Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5939-H5948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 117, CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2013; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 6365, NATIONAL SECURITY AND JOB PROTECTION ACT

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 778 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 778

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 117) making continuing appropriations
for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the joint resolution are
waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the joint resolution
are waived. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the joint resolution 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
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6365) to
amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 to replace the sequester established by the Budget
Control Act of 2011. All points

[[Page H5940]]

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
the Budget; and (2) one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. House Resolution 778 is a closed rule for the
consideration of two bills, H.R. 6365, which is the National Security
and Job Protection Act, and H.J. Res. 117, which is the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution for FY13.
Mr. Speaker, I'm a freshman on the Rules Committee. It's a good
committee to be on. I enjoy it. I get to work with learned Members like
my friend from Florida, who is across the aisle, but it falls to me to
handle continuing resolution bills. As you'll remember, when we showed
up at the beginning of 2011, there was a lot of unfinished business
from 2010, and we went right into continuing resolution act to
continuing resolution act to continuing resolution act--sometimes 2 and
3 weeks at a time. That's no way to run a government. It's no way to
have a Congress.
My friend from Florida and I disagree on a great deal of policy, but
we believe that a deliberative process yields better results than the
``right here, right now, hurry up and wait'' kind of mentality that
this body so often adopts. So what we've done here today with this
bill, with this H.J. Res. 117, is to say we understand that the
appropriations responsibilities of this Congress have not yet been
completed. The Constitution gives this Congress--not just this body,
but this Congress--the responsibility of providing appropriations for
this Nation.
Now, as the Speaker knows full well, this House has set about getting
its business done. We divided those appropriations bills up across a
number of bills. The Commerce-Justice-Science bill passed this House
with a bipartisan majority. It went to the Senate, and the Senate had
no floor action whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, you know that the Energy and
Water bill passed this House with a bipartisan majority. It went to the
Senate, and the Senate did nothing with it whatsoever. You know that
the Homeland Security bill passed this body--again, with a bipartisan
majority. It went to the Senate, and the Senate took no action. I can
go on and on and on. There is the leg branch bill, the military
construction bill, the defense bill, on and on and on.
So here we are. We don't have control over the Senate. We only have
control over what goes on here in this body, and I've got to tell you
that I'm proud as a freshman that we've set about getting our business
done. With one deliberative bill at a time and one open rule on
appropriations bills at a time, we allowed every Member of this body to
come to the floor to offer their amendments and to have their voices
heard in order to produce the very best work product that we could
produce. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that we did that at a funding level
even lower than what the American taxpayer asked of us in the Budget
Control Act. I'm very proud of that work.

{time} 1320

But in the absence of the Senate taking action, Mr. Speaker, we have
to move on. The American people are going to have a referendum in this
country. They're going to have a referendum on what fiscal
responsibility means.
We're going to have an election in November, and new House Members
are going to come and new Senate Members are going to come. The
administration may change. We're going to have that opportunity for all
of us as citizens to speak out in November and choose a path for 2013.
But our business today, Mr. Speaker, is making sure the doors stay open
moving into 2013.
As my colleagues know, in the absence of action, Mr. Speaker,
government offices begin to close on October 1 of this year, one by
one--national parks, veterans services, Social Security services,
Medicare services. That's not the kind of governing responsibility that
we all swore an oath to uphold.
So I'm pleased to be here today, Mr. Speaker, to bring this rule to
the floor to say, yes, we have gotten our work done in this House, but
we've been stymied by the leadership in the Senate that has not
scheduled votes on these bills, but we will not allow the American
taxpayer and American citizens to pay the price of inaction by the
United States Senate. We will make sure that government services
continue with this great referendum that this great Republic will have
in November. It's a 6-month continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker, and it
will solve that need.
This rule also, Mr. Speaker, provides for consideration of H.R. 6365.
It's called the National Security and Job Protection Act, but what it
is is a sequester replacement bill. Mr. Speaker, I don't know that I've
ever been more disgusted in my 18 months in this body.
We came together here in this House in a bipartisan fashion. We
passed the Budget Control Act, which gave six House Members and six
Senate Members--six Republicans, six Democrats--12 Members of this
Congress, esteemed Members of this Congress, talented, bright,
conscientious, American-loving Members of this Congress, an opportunity
to look at our entire budget. They didn't just look at the $3.8
trillion that we'd spend this year, Mr. Speaker, not just that $3.8
trillion, but next year, and the year after that, and the year after
that, well into the three-generational window. It was hundreds of
trillions of dollars these 12 men and women had an opportunity to look
at to find bipartisan agreement.
About 4 months they worked on that project, Mr. Speaker, and you know
how that story turns out. After 4 months of labor by 12 of the
brightest, most conscientious Members of this body--six Republicans,
six Democrats, six House Members, six Senate Members--looking at
hundreds of trillions of dollars in tax expenditures in social
programs, in taxes and tax cuts, they agreed on absolutely nothing. Not
one dollar out of hundreds of trillions did they come together on. That
was a tremendous disappointment.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in order to try to bring agreement to that
body, we passed legislation that implemented what they called the
sequester, to say, if against all odds this joint select committee were
to fail--candidly, it was not on my radar screen that they would. This
was a solemn responsibility. These were talented Members who were
assigned to it. But if they were to fail, we would implement automatic
spending cuts that would achieve the kind of budget reductions that
every American knows that we need. The problem in this town is
spending, and the sequester said we will not fail on this opportunity
to address it.
Well, that sequester goes into effect in January of next year, and
hardest hit will be the United States military. Again, this was a
device that was put into place not because folks thought it was the
best policy in the room, but to be there as the hammer to say surely
this 12-member committee, this joint select committee will come to the
agreement that will bring us back from this fiscal cliff. They didn't.
Now this sequester hangs over the head of not just the United States
military, but over Medicare, over social programs.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm just so proud to be a freshman Member of this
House. This House said back in the spring that is an unacceptable
outcome. It was never intended to be the outcome. No one ever desired
that it be the outcome, and we can change that outcome.
So we passed a sequester replacement right here in this House that
went into mandatory spending programs, which is where the real problem
is in the budget, as we all know, and said let's replace the sequester
that may harm

[[Page H5941]]

defense--cuts that are going to deal with our military, that are going
to put our national security at risk, and let's replace those with
spending reductions that make sense.
Again, we passed that in the House. The Senate has taken no action
whatsoever.
I don't mean to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they've taken no action on
our bill. They most certainly have not. They're under no obligation to.
It's the right thing to do, but they're under no obligation. They are
under an obligation to do something about it. They are under an
obligation to stand up and listen to the same constituents that my
colleague from Florida and I listen to to say there must be action. We
must prevent this tremendous threat to our readiness, to our troops,
and to our troops' families.
This bill, introduced in this body by Colonel Allen West of Florida,
gives us an opportunity to do just that in the bipartisan, open-minded
way that I think has characterized the 18 months that I've served in
this House because of the leadership of folks like you, Mr. Speaker. It
doesn't say you have to use the House-passed bill already.
Was it a good bill? Absolutely. Was it the right answer? I believe
that it is.
But what it says is use the House-passed bill or use something like
it. If you can find a better plan, if the Senate, in its wisdom, can
find a better plan, that's going to work, too. It's not our way or the
highway. It's that we know that there's a right way and a wrong way to
deal with our budget challenges, and we want to do it the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I rise in strong
support of the two underlying provisions, as well. I look forward to
the debate on that this afternoon. We're going to be able to debate
these individually, which I believe is the right way to handle
questions of this magnitude and this importance.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from my neighboring State of
Georgia, whom I consider to be one of the most conscientious,
hardworking individuals in the Congress, and I appreciate the fact that
he's 18 months here in the Congress. He and I know that he understands
this institution considerably, having worked here for a number of
years, and I'm grateful the process allows and he has allowed that I
receive the traditional 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides, as has been said, for consideration
of two bills. To identify them again, H.J. Res. 117 is the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, and H. Res. 6365 is the National Security
and Job Protection Act.
When my colleague began his remarks, he said the magic words, ``This
is a closed rule.'' When I was, as he, 18 months in the House in 1992
and I would be on radio, people were talking about how awful it was
that the Democrats had so many closed rules. The Democrats lost the
election that following year in 1994, and one of the leading reasons
was closed rules. Yet we find ourselves on something as important as
the financial circumstances of this country coming to the floor at the
11th hour with a closed rule, and, in fact, not having many more days
that we are scheduled to be here, but having absolutely no reason why
we could not be here at any point in time between now and the time that
our financial circumstances would begin to be, as they are, much worse.
Maybe the Republicans should have added a third entitled resolution. I
would call it the ``No More Getting Anything Done in This Congress
Act,'' because that is the message of this particular package.
This continuing resolution is merely a reminder that my friends in
the majority were unable to complete work on the regular appropriations
bills.

{time} 1330

Instead of devoting congressional time to tackling the needs of
essential government programs, Republicans have spent the summer trying
to repeal the health care law, giving away benefits to the oil and gas
industry, and chipping away repeatedly at women's rights.
Now, my colleague is correct in many respects to point out that the
other body presents us with challenges, but it is not as if the other
body has not done something. Let me tell you one of the measures that I
have a continuing interest in because of my constituency, and that is
that the Senate has passed a farm bill for a 5-year extension.
What my colleagues or leadership on the Republican side will not do
is put that farm bill here on the floor even though we are faced in
this country with a residual from one of the worst droughts that
America has ever experienced. Even though food prices for all of the
people in this country are continuously rising, here we are with this
time that the chair of the Agriculture Committee and the ranking member
begging the leadership, cannot find time for it to be on this floor.
Instead of devoting our time to tackling the needs of essential
government programs, we decide that we're going to attack women's
rights.
Now, suddenly, you seem to have awakened to the looming, described,
fiscal cliff. It's kind of good that you've noticed; but rather than
address this challenge head on, the Republicans are pushing a bill that
doesn't do anything. The sequester replacement does not actually
prevent the sequester with a prudent mix, and every panel that has
looked at this says that we have to have a prudent mix of spending cuts
and revenue increases. What the Republicans simply do is kick the can
down the road, which is no surprise.
I said in an earlier Rules meeting, and it was during the Olympics,
that if kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, then
Congress and the Republican majority would win gold, bronze, silver,
and tin. This poor can doesn't have much more space to be kicked on,
and I can tell you it places the burden on someone else to deal with
this in the future. And this is what my Republican colleagues would
call fiscal responsibility?
We got into this mess because of the massive deficits the Republicans
piled on this country. Two wars in the Middle East not paid for, huge
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans--for those among us that are in a
high-paying position--and huge, unpaid prescription drug benefits are
all things that Republican Members in this House voted for despite the
huge costs that would be imposed.
In fact, just 61 bills have been signed into law this year, the
fewest in more than 60 years. In all of 2011, only 90 bills were signed
into law. When Democrats controlled both Chambers in 2010, 258 bills
were signed into law.
Now, I don't want to sound like I'm the only person who is making
this observation that is being made. Let me cite two people, especially
here inside the Beltway, that have made this observation, and that are
generally respected as nonpartisan and accepted as experts by
Republicans and Democrats.
We on this side are not the only ones who have noticed the lack of
productivity that I just identified with the 61 bills. Norman Ornstein
and Thomas Mann wrote in a Washington Post column, the two gentlemen,
and I am quoting them:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for
more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this
dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both
parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we
have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the
problem lies with the Republican Party.

That's from two particularly nonpartisan observers that everybody
around here recognizes as experts. Now we are asked to support the
Romney-Ryan vision of America, which ignores any responsibility for
today's economic difficulties and instead demands that those who have
the least in this great country should sacrifice the most. While
Republicans last year were fighting tooth and nail to default on our
debt obligations and crash the economy, millions of Americans were
fighting to keep their jobs and millions lost them.
Millions of Americans were fighting to pay off their mortgages, and
millions could not pay them. Millions of Americans were seeking access
to quality health care, and they could not afford it. Millions of
children of parents who wanted them to go to college are finding
themselves without the capacity to get a decent education largely for
the reasons that I have suggested.
But under the Romney-Ryan vision those priorities should take a back
seat

[[Page H5942]]

to increase defense spending, and yet give more tax cuts for the
wealthiest among us in our society. When it comes to Medicare and
Medicaid, student loans and public safety, the Republicans are quick to
dismiss billions of dollars in essential funding with a wave of their
hand and the crocodile tears of deficit reduction. But when the defense
contractors stand to lose just $1, Republicans suddenly find their
fighting spirit and cry about a weakening America.
It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans can't shake off their do-
nothing indolence to fight as hard for all Americans as they do for the
richest.
We have a long list of programs, tax cuts, and activities set to
expire at the end of this year; but rather than confront those
challenges head on, Republicans are wasting our time with do-nothing
bills. I suppose that when you have absolutely no ideas to offer
besides tax cuts for those that are better off among our society, you
may as well campaign on a platform of ``we have no ideas or even a plan
to offer.'' But the American people need and deserve much more.
Mr. Speaker, I reject the Republican notion that a do-nothing
Congress can help grow our economy, create more jobs, and address the
many challenges facing this Nation from crumbling infrastructure to the
impossibly high cost of education; and I also reject the Romney-Ryan
vision that the only solution, at least that they have offered to these
challenges, is tax cuts that help the rich and increase military
spending.
My Republican colleagues paint a very pessimistic vision, Mr.
Speaker, of a country where it appears to them that we have given up on
trying to better everyone's lives and instead use the public's
resources to enrich those who have already made it.
But I believe differently. We can afford to invest in our future. We
can afford to create jobs. We can afford to make the choices now that
will reap benefits for future generations--right now.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1340

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
before I yield to my freshman colleague from Pennsylvania, to say to my
friend from Florida, I don't think you heard the word ``Democrat'' come
out of my mouth during my presentation except to talk about those
things on which we cooperated together. There are absolutely challenges
in this Chamber, but the challenges I'm talking about are challenges
with the United States Senate.
Democrats and Republicans in this body came together to pass 7 of the
12 appropriations bills this cycle. We began back in April. Far from
being an 11th-hour solution, we began, as the Constitution requires us
to begin, one piece of legislation at a time in the most open process
this body can implement, Mr. Speaker, where every Member of this body
gets to offer any amendment that they desire. Seven appropriations
bills we've moved through this body, Mr. Speaker. And then it became
apparent, as the Senate has moved not one of 12 bills, that that
process was going to be fruitless--fruitless.
Again, is that what the American people want from us? Absolutely not.
Are we doing what the American people deserve in this body? Absolutely
we are. In my 18 months, I have not found it to be a Republican-
Democratic problem. I've found it to be a problem of ideas.
I said to my friend from Florida, I know that he believes in his
heart every single word that he has just enunciated. He speaks for
inspiration, Mr. Speaker. I have the great pleasure of sitting behind
him on the dais in the Rules Committee, so it's always his words that
inspire me before it's my turn to take the microphone.
My constituents back home, they say, Rob, what have you learned in 18
months with a voting card? I said, What I have learned is it's not
theater on the other side of the aisle. Folks aren't taking to the
microphone for their 15 seconds of fame on television. They're taking
to the microphone with heartfelt beliefs that they know in their heart
to be a reflection of their constituents back home.
And so as we hear two different presentations about what it is we're
doing today--a presentation that suggests it's an 11th-hour, last-
minute process versus that presentation that says we've done it all
right in the openness of day, and here, 4 weeks before the deadline
approaches us, we are going to take action to make sure that
uncertainty does not further slow this economy.
I'm told, Mr. Speaker, that the fewer days Congress is in session,
the higher the stock market goes because at least nothing bad happens
here. We're the problem, Mr. Speaker. Government is not the solution.
Government is too often the problem.
The last Congress that passed as few bills as this Congress has
passed, it was the 104th Congress, when Republicans took control of
this House for the first time in over 60 years, because they were
elected then not to expand the size and scope of government but to
improve the size and scope of government, to reform those processes.
What my friend from Florida says about 2005, 2006, unfunded priority
after unfunded priority, I'd love to tell him he's wrong, but he's
absolutely right. He's absolutely right. The American taxpayer knew it,
and Republicans in this Chamber paid the price for it in the very next
election. That's the ace in the hole for America, Mr. Speaker, the
American taxpayer. They're paying attention to what happens here.
My colleague may believe that we're on the wrong track. I'll tell
you, in 18 months, I've never been more proud for what this institution
has done. We're going to find out when the American taxpayer speaks out
in that referendum November 6.
With that, Mr. Speaker, there are 87 new freshmen in this freshman
class and two more added. I yield 2 minutes to a freshman colleague
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution.
This week's violent ambush at the United States Embassy in Cairo and
the brutal attacks against U.S. diplomats in Benghazi serve as a blunt
reminder that countries in the Middle East have been increasingly
unstable and anti-American. The brutal attacks also emphasize the fact
that the United States cannot continue to use taxpayer dollars to
bankroll countries, with no conditions. We should immediately suspend
all funding for those countries that refuse to meet strict conditions
and fail to take adequate measures to prevent the loss of American
lives.
Egypt has been one of the five top countries receiving the most U.S.
aid over the past decade, and President Obama said he doesn't think we
would consider Egypt an ally. Certain countries continue to serve as a
safe haven for those who wish to cause harm to Americans and tear down
our fundamental principles of freedom and liberty. Such actions merit
repercussions, not a continued free flow of American tax dollars.
When our Nation has a debt of more than $16 trillion and people in my
district in Pennsylvania are struggling to find jobs to support their
families, it is past time that we reconsider funding to people that
wish harm on the United States. It is time to end the practice of
appeasement and take a staunch position regarding Libya, Egypt, and
others in order to ensure a more calculated, tactful approach.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good
friend and colleague, Mr. McGovern, I would just urge my colleague from
Pennsylvania to know that all of us are mindful, and rightfully should
be concerned, about what's transpired in the Middle East. But he cites
to one set of finances, and I would urge that he look at how and why
the United States is involved in a compact with the Egypt military for
the moneys that are distributed there, and not base it on what is
happening today but look at what has happened throughout the years to
assist in stabilizing that area. It didn't just happen overnight. It
happened as a result of a serious compact in peace negotiations.
I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my colleague for the time, and I rise
in very strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, if I could create a rule that would best sum up the
Republican

[[Page H5943]]

leadership of this House over the past 2 years, this would be it,
because this rule represents everything we have seen over the length of
this Congress. It's a closed rule that stifles debate, and it's a rule
that makes in order partisan, meaningless legislation that will do
nothing--absolutely nothing--to address the real issues facing the
American people.
I voted against the sequester because it was a lousy idea and a
terrible way to run a government.
But let's be clear: This bill does not stop the sequester. It simply
kicks the can down the road once again and prohibits any effort to
address our fiscal situation that raises a single dime of revenue. The
Republican approach is not fair, it is not balanced, and it stands no
chance of becoming law.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the American people are wondering
why Congress isn't focused on their concerns. Where is the
comprehensive jobs legislation, like the Make it In America plan?
Nowhere to be found. Where is the middle class tax cut bill that passed
the Senate? Not on this House floor. Where is the bipartisan farm bill
and drought relief bill that passed the Senate, or the Violence Against
Women Act or postal reform? Not here on this floor. Where is the big,
bipartisan, balanced plan to reduce the deficit? Not here. And where--
and this one really bugs me, Mr. Speaker--where in the world is a full
and fair debate on the war in Afghanistan?
It's absolutely stunning to me that Governor Romney accepted the
nomination of his party and asked the American people for their votes
to be Commander in Chief without even mentioning the longest war in
U.S. history, a war that continues to do this and continues to claim
the lives of American servicemen and -women, a war for which we are
borrowing tens of billions of dollars every month.
Apparently, the Republican leadership of this House would like to
ignore these big issues and instead focus on meaningless sound bites
for their 30-second political commercials. It is no wonder that the
public has the lowest regard for Congress in history. I guess the
Republican plan is to do next to nothing and to get out of town as
quickly as possible--even though we just got back from a 5-week
recess--and hope that the American people don't notice we were even
here.
It's a sad day for the people's House, Mr. Speaker. And let me remind
my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House. It is not the
House of Big Oil, it is not the House of Big Banks, Big Business, or
special interest super PACs. This is the people's House, and I hope the
people take it back.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

{time} 1350

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'd just like to remind my colleague from Massachusetts how we ended
up here; and, again, we ended up in a way I think that we can all be
proud of.
Take ourselves back to April of this year. Again, this is the 2013
funding bill we're talking about. We sit here in September of 2012,
we're talking about funding 2013 spending. We began this process back
in April on the floor of this House, bill after bill after bill passing
in a bipartisan way.
The Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs bill, Mr. Speaker. What
could be more important and what could be more bipartisan? Passed this
House 407-12. We went through that bill, Mr. Speaker. We went to every
single Member of this Chamber. Not just 435, Mr. Speaker. We went to
every delegate as well and said do you have a voice that needs to be
heard on this floor on this issue and gave every Member that
opportunity.
At the end of that, Mr. Speaker, which was just a free-for-all of
democracy right here--it was our Republic at its best--this House came
together, 407-12, to pass that bill. Mr. Speaker, 226 Republicans, most
of our number, 181 Democrats, most of their number, passed that bill--
407-12 for our military and our veterans. That bill didn't see the
light of day on the Senate side, Mr. Speaker.
Our failure to pass this continuing resolution today sees those
dollars go to zero. Far from being an abdication of responsibility,
this is the height of taking responsibility. Abdication of
responsibility has already happened. I can't fix it. I can't change it.
We did our business here in this House. But we are being held hostage.
And by ``we,'' I mean we, the citizens of this country. I mean ``we,''
the voters of this country. Those with the priorities of this land, we
are being held hostage by a Senate that is finding other priorities,
priorities other than military construction and our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, it doesn't end there with Military Construction. It goes
on. It goes through Leg Branch appropriations, Homeland Security
appropriations, Energy and Water appropriations, Transportation and
Housing and Urban Development appropriations.
How about Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, Mr.
Speaker? I mean, when you listen to some of the voices on this floor,
there's a reason, there's a benefit to being a Southerner and talking
slow. It gives your blood pressure time to come down just a little bit
before the words begin to come out of your mouth, because
Transportation, including mass transit, Housing and Urban Development,
those programs for the neediest among us, passed this House 261-163 in
a huge bipartisan majority; 182 Republicans, 79 Democrats came together
to say let's focus on the priorities of our constituents back home.
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. Let's move that
bill through this body. Again, Mr. Speaker, in the most open process
this institution can imagine where every single Member has a chance to
be heard, where every single Member can offer their amendments right
here in the well.
There are no voices that are being quieted here. We all represent
American citizens back home. It's their voices that get shut out.
Do we have a closed rule today on this continuing resolution? We do.
I think back, Mr. Speaker, I know you do, too, to H.R. 1, back in the
spring of 2011. It's the only continuing resolution I've ever known of
that came under an open rule, and boy did we have a show of democracy
here.
It began on a Tuesday, Mr. Speaker. Congress was supposed to adjourn
by Thursday afternoon; but by early in the morning on Thursday, it was
clear we were nowhere near done. As a freshman, I was a little cynical
about this process. I had a suspicion the leadership was going to close
that process down because Members had planes to catch and events to go
to, and after all, all it was was a continuing appropriations bill.
You know what this leadership said, Mr. Speaker? They said not on our
watch. We're going to go into Thursday night. And I don't mean Thursday
night at 9. I mean Thursday night past midnight. We're going to go all
night long. We're going to go all night long into Friday. We're going
to go Friday to noon and Friday through dinner and all night long on
Friday night. We finished at 5 a.m. on Saturday morning.
Mr. Speaker, I jumped on the first flight out of National. Flew home.
Did a town hall meeting no later than 3 hours after we adjourned that
Saturday morning. I was on fire because this House gave every single
Member a chance to offer every single amendment that their constituents
would have them do. That was extraordinary.
We can't do that every day. We can't go marathon sessions 5 days, day
and night. I'm young and vigorous, Mr. Speaker, but I've got to tell
you, some folks may not be able to handle it. I'm with you, Mr.
Hastings, if you're ready to go those days and nights. I'll do them
with you.
But we did that, those 12 appropriations bills. We did that in this
body. Not all in one package, but one at the time, at the time, and the
Senate said no.
Our choice here today is do we close the doors at these agencies? Do
we close the doors on these social services? Do we go through another
one of those government shutdown scenarios that benefit absolutely no
one, or do we do the right thing which is observe our budget caps,
continue to reduce spending? That's right, Mr. Speaker, you know as
well as I do on these appropriations bills, on this discretionary
spending we spent less in 2011 than they spent in 2010. We spent less
in 2012 than we spent in 2011. And if we pass this bill, we'll spend
less in 2013 than we spent in 2012.
It hasn't happened since before World War II. Three years in a row,
Mr.

[[Page H5944]]

Speaker, of this body coming together and telling the American people
we can do better with less. That's what this bill is about today, Mr.
Speaker.
Again, strong supporter of this rule. Strong supporter of the two
underlying measures.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My good friend from Georgia speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On
the one hand, you're saying that we began this process open and this
democracy flourished, and you were so passionate about it until when we
left at 5 a.m. in the morning you rushed home and you were on fire.
I'm curious to know when we finish up here, ostensibly tomorrow
afternoon, what is it that would cause us not to be able to be here and
allow, as you put it, every Member to have his or her say for their
constituents on this measure?
But, no, we're here on a closed rule.
I understand that the government has to continue and that's why we
are doing a continuing resolution, but I also know we could have done
an omnibus bill, and I also know that my colleague and others were the
ones that caused this country to come to the brink and our credit
rating to be assaulted; and you are going to tell me that we can't stay
here tomorrow, that we can't come back here after the holidays or
tomorrow and stay here if need be to get this done?
But, no, we're doing it now before April so that when we come back,
we will be faced with the same crisis, and the only thing that's going
to change is the faces and the places that the people come from, and
all I'm saying is let's do it now. Let's do those things that you were
talking about. And if it requires 5 a.m. in the morning, let's do it at
5 a.m. in the morning. I'm 76 and I'm still staying up. I don't know
about you.
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to my colleague from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. I'm grateful to my friend for yielding.
I'd say to the gentleman, I think we would be here until 5 a.m. yet
again. But our experience, as was our experience on H.R. 1, is time and
time again we do the people's work here and the Senate says, no. I have
had no indication from the Senate that they will accept anything in
that body except this continuing resolution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, first I ask my
colleague. You know and I know you have farm interests in Georgia the
same as I do, not necessarily the same, but we have farm interests in
Georgia and farm interests in Florida. The Senate did pass the farm
bill.
Can my colleague tell me why we don't have the farm bill on the floor
during all of this period of time? We could at least do that in light
of the disaster relief that took place.
Mr. WOODALL. If the gentleman will yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to my friend.
Mr. WOODALL. I'd say that I regret I'm not high enough up the chain
to know all the strategic decisions, but I will tell you that the bill
that came out of the Senate is a sad 2-year bill that provides
absolutely no certainty to any of the farmers in my district. It spends
more and provides less certainty.

{time} 1400

The farmers in my district say, Rob, we need a farm bill, but why
can't you do it right? And I know my colleague would agree with me.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Where did you get the number 2-year rather
than 5-year bill from? Because the 5-year proposal is what the chair of
the Agriculture Committee, your and my colleague, Mr. Lucas, is seeking
to offer. But I don't want to get us caught in the weeds.
Let me go ahead and yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Could I inquire of the Chair how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 10 minutes remaining for the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank Mr. Hastings for the opportunity to rise in
opposition to the rule for the CR.
The continuing resolution contains $99.9 billion in the Overseas
Contingency Operation funds to continue the war in Afghanistan and to
fund other operations in the so-called ``war on terror.'' This is on
top of over $1.3 trillion we've already spent in waging war abroad.
This is a war that costs U.S. taxpayers $2 billion a week. It's a war
that, according to the Congressional Research Service, has cost the
lives of nearly 2,000 U.S. servicemembers and has resulted in another
17,519 being injured, yet the war seems to have fallen from headlines
and our national conscience, and this is wrong.
We cannot afford another $100 billion on a war that will never result
in stability in Afghanistan or the region. This war against Afghanistan
boomeranged against the Soviet Union; it's boomeranging against our
country.
When you look at the amount of money that is being spent--not just
for the war, but for the United States Pentagon, we're looking at a
fiscal '13 budget of $613 billion, spending more money than every other
country in the world almost combined for so-called ``defense.''
Now, we have an obligation to defend our country, but we also have an
obligation for housing, for health care, for education, for retirement
security. If you're concerned about Congress regaining authority under
article I, section 8, then we should be voting to end this war right
now by striking the money for it. If you're concerned about the debt,
then we should be voting to end this war by taking money away from
funding and then you could contribute that to resolving the debt. If
you're concerned about emboldening radicals in other countries who are
following in on the wake of our invasions, then we should be taking the
money out of this for more war. If you're concerned about the budget,
that it doesn't have enough for jobs and housing and health care and
education and energy and the environment, then end the war now, vote
against it. If you're concerned about America taking steps to create
peace, then we should get this money out of this budget which creates
more war.
This is time for us to reclaim our country, which we're losing not
just to war, but to a national security state like yesterday when we
voted as a House--I voted against it--to empower security agencies to
be able to intercept the phone calls of anybody in the United States
who makes calls internationally.
We have got to reclaim our Nation. This CR doesn't do it. This is the
same old, same old, same old war, national security state, forget the
real needs of the American people. I'm going to vote against this rule
and I'm going to vote against the underlying bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I'd say to my friend from Florida that I
have no further speakers remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I also have no further speakers and I'm
prepared to close, and I thank the distinguished gentleman.
I also would like to offer an apology to my colleague. I committed a
parliamentary faux pas when I said you speak out of both sides of your
mouth. In the heat of the moment, I guess what I was trying to say is
you said one thing one way than you said at another point in time, so I
offer you my deepest my apologies.
Mr. Speaker, we will soon start another long district work period
even though we haven't given the middle class an extension of tax cuts
for the next year. If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to
offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House won't leave
town until middle class tax cuts are signed into law. The first step is
to give this House a vote on the middle class tax cut, introduced by
Mr. Levin, which is the same proposal the Senate has already passed and
the President is eager to sign.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gardner). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is an upside to the
Republicans' ``do-nothing'' Congress.

[[Page H5945]]

First, it creates a clear contrast between the Republicans and
Democrats.
Democrats want to press forward with meaningful ideas to create jobs,
improve access to affordable health and education, and invest in the
kinds of programs that bring about progress and prosperity for all
Americans. I believe that my friends in the majority want to push
legislation that either cuts taxes for the wealthiest among us, or
increases spending on the military, or does nothing more than pay the
bills today--play politics while accomplishing nothing.
This is not about the deficit. The United States doesn't lack the
money to prioritize our future. What we do lack is the political
willpower and leadership necessary to set gainful priorities.
The Romney-Ryan vision for America is nothing more than a reckless
sellout to the ideological extremes of the Republican Party, a party
that is utterly dominated at this point in our history by a Tea Party
dogma which cares more to preserve tax cuts for the rich than to be
about the business of ensuring the well-being of our entire society.
The so-called ``sacrifices'' continually demanded by the Republican
majority in order to provide ever more money for foreign wars and tax
cuts for the wealthy are shortchanging the future of this Nation.
Continuing to move further to the right--or to the left--does not
constitute progress. Furthermore, the closed-door negotiations and
closed process is truly disheartening and does not reflect the
democracy that is supposed to be the hallmark of this institution.
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.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate my colleague for his words. A lot of folks, Mr. Speaker,
have the burden of working with folks whose motives they question. I
have the great benefit of working on the Rules Committee with a team of
folks whose motives I absolutely never question because I know folks
are operating from their heart and from their constituents' best
interest.
Let me say, because we talk so much about productivity down here on
this floor, Mr. Speaker, The Washington Times did an article earlier
this year on productivity in the House and the Senate. They called it
``the futility index''--the futility of all the efforts in the body.
They said the Senate ranked number one of all the years that they've
been keeping records; less activity going on in the Senate by a large
margin than ever before. Then they came to the House and they said, you
know what, it's true the House hasn't passed a lot of bills. As you
know, Mr. Speaker, we outlawed all of those silly commemorative bills
that were not about the people's business but were about folks and
their campaigns. Those no longer come to the floor. We eliminated a
whole portion of that that was not about the people's business. What
The Washington Times said was this: that we had more time in this House
in session than all but 10 Congresses since they began keeping records
and that we had more debate in this House, Mr. Speaker, than all but
two Congresses on record; more debate, more discussion about those
ideas and those priorities that are important to the American people.
Now, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there's not a man or woman in
my district that defines success by how many bills the President of the
United States will sign; or if they do, they find those things to be
inversely proportional. They don't want us to take over any new
industries; they don't want us to regulate any new industries; they
don't want us to pick any more winners and losers. They want us to
stop. And even better than stopping, they want us to roll those things
back.
We're having that debate in America, Mr. Speaker: Who are we? Who are
we as Americans? Who are we as a people? And what is so wonderful about
this country, despite all of our differences there has always been more
that unites Americans than that divides us, always. You can't pick up a
newspaper today, Mr. Speaker, without them talking about the
ideological divide in this country being as stark as it has ever been,
but there is still more that unites us than divides us.
I believe, when we come into this election in November, Mr. Speaker,
we're going to have the largest voter turnout in American history. I
have no idea what they're going to conclude. But I believe in this
country, and I believe that if more of us are at the ballot box
participating in this Republic--as we are required, duty bound to do--
we're going to end up with a better result.

{time} 1410

I look at the young faces in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I like to
think of myself as young, but I'm in my forties. The gentleman from
Florida expressed his age, despite his youthful vigor. It's about the
young people, Mr. Speaker.
And when the gentleman says America is strong enough that we can
handle all of these growing debt challenges, I say to the gentleman, I
admire his optimism but I disagree with his conclusion. The numbers I
look at tell me, if I take everything from everybody, if I take
everyone's house, everyone's car, everyone's bank account, if I
nationalize every single company in this country, if I take it at all
and put it in a bank account today, I still can't pay the hundreds of
trillions of dollars in promises that this Federal Government has made
to generations to come.
We don't have a problem in this country, Mr. Speaker, that we're not
taxing people enough. Our problem is that we're spending too much.
I serve on the Budget Committee as well as the Rules Committee, and
we took that challenge on head-on, head-on, Mr. Speaker. They call some
things the third rail of politics. We said, in this House, in a
bipartisan way, the third rail of politics is failing to deal with
these challenges. Failing to deal with these challenges is the problem;
dealing with them is the solution.
This wasn't a solution that everyone agreed with. It was a solution
that got the only bipartisan majority in this entire town. And we did
it not once, but twice, Mr. Speaker.
This is not a happy day. I usually come to the floor; I talk about
how excited I am to be here because we're going to do an open rule and
we're going to have the Republic at its best. That's not today.
That day was May 10 on the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations
bill, where we had every voice heard. That day was July 19 on the
Defense Department bill, where we had every voice heard passing those
bills in huge bipartisan fashion. That day was June 6, when we did it
with the Energy and Water bill, huge bipartisan majority; and again on
June 7 with the Homeland Security bill, and the Legislative Branch bill
on June 8; May 31 on Military Construction, on and on and on,
Transportation, HUD, June 29.
We've done those things, and the silence on the Senate side is
deafening. We could do all those bills again, but this House has
already spoken. The people have already spoken. And this continuing
resolution gives this body and the American people 6 months for that
referendum in November, for every voting-age man and woman in this
country to come out and have their voice heard.
We've done all we can do in this body, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I just want to ask, 6 months from now, when
we come back, if you and I are here, will you commit that we would have
that debate 6 months from now under an open rule?
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I have had no prouder moment than
our debate on H.R. 1--no prouder moment.
Though I will say to the gentleman, as the gentleman knows quite
well, it is frustrating that we can't do the business today. We tried.
As the gentleman from Florida knows, we tried all of these
appropriation bills. They weren't 6-month bills. They weren't 2-week
bills. They were entire FY13 bills, and we did them right. We did them
the way they were supposed to be done. Some people won, some people
lost, but, in the end, a bipartisan majority came together and passed
every single one. That's what

[[Page H5946]]

we should be doing here, Mr. Speaker, and we have.
The American people are going to decide in November: Is the problem
the House? Is the problem the Senate? Is the problem the executive
branch? I have my own suspicions, but I trust the American people more
than I trust any other vote that we make in this House, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I rise in strong support of this rule. I rise in strong
support of the two underlying bills, the continuing resolution bill and
our opportunity job protection sequester replacement bill.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I urge my colleagues to
support the two underlying bills.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res.
778, the Rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 117, making
further continuing appropriations for the beginning of the 2013 Fiscal
Year. This measure will continue to assure funding for all federal
government agencies and allow the government to continue its day to day
operations through March of 2013.
I am quick to note Mr. Speaker the attempt by the Rules Committee
Ranking Member, Ms. Slaughter to amend the rule for H.R. 6365 to make
in order and provide the appropriate waivers for amendment #1 offered
by the Budget Committee Ranking Member Mr. Van Hollen, which would have
replaced the entire sequester for 2013 with savings from specific
policies that reflect a much-needed balanced approach to deficit
reduction. The entire House should have been allowed to debate Mr. Van
Hollen's measure even though I had serious concerns about the
substance. Nevertheless, the debate is one that we should have.
I rise in support of making further continuing appropriations for the
beginning of the 2013 Fiscal Year. This measure will continue to assure
funding for all federal government agencies and allow the government to
continue its day to day operations through March 27 of 2013.
I am also rising in support of helping families in Houston cope.
I am rising in support of Texans who need critical Federal Government
goods and services.
I rise in support of people who are clinging to their jobs--the
working poor.
I rise in support of those on Medicaid who are beholden to the
governor of Texas who is in the business of rejecting federal funds and
then using them to prop up his budget numbers.
I rise in support of the elderly.
I rise in support of military veterans.
I rise in support of children.
Today, the House will consider H.J. Res. 117, Six-Month Continuing
Resolution. This Continuing Resolution will fund the government through
March 27, 2013. The Senate is expected to consider the House-passed
Continuing Resolution next week.
The Continuing Resolution reflects a bipartisan agreement between
Congressional Republicans, Congressional Democrats, and the White
House--and will prevent a government shutdown and maintain the programs
and services critical to the American people.
The Continuing Resolution (``CR'') ensures a total rate of operations
for FY 2013 at $1.047 trillion--the level for FY 2013 discretionary
spending that was agreed to as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011
(PL 112-25).
As a starting point, the CR continues funding at the current rate of
operations for federal agencies, programs and services. To meet the
agreement to ensure the rate of operations at $1.047 trillion, a
government-wide, across-the-board increase of 0.6 percent over the base
rate is also included.
The CR caps funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for FY
2013 at the President's FY 2013 request of $88.5 billion--which is
$26.6 billion below the FY 2012 OCO funding level. OCO is not included
under the $1.047 trillion cap.
The CR continues funding for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund at last
year's level, with this disaster relief funding also not included under
the $1.047 trillion cap.
The CR includes a clean, six-month extension of TANF (Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families). Without this extension, cash assistance
and work support for working families would stop in FY 2013.
The CR extends the current pay freeze for federal employees, which
includes Members of the House of Representatives and Senators, as
requested by the President.
The CR also includes various provisions, often needed in a longterm
CR, to ensure adequate funding of certain key government operations and
services through the six-month period, including provisions allowing
additional funding for such things as:
The Veterans Administration to meet an increase in the disability
claims workload.
The Interior Department and the Forest Service for wildfire
suppression efforts.
The FCC to conduct spectrum auctions.
Nuclear weapons modernization efforts, to ensure the security of our
nuclear stockpile.
Sustaining Homeland Security cybersecurity efforts.
I urge my colleagues to pass this Rule and the underlying Continuing
Resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 778 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Upon completion of consideration of House
Resolution 746 the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of
rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration
of the bill (H.R. 15) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide tax relief to middle-class families. 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 Ways and
Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this
resolution.
Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House 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
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.''

[[Page H5947]]

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House
Resolution 778 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House
Resolution 778, if ordered; adoption of House Resolution 779, by the
yeas and nays; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 1775.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 178, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 572]

YEAS--235

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
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
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
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
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--178

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
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
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
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
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--16

Akin
Berg
Broun (GA)
Cleaver
Diaz-Balart
Herger
Jackson (IL)
King (NY)
Michaud
Nadler
Ross (AR)
Ryan (WI)
Schweikert
Sires
Thompson (CA)
Towns

{time} 1436

Messrs. CAPUANO, FARR, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, and Mr. WELCH
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. HARTZLER changed her 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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 182, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 573]

AYES--232

[[Page H5948]]

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
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--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
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
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
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--15

Akin
Berg
Broun (GA)
Cleaver
Diaz-Balart
Herger
Jackson (IL)
King (NY)
Michaud
Miller, George
Nadler
Ross (AR)
Ryan (WI)
Towns
Welch

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1443

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.

____________________