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw

[[Page H3289]]


     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     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
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--166

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Burton (IN)
     Davis (KY)
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Guinta
     Heinrich
     Johnson (GA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Mack
     McCarthy (CA)
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Roby
     Slaughter
     Velazquez
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1406

  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.

                          ____________________