Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5644-H5649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6233, AGRICULTURAL DISASTER
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2012

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 752 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 752

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance
available for fiscal year 2012 with the costs of such
assistance offset by changes to certain conservation
programs, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Agriculture; and (2) one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
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 752 is a closed rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 6233, the Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of
2012.
As a lifelong farmer myself, including operating a nursery and being
a beekeeper, I can certainly empathize with being vulnerable to Mother
Nature and the plight caused by unpredictable weather.
Without a doubt, the good Lord has blessed this country with an
abundance of natural gifts, and I am very thankful for America's
farmers, who work to utilize and protect these blessings to help feed
our country and others throughout the world. Unfortunately, the drought
devastating so much of the United States this year has yielded a
tremendous amount of financial hardships not only for these farmers but
also for those throughout the rest of the economy that depend on their
products.
Mr. Speaker, it's important to remember that it is not just farmers
affected by this drought. The consequences of this disaster impact all
Americans, from those living in the biggest cities to those living in
the most remote areas of this country. Not only does drought aggravate
the risk of wildfires that have raged throughout the West, but it
compromises our crops, which are used to feed our livestock and even
fuel our cars.

{time} 1040

The effects will last long after rain brings much-needed relief. With
the price of corn jumping 50 percent since June, grocery costs continue
to climb. The Department of Agriculture now estimates food prices could
climb between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent this year, and between 3
percent and 4 percent next year.
Also of consequence to price conscious energy consumers is how the

[[Page H5645]]

drought impacts the price of gasoline. Federal law provides that 10
percent of gasoline to be composed of ethanol. The increasing price has
led some ethanol refineries to cut production, which, in turn,
increases what drivers pay at the pump.
While many will suffer from inflated costs of staples they use every
day, there are millions of Americans who live in communities throughout
this country that are economically dependent on agriculture activity.
Many of those living in sparsely populated regions work in businesses
that thrive on the income associated with agricultural sales.
If anything positive is to come from this drought, my hope is that
Americans gain a renewed appreciation for all the different ways
agricultural productivity touches everyone's lives every day.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill, H.R. 6233, the supplemental agriculture disaster assistance.
Look, weather impacts our lives. I'm going to talk a little bit about
climate change and some of the driving factors that are causing more
severe weather conditions, be they droughts or floods. Yes, they affect
businesses, but the solution is not another Republican Big Government
government bailout of yet another industry. The Republicans have bailed
out Wall Street. The Republicans have bailed out the banks. Now the
Republicans are seeking to bail out cows. Yes, Mr. Speaker, another Big
Government solution to another problem, in part, of their own creation
by refusing to take up action and reducing our carbon emissions for
climate change.
Where does this all end, when it's too cloudy? The solar industry
might suffer. Are we going to bail them out? When it's not windy
enough, the wind industry might suffer. Are we going to bail them out?
We have restaurants on Pearl Street Mall in Boulder that have rooftop
lounges. When it's too hot, less people go up to the rooftop lounges.
We've had a drought in May and June and not enough people went to
rooftop lounges. I would like to ask my colleague, Ms. Foxx, if there
could be government bailout money for those rooftop lounges.
I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. I'm sorry. I don't understand the analogy that you're
making.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, there's just a particular sector.
Maybe they have a lot of lobbyists. Maybe they're a big special
interest, they own cows. We're going to bail them out because the price
of hay has gone up. That's what we're talking about here today.
We're talking about a closed rule. We're talking about a closed
process. This is nothing new, this lack of transparency, this limited
debate, pushing through a Big Government Republican bailout on short
notice without even giving Members enough time to offer improvements to
the bill, to change the bill. The first time that Republicans and
Democrats even saw this bill was late Tuesday night, and here we are on
the floor of the House without a single hearing, without a single
markup, pushing through this bill, shutting out opportunities for
Democrats or Republicans to offer improvements to this bill.
This is one of the worst and widest droughts we've seen in decades. I
see that firsthand in Colorado. We have had devastating fires this
summer coupled with extreme heat in the West. This is indicative of a
need to address the true culprit: climate change. The evidence that
recent droughts and heat waves are linked to climate change is growing
suddenly and represents the strong scientific consensus.
We need the very conservation programs in the farm bill that are
being gutted for this Big Government bailout of cows. The very programs
cut by this bill are needed to help farmers and ranchers conserve soil,
conserve water to make their farms and ranches more resilient to the
devastating impacts we see from climate change and to mitigate that
impact.
Look, American farmers, ranchers, and environmentalists have all been
waiting for months to see a farm bill come to the floor. To the
disappointment of many, instead of a farm bill, which I understand for
at least 5 weeks we're not going to see in the House of
Representatives, we're presented with a cow bailout, which is yet
another Republican Big Government bailout of an American industry.

When the Senate passed their farm bill over a month ago, the House
majority couldn't even manage to bring a package to the floor for
Members to debate. Earlier this week, the Republicans were looking at a
1-year extension of the farm bill and have now decided to pull that 1-
year extension in favor of a cow bailout.
Let me once again stress that our severe concerns around droughts in
the West and across the country are critical, but we mustn't gut
programs that are some of the very programs that can help prevent the
impact of droughts in seeking to bail out a particular industry. When
we look at drought assistance funding, we need to have a bipartisan
discussion about how we're going to structure it and where it's going
to come from and why certain industries are going to be favored over
others.
Why is there going to be a cow bailout instead of a rooftop terrace
bailout? When it's too hot, businesses suffer. If you're going to have
a big Republican bailout, why don't you discuss who it goes to and not
just give it to who has the most lobbyists here or who gives the most
campaign contributions.
Furthermore, the conservation provisions that are cut by this bill do
have strong bipartisan support in both Chambers. Both the Senate and
the House Agriculture Committees understand the importance of the farm
bill's conservation title. Both farm bills retain funding for the
conservation title because many folks on both sides of the aisle agree
that conservation practices are critical to protect our soil, the
future production of our agriculture, water, and wildlife resources.
That's yet another reason to consider a comprehensive bill, to help
ensure the strength of agriculture and protect American jobs, rather
than another Republican bailout.
Instead of voting on the underlying bill, instead of even talking
about a 5-year extension of the agriculture bill, here we are today
gutting critical programs with bipartisan support to bail out yet
another industry with a centrally planned Big Government solution.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, we all grieve for the people in this
country who are willing to farm, who are willing to deal with the
vicissitudes of mother nature and do their best to provide food and
other products for the American people and people all around the world.
We obviously don't have a lot of control over the weather. We have no
control over the weather. We have no control over the climate,
basically, but we need to respond to our fellow human beings, our
fellow Americans when there is a need to do that.
The drought would not be as exacerbated and the effects would not be
so exacerbated were it not for the overall job climate in this country.
We are really suffering from the effects of our colleagues having been
in charge of the Congress for 4 years and an administration that is
totally out of touch with what is happening, not only in this country,
but around the world, in terms of our economic situation. We have
record unemployment in this country, Mr. Speaker. We have record
deficits. We have record debts. It seems like everybody recognizes that
except for our liberal colleagues across the aisle.
We know there's something wrong with the American job climate in this
country. Whereas most people recognize the government should not wall
off entrepreneurship with oppressive taxes, a costly, overcomplicated,
and unnecessarily burdensome regulatory apparatus, we have a liberal
President who is so out of touch that he said:

If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody
else made that happen.

It would be bad enough if that were the first Freudian slip from
liberal leaders here in Washington, but this comes on the heels of both
President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decreeing on
separate occasions that the private sector is doing

[[Page H5646]]

just fine. Apparently, the two highest ranking Democrats in the country
are trying to convince themselves of an alternative reality where
unemployment would no longer be a problem if only more Americans worked
for the government. Fortunately, we still have a lot of Americans
working out there trying to produce food for all of us.

{time} 1050

I recognize there are many government workers, teachers, police
officers, firefighters, who provide critical services to this country.
But to suggest that the unemployment problem in this country can be
solved by continuing an unending, demonstrably failed liberal spending
spree ignores the reality that it's the private sector that generates
the wealth which provides revenue for government to work through an
increasing seizure of personal earnings, as was displayed on the floor
yesterday.
Liberal elites would have us all believe that the only way to promote
job growth is through a perpetual expansion of special handouts and
concessions to government employee unions and politically favored
industries.
Less we forget that a centrally planned government-sponsored green
jobs revolution was the only solution for unemployment worries during
the height of the recent recession, I want to remind my colleague of
the Solyndra loans and the many loans in that area that were made that
have created crony capitalism in our country. The liberal Democrats
promised to solve these problems by ramming through a $1 trillion
stimulus bill, financed exclusively by our posterity through deficit
spending and quickly shifted their focus on other crises vulnerable to
exploitation, such as a new $800 billion energy tax that sought to
crush millions of jobs while sending hundreds of billions overseas as
well as the now-infamous government takeover of health care, otherwise
known as ObamaCare.
We're actually fortunate for these striking statements which reveal a
peek into the mystifying mindset of liberal elites who apparently
believe that government dependence is a necessary condition for
economic health.
Well, here's a news flash for the liberals who remain stubbornly
unaware of the hardships that continue to grip Americans: the results
are in, and everyone else knows that Big Government cannot simply
prescribe economic prosperity and have it be so.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I listened very carefully to the gentlelady from North Carolina. I
didn't hear her defend this bovine bailout that the Republicans are
proposing here today. Now, I'm going to take a few minutes and address
some of the mischaracterizations of the President of the United States
that were in some of those comments, but then I do want to bring it
back to this Big Government bovine bailout that the Republicans are
proposing here before us today.
Look, the President understands and I understand, as somebody who
started several businesses before I got here--I created several hundred
jobs--that of course I didn't do it alone. If we didn't have roads so
that employees could get to work, I wouldn't have been able to start a
company. I wouldn't have been able to have any employees to get to
work. If we didn't have schools that help prepare programmers and
technicians to work technology companies--tech companies that I started
that hired programmers, that were good-paying jobs--I wouldn't have
been able to start a company. If we didn't have investors and
shareholders and the right level of securities regulation to prevent
fraud and to give them the confidence to invest in the companies that I
started, we wouldn't have capital formation and venture capital flowing
to the companies that needed it.
If we didn't have the rule of law, if we didn't fund our courts, if
we didn't invest in basic research, if the government hadn't provided
the funding to start the Internet, I wouldn't have been able to start a
single company.
And most of my friends who are entrepreneurs, who have started
companies, who are corporate executives agree. Yes, the entrepreneur is
critical. And the President's Jobs Council recognizes that, and this
President has been more friendly to entrepreneurship and to business
than any President in my lifetime, working to ensure that small
businesses have the opportunity to succeed and grow and create jobs in
the private sector.
But without that basic infrastructure, we have to ask ourselves what
separates the United States of America from a country like Somalia or
even a centrally planned country like North Korea. A lot separates us.
But a big part of that is this collaboration of a public sector role
that enables entrepreneurship, enables success in the private sector,
enables people to create fortunes, enables people to create jobs.
That's the proper role of government.
Government doesn't stand in the way of job creation. The government's
policy framework, courts people can trust, roads for people to get to
work, good public schools, good health care--that's what enables
success. As somebody who reached some degree of success in the private
sector before I got here, I agree completely with President Obama that
I couldn't have achieved that degree of success without the public
infrastructure that played a role in allowing me and so many other
entrepreneurs to succeed.
Now, moving back to the topic, the topic of the bovine bailout that
the Republicans have proposed here today. The gentlelady from North
Carolina said, We have no control over climate, basically. That was the
quote that she just said. Well, the vast majority of scientific
consensus and agreement would indicate otherwise.
We don't control weather. But climate is different than weather. And,
yes, humans are contributing to climate change through carbon emissions
and emissions of other greenhouse gases. The global climate has warmed.
The average climate in Colorado now is two to three degrees warmer than
it was a century ago, and it continues to accelerate. Now, that doesn't
cause a drought or a flood in any one particular year, but it causes an
increased incidence of severe weather patterns that cost us all money,
which is why we're even talking about a bovine bailout here today.
Now, look, I wish this had come to the floor under an open process. I
would have offered an amendment just to talk about it to say, why don't
you bail out rooftop restaurants, rooftop terraces?
Look, we're talking about the role of the government, the role of the
private sector. I find it ironic and to the point of being bizarre--
almost like I'm in an alternative universe--that in the very same
remarks that the gentlelady from North Carolina railed against a
President who dares to say that the public sector has a role in
creating the landscape for private businesses to succeed, at the same
time, she is advocating for a bovine bailout of a particular industry.
Now why this particular industry? Why not rooftop terraces? Why not
solar, if it's too cloudy? Why not wind, if it's not windy enough?
Many, many, many businesses are affected by weather. Retail stores are
affected when it snows too much. Should they be coming to Washington,
clamoring for a bailout?
Look, both sides respect the role of the private sector. And when you
have government preempting the private sector by picking out a
particular industry and elevating it above all others, by giving it
government subsidies and a big bailout, you are upsetting the very
market forces that the gentlelady from North Carolina espoused support
of in another context.
This bill today gives us a terrible choice between drought assistance
and conservation. Now, both might be worthy; but disproportionate cuts
to conservation programs that are used to fund this bill undermine the
continued success of conservation programs that have bipartisan support
and are helping farmers mitigate the impact of climate change in their
businesses.
There are so many other issues of relevance for farmers that this
House could be taking up. Why aren't we talking about the estate tax,
which affects small farmers across this country? If we don't act by
December 31, the estate tax will go to a 55 percent tax above $1
million in assets, forcing many small farmers out of business and
preventing them from being passed down from one generation to the next.

[[Page H5647]]

Are we going to leave it until the last minute? Is that a plan for
the lame duck session? Are the Republicans scared to take on the estate
tax before the election?
I would advocate that we get down to work and start addressing issues
that actually affect farmers. We should be voting to provide for the
success of American agriculture, opening new markets, investing in
basic research, helping to ensure that families have access to healthy
food and nutrition.
We need to make sure that farmers' and ranchers' needs are addressed.
And if we don't address the fundamental drivers of climate change,
we're only going to be faced with more and more difficulties, more and
more requests for bailouts. It may be cows this time. It may be
chickens next time. It may be corn the next time. There are always
going to be folks here in Washington, hat in hand, coming to
Republicans, saying, Give us a Big Government solution.
And the question will come to this Congress, Are we going to do
something about the underlying problem? And whether that approach is
through a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax or incentives for
renewables, what are we going to do to prevent farmers in this country
from being driven out of business? This bill does nothing.
Sure, you can hand them government money. You can hand them taxpayer
money, if that's the lack of regard that you have for taxpayer money,
you want to hand it out to whoever comes to town and begs for it. Go
right ahead. And I have some rooftop terrace restaurant owners in my
district. Give them some while you are at it.

{time} 1100

That's not a solution. That's what got us into this budget deficit.
That's what got us into this hole. Let's address the underlying issue
of climate change in a scientific manner, have the real political
discussions that are necessary to negotiate a bipartisan solution that
reduces our carbon emissions, reduces the impact of climate change on
American farmers, reduces the incidence and severity of droughts across
the United States of America, and also be the global leaders that we
need to be on this critical issue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague if he
has any more speakers or if he is ready to close.
Mr. POLIS. I am the only remaining speaker, and I am prepared to
close.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I will close after the gentleman closes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment which
proposes that Congress will not adjourn until the President signs
middle class tax cuts into law.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question. This will give us the opportunity to
renew middle class tax cuts. When we talk about job creation, when we
talk about growing our economy, the need to make sure that we don't
increase taxes on the middle class during a recess is something
economists from both sides of the aisle agree on, something Democrats
agree on. I hope Republicans agree, too, that we shouldn't raise taxes
on at least 98 percent of Americans.
Then let's have the discussion about the other 2 percent. But let's
agree on what we agree on. Let's not raise taxes on 98 percent of
American families before Congress goes on break. Before the Republicans
send us all home to enjoy our summers, let's do something about jobs.
Let's do something about the economy, and let's demand that we give
middle class families across America the surety and the security to
know that they're not going to need to pay an additional $1,000 a year
in taxes, an additional $2,000 a year in taxes.
I think it is critical, and I call upon my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we
can bring forward this critical amendment to provide the certainty that
America needs to grow our economy and create jobs.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleague across the
aisle, I don't understand why our friends can't take yes for an answer.
We want to extend the tax cuts that were begun over 10 years ago to
everyone in this country. We agree with that, and that's what we're
doing. We don't want to raise taxes on anyone.
I would also like to commend to my colleague across the aisle, who
represents a group of people who only ask for bipartisan cooperation
when they're in the minority, a book by Australian geologist Ian Plimer
who wrote a book called ``Heaven and Earth,'' which I think really does
do a scientific presentation of what is happening in terms of climate
change.
Last, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that my colleague is trying to
deal with a chicken and egg issue relative to infrastructure and how
does infrastructure get funded. He wants to say that this all comes
from the benevolent government, but he conveniently leaves out the fact
that the government doesn't create wealth. All our government does is
spend wealth, and in many cases waste the fruits of hardworking
Americans by doing things often very inefficiently. Public
infrastructure is funded by the taxes that we take away from
hardworking Americans.
Entrepreneurs predated the government in our country. And we all know
that the Constitution was written to try to establish a limited
government in our country so that the entrepreneurial spirit could
thrive, as it has in most cases. My colleague talks about the
government enabling entrepreneurs. Excuse me, I don't believe the
government does a lot to enable the private sector. What most people in
the private sector will tell you is just get the government out of my
way. Get the foot of the government off my neck, and I will do just
fine.
I know my colleague has been in the private sector and created a lot
of wealth for himself, and I applaud him for doing that. But most of
the people that I know, Mr. Speaker, who are in the private sector
would simply say the government isn't enabling me at all. Leave me
alone, and I'll do just fine.
Mr. Speaker, talk about taking the President's words out of context,
as I think my colleague knows, when you put the President's words in
context, they are even more disturbing than outside of context. I do
believe that our President does believe that the government is the
solution, and most of us think the government is the problem. I urge my
colleagues to support this rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 752 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution
(H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent
resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die
unless a law is enacted to provide for the extension of
certain expired or expiring tax provisions that apply to
middle-income taxpayers if called up by Representative
Slaughter of New York or her designee. All points of order
against the resolution and against its consideration are
waived. (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

[[Page H5648]]

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

Ms. FOXX. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 182, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 548]

YEAS--236

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
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
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--182

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

NOT VOTING--12

Akin
Black
Burton (IN)
Cardoza
Cohen
Costello
Fleischmann
Graves (MO)
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Yoder

{time} 1132

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California and Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 181, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 549]

AYES--235

[[Page H5649]]

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

NOES--181

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

NOT VOTING--14

Akin
Black
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Cardoza
Cohen
Costello
Fleischmann
Graves (MO)
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kissell
Yoder

{time} 1140

Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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.

____________________