Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 97 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4017-H4027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5973, AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5972,
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 697 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 697

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

[[Page H4018]]

consideration of the bill (H.R. 5973) making appropriations
for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies programs 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. 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. 5972) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, 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 except for section 169C. The amendment specified in
section 3 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted
in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. During
consideration of the bill for further 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, as amended, 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. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 of this
resolution is as follows: insert before section 418 the
caption ``Spending Reduction Account''.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing
for adjournment during the month of July.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.

{time} 1730

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Ms. FOXX. 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
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 697 provides for an open rule providing
for consideration of two bills, H.R. 5973, which is a bill making
appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration and related agencies, and H.R. 5972, the
fiscal year 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are offering yet another open rule,
something that our liberal Democrat colleagues gleefully denied this
House when they held the gavel. Once again, House Republicans continue
our commitment to an open appropriations process in which all Members
from both parties have an opportunity to influence the final
legislative product.
In fact, this rule represents the eleventh open rule the Rules
Committee has reported to the House thus far in the 112th Congress,
which is in stark contrast to the 111th, in which the House considered
a grand total of zero open rules.
I want to thank my colleagues from the Appropriations Committee for
their leadership and hard work in producing the two bills referenced in
this rule. H.R. 5973 includes $19.4 billion in discretionary funding,
which represents a cut of $365 million below last year's level. H.R.
5972 provides a total of $51.6 billion in discretionary spending for
the departments and agencies funded in the bill for fiscal 2013, which
is a level representing $3.9 billion below last year's level.
While my liberal colleagues would undoubtedly prefer to borrow and
spend more and continue to ignore the dire fiscal realities of our
country, House Republicans remain committed to reining in wasteful
spending, even if it involves making difficult and sometimes unpopular
decisions in order to save our country from fiscal ruin.
The simple truth is we cannot afford to fund every program at the
bloated levels that, for many years, kept political promises but, in
the end, hurt the fiscal stability of our country. It would be
unconscionable to continue indebting future generations to creditors
like China without working to reduce Federal spending, which is the
real driver of our deficit.
These are important bills, Mr. Speaker, and I'm proud that House
Republicans, led by our esteemed Rules Committee Chairman Dreier, have
embraced an open process to consider this legislation. We welcome the
support of our Democrat colleagues on final passage of the underlying
legislation.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just would like to point out to my
colleagues that I don't want them to be under the misimpression that
somehow this Republican leadership is somehow conducting an open and
transparent process. At last count, they have given us 41 completely
closed rules, and that's not even getting into the number of structured
rules we've had. So I would be a little bit more humble before I would
brag about the open process in this House.
I rise in opposition to this rule, which combines two unrelated
appropriations bills, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and
the Agriculture appropriations bills. And this rule also concedes that
the House Republicans will not finish all their appropriation bills on
time.
Under the House rules, the House cannot adjourn for more than 3 days
in a row in July unless all the appropriation bills are finished.
Section 4 in this rule is an admission that the Republican leadership
hasn't met this threshold.
Mr. Speaker, I also oppose this rule because Republican budget caps
have made it impossible to bring appropriations bills to the floor that
meet the needs of our country. Rather than a balanced, fair approach to
control our Federal deficit, Republicans have launched an all-out
assault against middle-income families and those who are struggling in
poverty. Rather than asking Donald Trump to pay one penny more in
taxes, the Republicans are pursuing an agenda that would decimate food
stamps, that turns Medicare into a voucher program, that goes after
student loans. I could go on and on and on. Everything that they bring
to this floor lowers the quality of life and the standard of living for
the people in this country.
This Congress should be about lifting people up, not putting people
down. And yet, the bills that get brought to this floor, time and time
again, are all about putting the American people down.
Not only is the underlying Transportation appropriations bill
underfunded, but we're considering it while the ninth--the ninth--
extension of the surface transportation bill, the bill that

[[Page H4019]]

funds our roads and bridges, is on the verge of expiring, and the
summer construction season quickly moves towards a close.
We need a transportation bill, and we would have one, Mr. Speaker, if
the Republican leadership would simply accept the bipartisan Senate
bill. Instead, the Republican leadership has decided to play politics
by including unrelated provisions like the construction of the Keystone
pipeline in a bill meant to build and repair America's roads and
bridges, in a bill that would have put thousands and thousands and
thousands of Americans to work on these critical projects.

I had the honor of hosting Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a
former Republican Member of this body, in my congressional district
yesterday. Secretary LaHood made it clear that Congress needs to get
its act together and pass a transportation bill. Rather than more
recesses, I would say to my friends, we ought to stay here and not
leave until we get this bill passed.
Instead, this transportation appropriations bill is, essentially, a
shell full of placeholder language waiting for the authorization bill
to be finished. This is not a way to legislate.
My friends on the other side of the aisle like to say, where are the
jobs? Well, I'll tell you where the jobs are. They're in this
transportation bill that they are holding up, that they are holding
hostage. You want to put Americans back to work? Pass this bill.
I'm also deeply disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that this is the second
year in a row that the appropriations bill fails to fund the
Sustainable Communities initiative, which brings together the
Department of Transportation, HUD, and EPA to develop effective models
of integrated planning and promote economic development in metropolitan
areas across the country. We should be pursuing the smart, holistic
approaches to urban planning and improvement encouraged by the
Sustainable Communities initiative, and this bill doesn't do that.
I also have concerns with the project-based Section 8 funding level
included in the THUD legislation, and with proposals to short-fund
project-based contracts. Short-funding does not reduce Federal
expenditures, but instead shifts the cost to the next fiscal year. In
fact, according to the National Housing Trust, short-funding can
increase financing costs because of the uncertainty it creates among
lenders and investors. Short-funding is a direct result of the need to
conform to the Ryan budget, and I hope that the Senate's funding level
is adopted during this conference, if they ever do have a conference.
The sad reality, Mr. Speaker, is that of these two appropriations
bills, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations
is the better one. And this Agriculture appropriations bill is, to put
it nicely, not where it needs to be. It is woefully inadequate in
several places, and it continues a pattern set by this Republican
leadership of trying to undermine the Wall Street reforms made under
Dodd-Frank and to dismantle the antihunger safety net.
This bill decimates funding for the Commodity Futures Trading
Corporation, one of the key regulators of the financial services
industry. In fact, the bill cuts funding for the CFTC by 41 percent, a
cut that will drastically reduce CFTC's ability to oversee an industry
that continues to take risky gambles, as evidenced by J.P. Morgan's
recent loss of $2 billion. The Republican leadership, once again, would
rather allow Wall Street to run amok instead of providing proper
oversight so that Americans on Main Street don't get taken to the
cleaners.
Also not surprising is this Republican leadership's continued assault
on the hungry in America. Over the past 18 months, the Republican
leadership has pushed two plans to block grant SNAP, formerly known as
food stamps, dramatically cut WIC funding in last year's Agriculture
appropriations bill, and brought a reconciliation bill to the floor
that would cut $36 million from SNAP, the most effective and efficient
Federal antihunger program we have in this country.

{time} 1740

Of course, we are still anticipating a farm bill from the Agriculture
Committee that will cut at least $14 billion from this program. Also,
while this bill funds WIC at $6.9 billion, it is still $119 million
short of President Obama's request.
In essence, this bill is gambling that food prices and participation
will stabilize and not continue to rise. Yet just as concerning is the
lack of set-asides for breast-feeding counselors, electronic benefit
cards and infrastructure. These provisions were included in the
President's request and also in the Senate bill. They should not be
excluded from the House version.
The other problem with the WIC language is the provision dealing with
white potatoes. For the first time, Congress is mandating that white
potatoes be included in the WIC food package. This is unprecedented and
is deeply troubling. Congress has never, until now, interfered with the
science of the WIC food package. This food package was specifically
designed by the Institute of Medicine to provide the necessary
nutrients through specific foods that are often not consumed, for a
variety of reasons, by low-income pregnant women and their newborns,
infants and young children. Like the effort to treat pizza as a
vegetable, this is clearly done on behalf of industry. It does not
belong in this bill.
This bill also cuts the Commodities Supplemental Food Program below
the President's request. This program provides food to seniors across
the country, but the funding level in this bill is so inadequate that
it will actually result in 55,000 fewer seniors being served. That's
55,000 fewer low-income seniors on fixed incomes who will have food
taken away from them simply because this committee decided that
tightening our Nation's fiscal belt should mean less food for elderly
in America instead of fewer profits for the wealthy.
The Agriculture appropriations bill doesn't spare international food
aid from drastic cuts either. This bill cuts title II PL480 by 22
percent, or $316 million, under FY12 levels and $250 million below the
President's FY13 request. These dramatic cuts would result in decreases
in emergency services to between 6 million and 8 million vulnerable
people, some of whom are already on the brink of starvation. They also
weaken the funding for programs that fight long-term hunger and that
build the capacity of people to withstand new emergencies. For example,
it was the Food for Peace development programs in Ethiopia that helped
keep communities from falling into famine and to withstand the shock of
last year's drought, saving the American taxpayer hundreds of millions
of dollars.
Not only are these cuts unconscionable, but they are unwise because
they will ultimately lead to future costs should there be widespread
hunger, famine or civil unrest that requires American assistance. Mr.
Speaker, we need to do better. We must do better. We need a surface
transportation bill that actually puts Americans back to work.
I again ask my Republican friends to stop holding the Senate bill
hostage. Bring it to the floor. Let us have an up-or-down vote on it.
Let us pass it and get people back to work. We need to ensure that Wall
Street doesn't, once again, run unchecked; and we need to guarantee
that we don't let Americans go hungry during these difficult economic
times. The Republican agenda is quite contrary to where I think the
majority of Americans are, and we're seeing that agenda--that radical
right-wing agenda--at work in these appropriations bills.
I will just close with this, Mr. Speaker:
My colleagues on the other side like to talk about numbers all the
time while I like to talk about people. I got elected to Congress to
help people. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the agenda by
this Republican majority is all about putting people down. We should be
about lifting people up in this country. We can meet our budgetary
challenges without lowering the standard of living for the people of
this country.
With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

[[Page H4020]]

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding
time.
I am very pleased to speak in favor of the rule on H.R. 5972, the
fiscal year 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
appropriations bill.
I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Rules
Committee for their assistance in moving this important bill forward. I
also want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks for their
commitment to moving appropriations bills through the House so that we
can fund America's priorities while demonstrating the committee's
proven record of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.
In particular, I want to thank THUD Ranking Member John Olver for his
assistance in crafting this legislation. This is his last THUD bill
before retiring at the end of this year.
The Transportation and HUD bill represents responsible choices for
our Nation's most pressing housing and transportation needs. This
bill's allocation of $51.6 billion is almost $4 billion below fiscal
year 2012 and is almost $2 billion below the President's request. The
bill also reflects the budget resolution passed by the House.

The bill is largely free of authorizations, leaving that important
work to the Transportation and Infrastructure and Financial Services
Committees. As the amendments to the THUD bill are rolling in, we are
seeing a very familiar theme--authorizing provisions. There are a
multitude of issues, especially in the transportation title and the
housing title, that very desperately needed to be considered and acted
upon by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction. A number of Members
have good ideas for improving these programs, and the authorizers need
to have the opportunity to turn these ideas into law.
The Appropriations Committee can only deal with existing law, so I
would urge my colleagues with amendments that are out of order to
please bring these issues to the relevant chairmen, and let's improve
the underlying statutes. We can't make these authorizing changes on
this appropriations bill.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I look forward to the
general debate on the Transportation and HUD bill and to a very speedy
amendment process.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Thank you very much for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to the $19.405 billion allocation that
our Subcommittee on Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration-
related agencies received, but I rise in support of the rule for moving
this process forward with a great floor debate.
The allocation given to our committee is $1.7 billion, or 8 percent,
below what the President requested; and it is $365 million, or 1.8
percent, below what we enacted in the House last year, in 2012.
Chairman Kingston, my colleague on the Republican side of the aisle
and chair of our committee, does a great job. He has talked about how
we have savings that have been found and that, in tough budgetary
times, everybody has got to tighten his belt. We all know that, but
it's about the cost of tightening those belts and about those who
depend on those programs which, in many ways, are their survival. I
feel several programs have been cut so deeply that people will either
be unable or will have difficulty in performing the duties of those
programs.
This bill slashes Food for Peace by 22 percent. Let me be crystal
clear about what this cut means. Mr. McGovern just spelled it out very
clearly. It's the wrong thing to do. It means 6 million to 8 million
people will face starvation--6 million to 8 million people. Cutting
food aid only increases the need to bump up other, more costly efforts
later on. It means that 44,000 Americans who produce that food could be
losing their jobs. Those include farmers, the shippers of food,
processors, port workers, and merchant mariners, who ship it across the
seas.
In another example, 41 percent is being cut from the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission--41 percent. That's misguided and shows a
lack of understanding of its oversight responsibilities. A failure to
fund robust oversight will only hurt American taxpayers. The CFTC is
charged with the oversight of unregulated swaps at $300 trillion a
year--$300 trillion of these swaps--and it is grossly unregulated.
This regulatory oversight protects the American taxpayer and reckless
Wall Street behavior that caused the 2008 financial crisis. We all know
that reckless Wall Street behavior led to the collapse of the housing
market, which is still dragging down economic growth in all of our
communities across America. We in Congress need to restore the people's
confidence in our ability to govern and to regulate Wall Street and to
benefit Main Street. We in Congress need to restore the CFTC funding.
Remember, too, that the FDA, which is the Food and Drug
Administration, oversees 80 percent of our Nation's food supply,
including food for more than 3,000 facilities in 200 countries around
the world.

{time} 1750

I appreciate the effort here to bump up food safety modernization
implementation. However, the total Food and Drug Administration is
funded at $16 million under what we gave them last year, and $31
million below what was requested for this year.
As you know, in addition to overseeing most of our food supply, it is
responsible for the safety of drugs and medical devices, many of which
are imported to the United States.
In closing, I do think that Chairman Kingston made a good effort in
crafting this bill, given the allocation he had to deal with. I support
this rule and continue to work with him as we move forward on this
bill. Let's have a good hearty debate and adopt some amendments to
correct it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, one of the bills that will seek consideration
under this open rule is H.R. 5973, which primarily funds agriculture
and nutrition programs. The legislation contains discretionary funding,
as well as required mandatory funding for food and nutrition programs
within the Department of Agriculture. This includes funding for the
special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants,
and Children, or WIC, the food stamp, or Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, SNAP, and the child nutrition programs.
The bill provides $6.9 billion in discretionary funding for WIC,
which, contrary to what liberals suggest, is $303.5 million above last
year's level. This program provides supplemental nutritional foods
needed by pregnant and nursing mothers, babies, and young children.
Language is included for oversight and monitoring requirements to
ensure the proper use of taxpayer dollars, as well as food price
tracking to ensure necessary resources continue serving those eligible
for program benefits.
The bill provides for $19.7 billion in required mandatory funding
outside of the discretionary funding jurisdiction of the Appropriations
Committee for child nutrition programs, which is $1.5 billion above
last year's level. The bill provides for $80 billion in required
mandatory spending, which is, again, outside of the discretionary
funding jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee, for SNAP, the
food stamp program. This is $408 million below last year's level.
Since food stamps or SNAP spending is driven by program
participation, the spending is called mandatory. This legislation also
includes new stringent reporting requirements to help weed out and
eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, such as a requirement
for States to include the fraud hotline number on all EBT cards, a
directive that the Secretary of Agriculture ban fraudulent vendors, and
a requirement for States to share data with enforcement agencies.
The legislation includes $996 million for food safety and inspection
programs, which is equal to the President's budget request, and a
decrease of $9 million below last year's level. These mandatory
inspection activities, which play a significant role in maintaining the
safety and productivity of the country's $832 billion meat and poultry
industry, help maintain critical meat, poultry, and egg product
inspection and testing activities and support the implementation of a
poultry inspection

[[Page H4021]]

program to improve safety and inspection efficiency. This voluntary
inspection program is expected to reduce government costs by $85
million to $95 million over 3 years and reduce costs to private
businesses by a total of $250 million.
The FDA receives a total of almost $2.5 billion in discretionary
funding in the bill, representing a 0.7 percent or $16.3 million
reduction below last year's level. Total funding for the FDA, including
user fees, is $3.8 billion.
These are just some of the priorities outlined in the underlying
legislation. I look forward to hearing from committee leaders, who will
provide further discussion of various elements of the legislation at
the time the bill is debated.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, I just want to yield myself such time as I may consume
just to make a point here.
I think it's important for us not to try to fool anybody by saying
that we are adequately living up to the challenge of combating hunger
and food insecurity in this country, because I will say to the
gentlelady that there are 49 million Americans who would disagree with
you. There are 49 million Americans who are hungry in our country, the
richest country on the planet. Seventeen million of them are children.
Among the many things that are cut in this Agriculture appropriations
bill is the Commodity Supplemental Food program. The cut in that alone
would throw 55,000 seniors off of food assistance.
We can talk about that we're trying to do the best we can, but let's
not say that somehow we're doing something we're not. We are not
meeting the challenge of ending hunger and food insecurity in America.
Not by a long shot. That's one of the frustrating things about this
appropriations process--that the very programs to help people get out
of poverty, to get on their feet again, are being slashed. You are
balancing the budget on the backs of hungry people while you ask Donald
Trump not to pay one penny more in taxes. I think that's unfair, and
that's why, I think, this whole process is unfair.
At this point, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the
underlying Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill.
It does not meet our responsibilities to the American people. This
bill's allocation is $1.7 billion below the President's request. The
lower allocation represents a breaking of the bipartisan agreement we
made last August. It will have a dramatic impact on the fundamental
American priorities embodied in this bill, especially in the critical
areas of financial protection, nutrition, food safety, and antihunger
programs.
I would like to submit this letter from the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops for the Record, a letter that speaks out against
the inadequate funding for nutrition and antihunger programs in this
appropriations bill.

Nearly half of the babies born in the United States every year
participate in the Women, Infants, and Children feeding program. It is
a short-term intervention that can help provide a lifetime of good
nutrition and health behaviors. And yet at a time of great need, the
bill underfunds WIC by $119 million.
The Food and Drug Administration is the cornerstone of our food and
product safety system, and yet this bill rescinds $47.7 million in
previous funding and displaces the agency's vital mission: protecting
the health of Americans at risk.
The bill cuts the Food for Peace program. Because of this cut, at
least 6.6 million fewer hungry people around the globe will be fed.
Already, 300 children perish every hour of every day because of hunger
and related causes. Ronald Reagan correctly called Food for Peace ``an
instrument of American compassion,'' and we should support it.
We know for a fact that the risky behavior in derivative markets that
precipitated the 2008 financial meltdown is still happening. We've seen
it with MF Global and J.P. Morgan. Americans want more accountability
from Wall Street and less speculation erratically driving up oil
prices. And yet, this bill funds the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission at $25 million less than 2012 and the full $128 million--41
percent. This is quite simply setting the commission up for failure.
We have a lot of work to do to fix this bill. We must ensure that the
fundamental priorities of the people that we represent--like preserving
fair markets, improving nutrition, ensuring food and consumer safety--
are upheld.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
I might add that in the State of Connecticut, in the Third
Congressional District, one out of seven individuals is food insecure.
What does food insecurity mean? It means they don't know where their
next meal is coming from.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. We have 49 million people in this Nation who are going
to bed hungry every night in the richest country in the world. It is
inconceivable that we would cut back on food and nutrition programs
when the Nation is suffering from the most serious economic recession
it is having, and that we would cut back on food stamps.
We have cut back on school breakfast programs, school lunch programs,
The Emergency Food Assistance program, the Commodity Supplemental Food
program. And while the richest people in this Nation are having three
squares a day or better, let's get our priorities straight. Let's focus
on the people that we have come here to represent. Oppose this rule and
oppose this bill.

United States Conference

of Catholic Bishops,

Washington DC, June 26, 2012.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, we wish to address the moral
and human dimensions of the FY 2013 Agriculture
Appropriations legislation. The bishops' conference urges you
to resist significant cuts to both domestic and international
food aid and conservation and rural development programs.
Major reductions at this time of economic turmoil and rising
poverty will hurt hungry, poor and vulnerable people in our
nation and around the world.
In For I Was Hungry and You Gave Me Food, the bishops
wrote, ``The primary goals of agricultural policies should be
providing food for all people and reducing poverty among
farmers and farm workers in this county and abroad.''
Adequate nutrition is essential to protect human life and
dignity. We urge support for just and sufficient funding for
agriculture policies that serve hungry, poor and vulnerable
people while promoting good stewardship of the land and
natural resources. In our soup kitchens and on our parish
doorsteps, we see the faces of poor and hungry people every
day. As a faith community, we feed those without work,
pregnant women and children and seniors on a limited income.
The Catholic community at home and abroad includes farmers,
ranchers, farmworkers and business owners who grow food, care
for the land and help rural communities prosper.
The bishops' conference acknowledges the difficult
challenges that Congress, the Administration and government
at all levels face to match scarce resources with growing
needs. A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate
cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons; it
requires shared sacrifice by all.
As pastors and teachers, we believe these are economic,
political and moral choices with human consequences. Our
bishops' conference has offered several moral criteria to
help guide difficult budgetary decisions:
Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it
protects or threatens human life and dignity.
A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it
affects ``the least of these'' (Matthew 25). The needs of
those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty
should come first.
Government and other institutions have a shared
responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially
ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity
in difficult economic times.
We address the following programs as they reflect a
priority for poor and hungry people and promote good
stewardship:

DOMESTIC PROGRAMS

WIC: The Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program is
fully funded at $7.04 billion in the President's FY 2013
budget. With record high child poverty (1 in 5 children), a
cut to this program would harm some of the most vulnerable
people in our country.
TEFAP: The Emergency Food Assistance Program receives
appropriations funding for food storage and distribution
grants in local communities. Cuts to the program could force
some of our parishes and other charities to turn away hungry
people when they continue to need our help.

[[Page H4022]]

SNAP: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(formerly food stamps), received a $2 billion cut made to the
reserve fund in the 2010 child nutrition bill. Restoration of
funding is necessary as families continue to struggle with
joblessness and poverty.
CSFP: The Commodity Supplemental Food Program provides food
assistance to low-income seniors, pregnant and breastfeeding
women and infants and children. Adequate funding is needed to
help faith communities and other charities provide food
packages to hungry people in their local communities.
Reductions will result in a loss of food for thousands of
low-income seniors.
CSP: Adequately fund the Conservation Stewardship Program
to help farmers conserve and care for farm land for future
generations. Strong conservation programs are necessary to
promote good stewardship of creation and provide needed
support to family farms.
VAPG: Maintain current funding for the Value Added Producer
Grants program to help farmers and ranchers develop new farm
and food-related businesses to increase rural economic
opportunity and help farm and ranch families thrive. In
addition, restore funding for the Rural Micro-entrepreneur
Assistance Program (RMAP)--which was eliminated in the FY
2012 funding bill--to help small businesses develop and grow
in rural communities.

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

Food for Peace: The President's Budget proposal calls for a
4.5% cut to the Title II Food Aid program from the FY 2012
appropriated levels, which is a 20% cut from the FY 2010
level. Such substantial cuts over just two years will
undoubtedly lead to an unacceptable loss of life for those in
dire circumstances.
Safe Box: Congress must protect Title II Food Aid funds to
development programs by preserving the ``safe box''
provision. Programs funded through the safe box help
chronically hungry communities build lasting agricultural
capacity that minimizes the impact of severe weather and
other catastrophes.
Local and Regional Purchase: Direct funds to the Local and
Regional Procurement (LRP) of food commodities. As
demonstrated in the pilot program funded by the 2008 Farm
Bill, LRP can reduce the cost of food assistance, shorten
delivery times, and improve overall response for both
emergency and development programs.
202e Funds: Increase the amount of cash resources in the
Title II program. The distribution of food alone is not
enough to stimulate sustainable development. Agencies like
Catholic Relief Services use these funds to operate nutrition
education programs that save the lives of mothers and
children and for agricultural programs that increase the
quality and amount of food that poor farmers produce.
Increasing cash resources would also reduce the need to sell
U.S. food in developing countries to generate cash to support
such programs (monetization).

Priorities and Subsidies

The bishops' conference supports farm safety net programs
such as crop insurance and disaster assistance that are
targeted to the needs of small to medium sized farmers and
ranchers. Savings should be used to fund hunger and nutrition
programs that serve people in need.
At a time of great competition for agricultural resources
and budgetary constraints, the needs of those who are hungry,
poor and vulnerable should come before assistance to those
who are relatively well off and powerful. With other
Christian leaders, we urge the committee to draw a ``circle
of protection'' around resources that serve those in greatest
need and to put their needs first even though they do not
have powerful advocates or great influence. The moral measure
of the agriculture appropriations process is how it serves
``the least of these.'' We urge you to protect and fund
programs that feed hungry people, help the most vulnerable
farmers, strengthen rural communities and promote good
stewardship of God's creation.
Sincerely yours,
Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire,
Bishop of Stockton, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice
and Human Development.
Most Reverend Richard E. Pates,
Bishop of Des Moines, Chairman, Committee on International
Justice and Peace.

{time} 1800

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the other bill that will benefit from
consideration under this open rule is H.R. 5972, which provides funding
aimed at supporting a vibrant and safe transportation infrastructure
while making the difficult decisions needed to balance the budget.
The bill includes $17.6 billion in discretionary appropriations for
the Department of Transportation for fiscal year 2013. This is $69
million below last year's level. The bill designates $39.1 billion from
the highway trust fund for the Federal highway program, which is the
same level provided last year.
However, the committee recognizes that since the highway program
still requires reauthorization and the funding level provided in the
bill may change upon the enactment of a highway authorization bill for
the next fiscal year, the Appropriations Committee is prepared to
support a differing highway trust fund spending level should a new
multiyear authorization bill be enacted.
Included in the legislation is $12.6 billion for the Federal Aviation
Administration, which is $91 million above last year's level. The bill
provides nearly $1 billion for the FAA's Next Generation Air
Transportation System, otherwise known as NextGen, allowing the FAA to
move forward with the next step in modernizing the Nation's air control
and airport system. The bill also supports operations and staffing,
which will help ease congestion and reduce delays for travelers in U.S.
airspace while rejecting the administration's proposals for new
aviation fees.
The legislation contains funding for the various transportation
safety programs and agencies within the Department of Transportation.
This includes $776 million in both mandatory and discretionary funding
for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, representing a
reduction of $23.8 million below last year; $551 million for the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, representing a reduction
of $2.6 million below last year; and $177 million for the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which is $4 million above
last year's level.
The legislation includes a total of $33.6 billion to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, which is $3.8 billion below last
year's level. The bill wastes no funding on any new, unauthorized
``sustainable,'' ``livable,'' or ``green'' community development
programs. $26.3 billion is included in the bill for public and Indian
housing, representing an increase of $759 million above last year's
level.
Within this total, the bill provides funding to renew benefits for
every single individual and family currently receiving assistance and
ensures that no critical benefits are eliminated or canceled. The bill
also fully funds the President's request for veterans' housing at $75
million and Native American block grants at $650 million.
Housing programs within the bill are funded at $9.3 billion,
representing a reduction of $361 million below last year's level and
$49 million below the request. Within this total, the bill provides
sufficient funding for the most vulnerable populations, including $165
million for housing for the disabled, an increase of $15 million over
last year, and $425 million for housing for the elderly, again, an
increase of $50 million above last year.
These are just some of the priorities outlined in the underlying
legislation. Again, I look forward to hearing from committee leaders
who will provide further discussion of the various elements of the
legislation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows Members to go home to
their districts, even if we don't address the doubling of student loan
interest rates that are about to hit people across the country and even
if we don't hammer out a deal to fund our transportation programs and
create jobs, notwithstanding the fact that our infrastructure is
crumbling.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to say that the House cannot adjourn at the end of this week until
we finish our business.
And to discuss this amendment, I would yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
rule because we are set to adjourn this week without finishing our
critical work on transportation.
We need a long-term surface transportation bill that puts Americans
back to work. Mr. Speaker, this House only builds roads in order to
find cans to kick down those roads. We cannot have a ``big league''
economy with ``little league'' infrastructure in this country. We need
a long-term investment to repair our roads, bridges, and highways, and
to maintain our transit systems.

[[Page H4023]]

Leaders of our country have always recognized this fact. Three years
after Lewis and Clark left for the West, President Jefferson secured
funding for the Cumberland Road. If Jefferson recognized the importance
that transportation can have in linking this country, uniting the
States in a shared economy and trade, surely we can show that same
recognition today by staying here to ensure that the work of job
creation is done. The question before us is whether this body
recognizes that transportation projects create jobs and set the stage
for economic growth.
A bipartisan bill passed out of the Senate. It was forged out of
compromise. It is a bipartisan solution. It means immediate job
creation. It means jobs for private sector contractors, laborers, and
engineers.
A conference committee is meeting right now to bring us a long-term
authorization to create real jobs. We should not adjourn without a
long-term, robust, and bipartisan investment in transportation and
jobs.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can finish this
work.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are talking about the fact that
we are going to have a district work period next week. The district
work period is because next week we are celebrating the signing of
the Declaration of Independence, one of the most important holidays in
this country.

Our colleagues across the aisle want to create more dependence in
this country. They are as far away from the Founders of this country as
you can be in terms of what makes this country unique and what makes it
so great.
We don't need more dependence in this country, Mr. Speaker. We need
to celebrate what makes this country great, what makes us unique. It's
the independence of this country and the independence of citizens and
their ability to take care of themselves and to personally take care of
each other and not continue to look to the nanny state that our friends
would create and have tried to create over the years.
These are very difficult times, Mr. Speaker. We all know that. But
it's important that the American people understand that House
Republicans have repeatedly worked to find common ground with the
President and Senate Democrats and have passed several bipartisan bills
that would improve this economy which has been so damaged by the
policies of the left and this President.
Several proposals supported even by the President have passed the
House and have been signed into law, including trade pacts, a
bipartisan veterans hiring bill, and a repeal of the IRS withholding
tax on job creators. But the President's own job council has embraced
many of the job proposals advocated by Republicans but ignored by the
President himself.
The simple truth is that President Obama's attempt supported by our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and by them only, to
stimulate the economy by growing government has failed.
But you don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Just look at
the facts: The recent jobs report showed that the U.S. gained only
69,000 jobs in the month of May.
May marked the 40th consecutive month that the unemployment rate has
remained above 8 percent, repudiating the administration's pledge that
unemployment would remain below 8 percent if the Democrat 2009 stimulus
plan became law. Lest we forget, it was the Obama administration which
claimed unemployment would be below 6 percent today if the $1.178
trillion Democrat ``stimulus'' was signed into law.
At the current rate of job growth, if the United States continues to
struggle under the failed policies that have produced the ``Obama
economy'' and adds only 69,000 jobs each month in the future, it would
take a total of 10 years and 5 months--until June 2018--to regain all
the jobs lost during the latest recession, which is longer than the 8
years it took to regain the jobs lost during the Great Depression.

{time} 1810

But even these figures, Mr. Speaker, hide the fact that the rate of
underemployment, or real unemployment, which counts those who want to
work but have stopped searching in this economy and those who are
forced to work part-time because they cannot find full employment, is
14.5 percent or higher.
Also troubling is the realization that since 2008, which is the year
President Obama was elected, median family income has declined by
$1,154, falling to its lowest level since 1996. As a March 2012, the
number of Americans receiving food stamps was 46.4 million, which is
the third most in any month in history and up 80,000 from February.
Today, 15 percent of Americans receive food stamps, representing an
increase of 45 percent since President Obama took office.
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to
continue the failed policies they began in 2007 and instituted for 4
years and worked with President Obama for 2 years on. Fortunately, Mr.
Speaker, House Republicans are working to improve the dismal conditions
imposed by the liberal regime that dominated Washington, D.C., for far
too long.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just say I hope that the gentlelady wasn't
implying that somehow the Federal Government doesn't have a role in
investing in our national highway infrastructure. Dwight Eisenhower, a
Republican, I should remind the gentlelady, understood the importance
of having a national highway program.
As has been pointed out by a number of our speakers on the Democratic
side, our infrastructure is aging and is falling apart, and we're not
going to be able to compete in this global economy unless we make the
proper investments. And by making the proper investments, we are not
only helping our economy; we are putting people back to work. We are
putting people back to work. And yet the Republican leadership of this
House is holding hostage a transportation bill that passed the Senate
that would put countless people back to work, which passed
overwhelmingly in the Senate by 74 votes--overwhelmingly in the Senate.
We can't get that brought up on the House floor for a vote.
The Republicans, I would say, Mr. Speaker, I think are intentionally
running out the clock. I think it's a cynical attempt to hold
everything up, to not invest in our economy, to slow down economic
growth. Hopefully, I think, in their minds, they hope that it will win
them the election. I think it's a cynical way to do politics. We ought
to be on this floor helping the American people.
And, yes, the 4th of July is a great time for us to celebrate our
country, but a lot of Americans are not going to celebrate because
they're out of work. And we have the ability to put them back to work.
Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle are holding hostage the
very bill that could put countless Americans back to work.
At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, unless Congress acts in the next 4 days,
the subsidized Stafford student loan interest rate is going double from
3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Despite the fact that that looming deadline
which affects over 7 million college students all across American is
staring us in the face, what we are debating here today is a rule which
allows the House to go into recess for the 10th week since January,
which is part of this rule.
The good news is that a couple of hours ago it was reported that the
Senate and Republican leadership have actually agreed upon a settlement
of this issue which would allow the 3.4 percent rate to be extended for
1 year. But I would note that Mitch McConnell, who's the minority
leader for the Republic Party, said that:
Final approval of student loan legislation, which would prevent rates
on Federal Stafford loans from doubling to 6.8 percent, depends on
House Republicans.
The fact of the matter is we have no idea whether or not the House
Republican leadership is going to agree to this compromise which the
Senate leadership reached a few hours ago, because all we're debating
here today is another adjournment or recess motion before the House.
The fact of the matter is it is time for us to focus on this issue
which the President on January 25 challenged Congress to act on.
I started this countdown chart at day 110. We are now down to the
final hours

[[Page H4024]]

before the interest rates double, which will cost thousands of dollars
in more interest costs to college student across America, unless we
act. The fact of the matter is that the House Republican bill that they
rushed to the floor without a subcommittee, without a markup, was
completely rejected by Republicans in the Senate. We now have the
glimmer of a deal, a compromise. We should not be debating another
adjournment resolution for the 10th week of recess this year until we
get this work done.
There are millions of college students all across America who are
waiting for us to get this issue resolved so that they can plan their
budget for the next fall semester. And the fact that we're here again
with another adjournment resolution with the most unproductive Congress
in recent memory is ridiculous. We should reject this rule. Let's focus
on getting the work done that the American people are counting on.
Ms. FOXX. I need to remind my colleague across the aisle we're not
debating an adjournment resolution here today. I also need to remind my
colleague across the aisle that it was the Democrats that set this
student loan problem up. They made promises in 2006 to the American
people they couldn't keep; and so they set up a time bomb, actually, so
that the interest rates on the student loans would go back up because,
again, they made promises they couldn't keep about lowering the rate of
interest.
It affects a very small number of students, and it only affects them
when they graduate from college, Mr. Speaker. If the Obama economy
weren't so lousy and only 50 percent of the students graduating were
getting jobs, it really wouldn't be that big an issue because it's a
very small amount of money to the students. And if they had jobs, they
wouldn't be quite so concerned about it. They only have to pay those
loans back after they graduate because we're subsidizing interest while
they are in school.
So I think our colleagues don't really want to go in that direction
and talk about blaming Republicans for this mess with student loans,
since they created it. And if the students were getting jobs, most of
them wouldn't be as concerned about it as they are now.
Also, on the transportation bill that our colleagues tout so well,
again, it fits right into their philosophy of borrow, borrow, borrow;
spend, spend, spend. It is not a responsible bill because the
Republican bill would stay within the limits of the revenue that we get
from the highway trust fund. But they just want to borrow from the
general fund and make our situation worse.
Mr. Speaker, it seems clear to everyone except the liberal leadership
that job creators are bogged down by overly burdensome Federal
regulations that prevent job creation and hinder economic growth. These
regulations are particularly damaging for the real job creators in the
country: small business owners. The Federal Government may create jobs,
but they are not sustainable jobs, and they are a drag on the economy.
However, House Republicans recognize the need to remove onerous,
redundant Federal regulations that are so harmful to small businesses
and impede private sector investment and job creation. In order to ease
the regulatory burden on the economy and to promote job creation, House
Republicans have worked to advance legislation to rein in the
unaccountable Federal regulatory apparatus and continue to pursue
innovative initiatives such as my bill, H.R. 373, the Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act, which would help improve transparency
and accountability by disclosing costs to Federal mandates that would
otherwise remain hidden from public scrutiny.
House Republicans appreciate that America's Tax Code has grown overly
complicated and cumbersome, filled with loopholes and giveaways and is
fundamentally unfair. That's why the House Republican plan for
America's job creators recognizes the need to eliminate the special
interest tax breaks that litter the Tax Code and reduce our overall tax
rate to no more than 25 percent for business and individuals, including
small business owners. This would make the Tax Code flatter, fairer,
and simpler. Commonsense changes to the Tax Code would ensure that
everyone pays his or her fair share, lessens the burden on families,
generates economic expansion, and creates jobs by making Americans more
competitive.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote
on the previous question so that an amendment to the rule can be
offered.
Mr. Speaker, we just heard about what makes this country great. Well,
I think what makes this country great is the education of our people.

{time} 1820

We know that having a good education is key to achieving the American
Dream and key to keeping our country competitive. We all know that
because the folks in this Chamber know the importance of a college
education. Most people here have gone to college. But there are
millions of young adults who are slowly seeing that opportunity
evaporate with tuition skyrocketing.
Students from across my district in San Diego are struggling, and
they tell me that every day. Some are doing a delicate balancing act of
providing for their families while taking on a full academic course
load. And others, quite frankly, are just scraping by each semester. An
additional burden of $1,000 in interest payments is no trifling matter
for these students. And yet, we see that partisan games have led to
gridlock on this issue.
College students know that if they miss deadlines, there are
consequences. And for Congress, there should be consequences, too.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the clock is running out, and I urge my colleagues,
please, support a solution that gives students and families the relief
that they desperately need.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time.
I think most Americans would agree, irrespective of which party they
are in, that it would be a good idea to put Americans back to work
building our highways and our bridges and our transportation systems,
and do it now.
I think most Americans would agree that doubling interest rates on
student loans would be disastrous for people struggling to get a
college education.
I think most Americans would agree that if the other body passed a
transportation bill by three-quarters of the Members voting for it,
Republican and Democrat, it would be a good idea to take that bill up
here.
I think most Americans would agree that if the Republican and
Democratic leadership in the other body reached an agreement on a way
to keep the student loan rates low and not add to the deficit by paying
for it, it would be a really good idea to bring the bill up here.
The unfortunate thing for the House and for the country is that the
only people who don't seem to be a part of that consensus are the
Republican Members of the House of Representatives. No matter if the
Senate Republicans say it's okay, and the Senate Democrats say it's
okay, and the President says it's okay, and the House Democrats say
it's okay, and more importantly, if the American people say it's okay,
it somehow isn't usually okay with them.
So what Mr. McGovern is saying is this: until we keep the student
loan rates low, and until we pass a jobs bill to put people back to
work on transportation, let's not take our 10th week of paid vacation
this year. I think that's a pretty reasonable thing to do. So voting
``no'' on the previous question says let's get our work done before we
go home and take our 10th week of vacation for the year. Vote ``no.''
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I don't know about my colleagues across the
aisle, it's not a paid vacation for me. I go home and spend time with
my constituents and hear from them what's of concern. Maybe they're on
vacation, but I know the people on our side of the aisle are not on
vacation. They're

[[Page H4025]]

working hard for the American people, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentlelady how many
more speakers she has on her side?
Ms. FOXX. We are prepared to close when the gentleman is prepared to
close.
Mr. McGOVERN. I'm prepared to close. How much time do I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, our job should be to help improve the quality of life
for the citizens that we represent. We ought to be investing in our
economy at this very difficult time. That's why we are urging the House
Republicans to join with the Senate Republicans and the Senate
Democrats and the House Democrats in bringing a highway bill to the
floor so we can provide some certainty to our States, so there can be
more investments in infrastructure, so there can be more jobs created.
That would give the American people a little something to celebrate.
We are urging my colleagues on the Republican side here in the House
to join with us in making sure that interest rates on student loans
don't double for a great number of young people in this country who are
trying to get an education. My colleague from North Carolina would have
us believe that it is no big deal. Well, it is a big deal. It's a big
deal to those students and to their families. It is a big deal to those
of us on this side of the aisle. And maybe that's one of the
differences between the two parties. We believe college education ought
to be affordable, and no one should not go to college because they
can't afford the education.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of an
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the amendment basically says we're not
going home, we're not leaving this place until we do our work because
part of our job, I would say to my colleague from North Carolina, is
not just going home and meeting with our constituents and marching in
parades. Part of our job is to pass legislation that is important to
the people we represent.
This highway bill is important to putting people back to work. My
friends on the other side of the aisle have dragged their feet and
dragged their feet and dragged their feet. I think it is
unconscionable. We are running out of time. We need to start doing the
people's business here. And if that means that we have to stay through
the weekend, we should stay through the weekend. If we have to stay
through next week, we should stay through next week. But we ought to do
something meaningful.
Our job should not be about lowering the quality of life for people,
and that is my problem with the appropriations process that my
colleagues have pursued in this House. It is all about putting all of
the burden of balancing our budget on middle-income families and on
those who least can afford it. Donald Trump is not asked to pay one
penny more.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, next week is the Fourth of July. We are
going to be celebrating Independence Day, and I would like to say that
I don't believe the job of the Federal Government is to provide things
to citizens but to preserve our liberty, and that's what next week
should be reminding us of.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are aware of the clear mandate the
American people gave us. Our charge is to reduce the crushing debt that
our country is currently carrying. According to the Senate Budget
Committee, debt grew four times faster under President Obama than
Clinton or Bush, with President Obama already having amassed more debt
since taking office than did President Bush during his entire two terms
in office. Today, the national debt is over $15 trillion, which amounts
to nearly $48,000 for every man, woman and child in America.
It's clear without a change in leadership in the White House and
Senate, the legacy we are apt to leave our children and grandchildren
will be a crushing debt burden and a weaker, less secure, and less
prosperous Nation. This is simply unacceptable.
The Federal Government's current budget deficits are simply
unsustainable. During these tough economic times, American families are
getting by on less, and the government should do the same.
When the Democrat elites were in the majority, they pushed a job-
killing agenda starting with the $1 trillion failed stimulus package,
followed by a massive job-killing tax hike in the form of cap-and-
trade, then the job-killing ObamaCare, all the while leaving our
country with record debts and deficits as unemployment skyrocketed.
Recognizing that government has gotten too expensive, Republicans are
here to stop the senseless Obama spending binge. That's why I urge my
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 697 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

Strike section 4 and insert the following:
Sec 4. Except as specified in section 5, it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment during the
month of July.
Sec. 5. It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent
resolution providing for adjournment on Friday, June 29,
2012, unless the Majority Leader and Minority Leader jointly
certify to the Speaker in writing that the Congress has
cleared for presentment to the President measures that will:

--prevent the doubling of interest rates on student loans;
and
--reauthorize Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor
carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of
the Highway Trust Fund.
____

(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

[[Page H4026]]

[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.

Ms. FOXX. 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 on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 on H. Res.
697 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution,
if requested; the motion to instruct on H.R. 4348 offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and the motion to instruct on H.R.
4348 offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 168, not voting 38, as follows:

[Roll No. 412]

YEAS--226

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NAYS--168

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

NOT VOTING--38

Ackerman
Akin
Altmire
Blumenauer
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Clarke (NY)
Crowley
Diaz-Balart
Engel
Flake
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Holden
Huizenga (MI)
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Lamborn
Landry
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Meeks
Neal
Pence
Rangel
Sanchez, Linda T.
Stivers
Sullivan
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Young (FL)

{time} 1856

Mr. HOLT changed his vote 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. McGOVERN. 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 229,
noes 166, not voting 37, as follows:

[Roll No. 413]

AYES--229

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell

[[Page H4027]]

Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
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--166

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

NOT VOTING--37

Ackerman
Akin
Altmire
Blumenauer
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Clarke (NY)
Crowley
Diaz-Balart
Engel
Flake
Gutierrez
Herger
Holden
Huizenga (MI)
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Lamborn
Landry
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Meeks
Neal
Pence
Rangel
Sanchez, Linda T.
Stivers
Sullivan
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey

{time} 1903

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.

____________________