[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 97 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4224-H4230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2609, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 288
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. 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
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. House Resolution 288 provides for an open rule for
consideration of H.R. 2609, making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for fiscal year 2014.
This rule contains the tradition reinstated by the Republican
majority in the last Congress that appropriations bills should come to
the floor in a manner that allows every Member of the House, both
Republican and Democrat, to amend those bills and to have their voices
heard.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
bill, making appropriations for the Department of Energy and the United
States Corps of Engineers. The bill provides for $30.4 billion for
these agencies, which is $2.9 billion below fiscal year '13 enacted and
$4.1 billion below the President's request, at a time of fiscal
constraint, when government, like our constituents, must make tough
choices on where to smartly spend the money the American taxpayers have
trusted it to oversee.
The bill provides critical funding for our energy needs, making $450
million available for advanced coal, natural gas, oil and fossil fuel
technologies. Moreover, the bill provides $5.5 billion for
environmental cleanup activities, funds to safely clean sites
contaminated by nuclear weapons production.
The underlying bill before us has been carefully crafted by the
Appropriations Committee under the leadership of Chairman Rogers,
Ranking Member Lowey, Subcommittee Chairman Frelinghuysen, and
Subcommittee Ranking Member Kaptur.
Funding for energy programs is cut by $1.4 billion, while
simultaneously prioritizing funds to advance our goal of an all-of-the-
above solution to energy independence.
Further, the House continues its commitment to achieve a long-term
storage facility for nuclear waste, providing support activities in
support of the opening of Yucca Mountain, a solution long overdue.
The House energy and water bill furthers this majority's commitment
to spending taxpayer money wisely, cutting waste and inefficiencies
wherever they may be.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
[[Page H4225]]
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 2609,
the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.
Having this bill on the floor this week is another example of how we,
as a body, our Congress, has its priorities wrong. It's why Congress
has an approval rating of 12 percent.
Rather than fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it
with one that works for our country, rather than doing something about
the fact that student loan rates just doubled for students that are
incurring new loans, here we are sacrificing our renewable energy
future while simultaneously increasing spending for new and unneeded
nuclear weapons far above even the sequestration level of funding.
{time} 1230
It's no wonder this institution has the disapproval rating that it
does.
This legislation is fundamentally flawed. It underfunds programs that
not only grow our Nation's clean energy sources but also create jobs,
promote emerging technologies, and maintain critical infrastructure.
Yet, while making these cuts, it increases weapons activities by $97.7
million above the 2013 enacted levels. Here we have a bill that
prioritizes unnecessary weapons and defense programs at the expense of
our Nation's innovation and international competitiveness.
The underlying bill slashes program funding for a valuable program
called the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E.
Yesterday, in our Rules Committee, both the ranking member and the
subcommittee chair agreed that they were fans of this critical program;
yet it cuts funding by $215 million below last year's funding level.
ARPA-E was modeled after DARPA, the Department of Defense's Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has led to so many great,
innovative technologies that improve our security as a country. In its
few short years of existence, ARPA-E has funded 285 projects in 33
States that promise to transform the energy future for our country.
ARPA-E's rigorous program design and competitive project selection
process show that our taxpayer dollars are being used wisely, and the
program has paid off. Since 2009, at least 17 ARPA-E programs have
leveraged the government's small initial investment of approximately
$70 million into what is typically $500,000, $1 million, or up to $2
million in private sector capital.
I was a founder of several startup companies before I came to
Congress, and I understand the value of risk-taking and the role the
government has in promoting innovation in basic technology. I represent
a district with two major research universities that receive a combined
Federal research investment of about $700 million. Many of these basic
technologies which we as a country invest in lead to the jobs and the
companies and the consumer technologies of the future. And what could
be more critical than putting our Nation on a path to sustainable
energy development?
Just this last February, I met with an ARPA-E project team from my
district. Within the first year of receiving ARPA-E funding, this
University of Colorado project team has demonstrated important energy
yield improvements and cost-reducing potential in solar photovoltaic
power systems. That's an example of an ARPA-E project that will help
boost our economic well-being as a country and lead to our energy
independence and national security far more than a few more unneeded
nuclear missiles.
My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that this program is
essential to protecting our energy future; and that's why this program,
ARPA-E, has been lauded by Democrats and Republicans alike, as it was
in our Rules Committee yesterday evening.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also disproportionately cuts from science and
clean energy programs while bolstering wasteful spending for fossil
fuel subsidies, continuing to have our country subsidize oil and gas,
to subsidizing nuclear weapons, while making cuts in our energy future.
By maintaining these fossil fuel subsidies while cutting clean energy
research, we're prioritizing fossil fuels over innovative technologies
that actually hold the key to our clean, sustainable energy
independence.
While I appreciate that this bill has some decreases to the amount of
Federal subsidies going to the fossil fuel accounts compared to last
year--and I think it's high time that we end these subsidies to one of
America's most profitable industries--the report language from the
committee seems to be searching for a reason to spend our precious
taxpayer dollars at a time of sequestration and at a time of deficits.
How can we spend more on fossil fuels when we should be spending less?
In addition, this bill needlessly increases the funding for weapons
activities and defense programs at a time when we're winding down our
involvement in two wars that have been very costly in lives and dollars
in this last decade. That's why I'm offering an amendment with
Representative Quigley that would reduce the B61 Life Extension Program
back to the agency's request level, which would save $23.7 million in
taxpayer dollars and reduce the deficit. This bill actually increases
funding by over $20 million for these ongoing missile programs in an
era where Americans should expect our government to be more transparent
about how this money is invested.
While some of these missiles represent a strategic commitment we have
to our NATO allies, there have been growing concerns raised by the Air
Force's own Blue Ribbon Review Panel about the effectiveness and
security vulnerabilities of the B61. That's why the price for this
program has continued to rise dramatically and confidence in the
missile program has dropped. In fact, some of our NATO allies, like
Germany, have actually called for the B61s to be removed from their
borders.
Again, given our fiscal constraints, it's a time of choices. It's not
to have it all, but I think we need to ensure that taxpayer money is
not wasted on programs that fail to sufficiently protect our national
security and that in fact some of our allies don't even support.
Another unneeded increase in this funding bill, throwing more
government money after more government money, is for the W76 Life
Extension Program. The current bill requests $248 million--$13 million
more than the administration requested--because of a fear of a lack of
nuclear deterrence capability if we reduce our stockpile below the
levels required in the New START Treaty. To put that in perspective,
the START Treaty requires us to have no more than 1,550 nuclear
weapons. Isn't that enough, Mr. Speaker? How many times can we
completely obliterate not only our enemies but the entire world with
1,500 weapons?
Even this lower stockpile of nuclear weapons is, frankly, a relic of
our foreign policy during the Cold War and can be drastically reduced.
Unfortunately, this bill increased it. In fact, the Arms Control
Association identified over $39 billion in savings to the taxpayer if
it reduced our nuclear weapons stockpile to 1,000 nuclear weapons--more
than enough to deter any threat to the United States, more than enough
to obliterate humanity from the planet. We can save $39 billion by
going down to 1,000 nuclear weapons.
These are some of the many reasons why I oppose the underlying bill.
I'm very supportive of this rule coming forward from our committee that
will allow for a full and open debate. I hope that many of these ideas
that I have presented, as well as other ideas from Members on both
sides of the aisle, will prevail so the end work product of this House
is something that Democrats and Republicans can join together in
supporting--something that no longer sacrifices our renewable energy
future for yet more and more nuclear weapons today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I do feel obligated to point out that the object under discussion
currently is the rule that will allow us to debate the energy and water
appropriations bill. The rule is an open rule. If the gentleman has
disagreements with the language in the underlying bill, it's an open
rule. He's free to bring those amendments to the floor, have a full and
fair debate, both sides, one opposed, one in support; and the will of
[[Page H4226]]
the House will prevail. That is the way it should be under an open
rule.
Let me just state that I have, for the record, amendments that I will
be placing before the House. I hope they're accepted, but I will accept
the underlying bill even in the absence of those amendments. And I hope
the gentleman from Colorado will approach it in a similar spirit.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I was going to comment to the gentleman that the committee
work product, the bill before us, is a highly flawed bill. I certainly
hope that the open process and the will of the House will significantly
alter and improve upon this bill. We will find that out in the days
ahead.
It is my honor, Mr. Speaker, to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California, a former colleague on the Rules Committee
(Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, my district of Sacramento is one of the leading clean
energy economies in the country. The sharp cuts to clean energy
initiatives in this bill are deeply troubling. It will no doubt hurt
American innovation and American jobs, particularly as other nations
continue to invest in clean energy technologies. It is also not
reflective of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that our Nation
desperately needs.
At the same time, this bill addresses some of the important flood
protection priorities for my district. Sacramento is the most at-risk
metropolitan area for major flooding, as it lies at the confluence of
the American and Sacramento Rivers. We have a great deal at risk. As
the home of the State capital and half a million people, a major flood
event in Sacramento would have economic damages of up to $40 billion.
I am pleased that this bill includes nearly $70 million in funding
for Sacramento's flood protection priorities, including more than $66
million to continue construction on the Folsom Dam Joint Federal
Project. In addition, this bill includes report language, which I
requested, expressing concern with the Corps' current levee vegetation
policy. Sacramento is ground zero for the impact of the Corps'
vegetation policy. Instead of a one-size-fits-all solution, the Corps
should consider regional variances and local input, as called for under
bipartisan legislation I introduce in H.R. 399, the Levee Vegetation
Review Act.
The bill also includes report language that I also requested
expressing concern with the Corps' decision to end its section 104
crediting policy, which has halted flood protection projects from
moving forward, particularly one in west Sacramento.
Mr. Speaker, moving forward, we must also be cognizant that there are
other much-needed public safety projects that remain unfunded and
unbuilt due to a lack of a WRDA bill. We urgently need to improve
America's crumbling levee infrastructure. In Sacramento, my
constituents have taxed themselves twice and $350 million of
construction work is well under way for the Natomas Levee Improvement
Project, all while awaiting congressional authorization for over 2
years after receiving a chief's report from the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Mr. Speaker, on May 15 the Senate passed a robust WRDA bill with
clear bipartisan support of 83-14. It is my sincere hope that the House
will soon follow suit. We cannot wait until the next disaster takes
lives and wrecks our economy. This is a bipartisan issue that must be
addressed immediately in Congress.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I want to respond to something that was said in the initial opening
by the minority. The student loan bill passed this House over a month
ago. It has been sitting in the Senate for the entire month of June.
The problem with student loans could have been addressed by the other
body. It could have been addressed prior to the July 1 deadline, which
was a deadline, after all, that the Democrats had set when they were in
the majority.
So to say that the House has not done its work is in fact not
correct. The House has done its work. We await the other body to act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To further address the student loan issue, this body did pass a bill
to prevent the increase in the student loan rates that just occurred.
However, that bill--a very similar bill--failed in the Senate. So the
Kline bill failed in the Senate. So, too, a Democratic bill to provide
a 2-year extension of the student loan rates also failed in the Senate.
So at this point, the victims of all this are students in our country
who are going back to school and will be forced to borrow at twice the
rate--6.8 percent--if Congress can't get its act together. And that's
why if we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up H.R. 2574, the Keeping Student Loans Affordable Act,
sponsored by Representative George Miller, Representative Ruben
Hinojosa, myself, and several others, which would undue the recent
doubling of student loan interest rates.
It's that simple. While we work towards a market-oriented solution
along the parameters President Obama has spelled out, making sure we
have the protections in place like caps for students everywhere, we
need to at least make sure that students returning to school this fall
are not borrowing at a rate twice the rate of last year.
To discuss this bill, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hinojosa), my colleague on the Education and Workforce Committee.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 2574, entitled Keeping Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013,
legislation that would extend and fully pay for an additional year of
the 3.4 percent interest rate on subsidized Federal direct Stafford
loans.
Given that millions of students and families are struggling to afford
the skyrocketing cost of a college education, it's shocking to me that
this Congress allowed interest rates to double on July 1. I'm afraid
that this Republican-majority Congress is making college more expensive
for millions of students. With student debt surpassing $3 trillion,
another increase of $1,000 of debt would be damaging to millions of
student already struggling to afford basic expenses like rent and food.
{time} 1245
The student loan debt crisis is crushing the dreams and aspirations
of students and college graduates. High levels of debt are creating
obstacles for young people who hope to start a family, purchase a home,
and save for retirement. At this rate, they cannot accomplish those
standard goals that every American should be able to achieve.
In my view, student loan debt sets our country backward, not forward.
Without Congress' swift action, more than 7 million low- and moderate-
income students working towards a college degree will have to pay an
additional $1,000 for each loan that they borrow.
The Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013 will secure low
interest rates for an additional year as Congress works on a long-term
and sustainable approach for the Federal student loan program that
works for both students and taxpayers.
Importantly, this bill will help ensure that college remains within
reach for students who rely on Federal loans to pay for their
education. In stark contrast, the GOP student loan plan is
irresponsible and puts students in a yearly-adjustable student loan,
which will result in great unpredictability and skyrocketing costs.
What's more, the GOP bills add more debt onto students, even more than
the doubling of the interest rates.
In a globally competitive economy, an education is clearly a
necessity. This Congress should be helping students afford a college
education, not saddling them with student loan debt.
As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Training, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
do what is right and pass H.R. 2574 to reverse the student loan rate
increase.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
Again, if I recall correctly, the bill that the gentleman from Texas
just referenced has only Democratic sponsors. It is not a bipartisan
bill.
The other body, completely controlled by Democrats in the majority,
has within its power to pass a bill, conference with the Republican-
passed bill
[[Page H4227]]
here in the House, and work out the problem. They have failed to do so.
The House has done its work. The House-passed bill was received in
the Senate on the 3rd of June. It has been there for over a month. The
other body certainly has within its power to act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Again, to respond to that, the bill that the House passed
failed in the United States Senate. So, too, did a 2-year delay in
keeping the student loan rates low; that has failed in the Senate. So
we can simply say, oh, we're just not going to do anything and let
student loan rates double, or we can take it upon ourselves in this
body to try to find a new way. That's what the Democrats and Ranking
Member Miller have put forward, a way to say, look, we couldn't agree
on 2 years, we couldn't agree on a long-term solution. Let's give us a
1-year window where the kids coming back to school in a month aren't
going to be borrowing at twice the rate that they were last year.
We have the chief sponsor of the bill here to speak about it. Mr.
Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As we debate this rule, it has now been a little over a week since
interest rates on loans for millions of the neediest college students
doubled thanks to Republican obstructionism. With that doubling, those
who can afford it least will continue to be burdened under a mountain
of debt with no end in sight. Because Congress has not acted in a
responsible way, this rate increase will cost borrowers an additional
$1,000 per student per loan.
The doubling of interest rates did not have to happen. Rather than
making it more affordable for students and families to pay for college,
House Republicans decided to pass a bill that would make college more
expensive.
The bill was dead on arrival in the Senate. It was dead on arrival in
the Senate because it was worse for students than the doubling of the
interest rates, and it left the students without an option other than
the doubling of the interest rates. That's why we must act today. We
must defeat the previous question so that we can deliberate this and
get a solution until we can work on a long-term, bipartisan agreement
on this one.
The Republican plan that passed the House was totally irresponsible.
It was simply not a smart solution. It has been advertised by my
friends on the other side as a long-term fix, but we all know the
truth. The Republican bill adds more debt onto the students, even more
than doubling the interest rates.
The Republican bill also puts students in a yearly-adjustable student
loan, which will result in great unpredictability and soaring loan
costs to the students and to their families. And the insistence from
the GOP that the students pay down the national debt is outrageous and
offensive.
The student loan program is a program that the Federal Government
makes $50 billion off the back of the students, and the Republicans'
response is that the students should pay higher interest rates so they
can pay down the national deficit. The student loan program itself is
paying down the national deficit because of the profit the Federal
Government makes. It's time to stop that and make student loans
affordable for students and for their families.
This Congress simply has not done right by students. They are forcing
these students to continue to graduate with an increasing mountain of
debt while, at the same time, they lament that students are graduating
with increased debt.
That's what the Republicans offered. That's why, as my colleague from
Colorado said, it was dead on arrival when it went to the Senate. It
was dead on a bipartisan basis when it went to the Senate.
The time has come now to defeat the previous question so that we can
bring the 1-year fix to make sure that students are protected from the
doubling of the interest rate that is now occurring because of the
inaction by the Republicans in the House of Representatives.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, again, just a bit of a history lesson.
In 2007, Democratically-controlled House, Democratically-controlled
Senate passed the student loan rates. They built into the law an
expiration date of last July. Last July, a 1-year extension was passed.
This year, the Republican House passed a responsible extension. The
Senate, the other body, needs to do its work. When they do, we're here
to talk.
I now wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton).
(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the energy
and water appropriation bill.
This, historically, has been one of the first appropriation bills
brought to the floor. I'd like to inform the Members that, as is the
practice of the Republicans in the majority, it's an open rule, and
there are a number of amendments that will be made. It's my
understanding that any individual who wishes to offer an amendment can
come to the floor and do so.
The bill is coming in at $30.4 billion, which is $2.9 billion below
fiscal 2013 enacted and $4 billion below the President's request, so
the Appropriations Committee is operating in compliance with the House
budget that we passed several months ago.
This is a good rule. It's a good bill. I would hope that we can
support the rule and obviously support the bill.
I would like to also add an editorial comment on the student loan
rate issue.
Obviously, we want those interest rates to be as low as possible. But
I would point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that the
House passed a bill; it's waiting to be brought up in the other body.
They can bring it up tomorrow and vote it, send it to the President for
his signature.
Apparently, the great sin in the House-passed bill appears to be that
it moves towards an adjustable rate interest rate as opposed to a fixed
rate that is below market rates. We would all like to have zero percent
interest, obviously.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON. I'm told you have all kinds of time, so I will not yield,
but I appreciate you wanting to ask me to.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
I thank the gentleman. I just know that there have been less speakers
on the other side, and I was hoping that we might be able to use some
of the ``all kinds of time'' in a bipartisan way.
The gentleman from Texas was not accurate in saying that the House
bill awaits action in the Senate. It had a vote in the Senate; it did
not pass. So, too, a 2-year extension did not reach the cloture vote.
So, again, here we are. We can either start blaming each other--the
folks on the other side of the building--or we can actually do
something and get to work to keep student loan rates low for America's
college students.
And of course Democrats are open to tying something into market-based
rates; President Obama even proposed such. So, if that's what the
gentleman wants to do, let's engage in a discussion about that. In the
meantime, let's pass a 1-year extension so the rates don't double--
which they already did 2 weeks ago--when the kids come back to school
in the fall.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a leader on this issue and a colleague of
mine on the Education and the Workforce Committee.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the time.
A lot of American families are getting their financial aid notices
for the new academic year. Much to their chagrin, they're opening these
envelopes and finding out that the student loan that cost them 3.4
percent last year is going to cost them 6.8 percent starting this year.
This is a huge problem for the millions of American families who borrow
money to educate their children or themselves.
Now, what Congress has produced on this thus far is blame and finger-
pointing. So here's what happened:
The Republican majority passed a bill on this floor that actually
made the problem worse, that actually would cost more than just going
up to the 6.8
[[Page H4228]]
percent by about $4,000 per student over a 5-year period. They actually
poured kerosine on the fire. They sent that bill over to the Senate.
The Senate rejected the bill and didn't pass anything else.
Now, I regret all of that, but, ladies and gentlemen, we have two
choices in front of us today. We can quit on the issue and quit on
America's students, or we can try to do something about it. I think we
should try to do something about it. Here's the something:
Mr. Miller has a proposal that would keep the rates at 3.4 percent
for 1 more year. It would pay for this and not add a dime to the
deficit by closing a tax loophole that exists for fairly wealthy
people. Our proposal is we should put that bill on the floor and take a
vote on it. I hope that a majority of Members would vote ``yes'' to
help American students in this way, but we're not even requiring that.
We're simply saying that what we should do this afternoon on this floor
is put that proposal up for a vote.
In a couple of minutes, we're going to take a vote on whether to take
a vote on that question. Now, as is often the case around here, the
rules are a little backward. Those who vote ``no'' on the next vote are
voting in favor of bringing this up so that Congress can work its will.
Those who vote ``yes'' are saying we should not do that.
The choice is clear: we either take a vote and try to fix this
problem, or we quit on America's students and America's families. Let's
do our job and take a vote on this bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the other side as to
whether or not they have additional speakers?
Mr. POLIS. We're not aware of any at this time. There might be one
more coming, but if they're not here, I'm prepared to close.
Mr. BURGESS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, we wonder why this body has an approval rating of 12 percent.
Instead of tackling issues that Americans want us to tackle--like
finally fixing our broken immigration system, which, by the way, a bill
received more than two-thirds support in the Senate, Democrats and
Republicans. It's hard to get two-thirds of anybody to agree on
anything, and yet 70 percent of Americans support comprehensive
immigration reform, two-thirds of the United States Senate. Let's bring
that bill up and pass it.
Student loans? Sure, we can cast blame on the Senate. We can cast
blame on whomever we feel like. But the fact is American families are
borrowing at 6.8 percent instead of 3.4 percent--now, this fall,
student loans. So we can either just say, okay, it's not our fault, we
passed something, let's go home, or we can actually try to reach a
solution.
If we can defeat the previous question today, we can bring
Representative Miller's bill right to the floor to allow a 1-year
window for Congress to work this out and keep the student loan rate at
3.4 percent and prevent our next generation of college kids from having
their backs broken under the weight of high-interest student loans.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to this bill--again, not the bill that
America wants us to be discussing; instead, a bill that cuts our
renewable energy future, puts even more money into nuclear weapons--I
can't support this committee report on the energy and water spending
bill. I hope that through this process the will of the House changes
this bill dramatically. If not, then we're simply making the wrong
decisions for our energy future.
The bill slashes critical funding that would create jobs, grow our
economy, lead to energy security, and increase our competitiveness. At
the same time, the bill adds spending to increase our nuclear weapons
stockpiles.
{time} 1300
How can we expect to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of
terrorists if we cut the nuclear nonproliferation activities by $600
million under this bill?
While the bill increases funding for our weapons programs and
continues funding for fossil fuel subsidies, it guts many of our
renewable energy programs, like ARPA-E, the Department of Energy's
Office of Science, and investing in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
This bill threatens to increase our reliance on foreign oil, reduce
job growth, increase pollution, and damage the health of American
families. If we don't act to reverse this legislation's deep cuts to
science programs and energy research, the United States will have many,
many missiles armed with nuclear warheads, but we will fall behind our
global competitors who are investing heavily in renewable and next-
generation energy technologies.
I strongly urge that we defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no''
vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I cannot recall a place in the Constitution where it says the House
passes a bill, the Senate can't pass it, so the House comes back and
tries to find a better bill that maybe the Senate will now take up.
Boy, I wish that had happened on that health care stuff back in 2009
and 2010. We would have a lot better world today.
But the fact of the matter is, the House has passed the student loan
bill and the Senate has the obligation to act. The deadline of July 1
was, in fact, provided to us by a funding cliff that the Democrats
enacted back in 2007 when they started this process.
The deadline was self-imposed by a Democratic majority in the House
of Representatives and a Democratic majority in the Senate. Democrats
in the other body are fully aware of that deadline, we are fully aware
of that deadline, and they were the ones that let it lapse. The House
had done its work. They were fully capable of passing something and
sending it back to us so that it could either be passed or adjusted
prior to the July 4 recess.
In regards to the legislation we are currently considering, we do
continue the Republican commitment to maintaining an open and
transparent nature to the appropriations process. This rule balances
our commitment to energy independence and national security with good
stewardship of taxpayer money.
I want to, again, commend Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey,
Chairman Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member Kaptur for working together
to craft a bill that balances our spending priorities with our concerns
over the deficit and our climbing national debt.
At this point, I ask for an ``aye'' on the previous question and an
``aye'' on the underlying resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 288 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2574) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the
current reduced interest rate for undergraduate Federal
Direct Stafford Loans for 1 year, to modify required
distribution rules for pension plans, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means and the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2574.
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 Democratic minority to
[[Page H4229]]
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.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 288, if
ordered, and approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 182, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 308]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--182
Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--32
Barber
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Campbell
Davis, Danny
Franks (AZ)
Gosar
Holt
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Hurt
Johnson, E. B.
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
Meadows
Meeks
Moore
Moran
Negrete McLeod
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Posey
Rangel
Rogers (KY)
Salmon
Schweikert
Sherman
Shimkus
Sinema
Young (FL)
{time} 1331
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting in my
office and didn't make it to the floor before the gavel came down for
the first vote (rollcall Vote 308) in this series. I did vote for the
subsequent rollcall votes in this series. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 308, I was at the White
House for a discussion on U.S. economy. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''
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.
[[Page H4230]]
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 178, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 309]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--178
Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--30
Barber
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Campbell
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Gosar
Hastings (WA)
Holt
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Hurt
Johnson, E. B.
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
Meadows
Moore
Negrete McLeod
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Rangel
Rogers (KY)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Yoho
Young (FL)
{time} 1340
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the following vote. Had I
been present, I would have voted as follows: ``yes'' on adoption of the
rule for Energy and Water Appropriations.
personal explanation
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the
following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:
Rollcall vote 308: on ordering the previous question to H. Res. 288--
I would have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 309: on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 288--I would
have voted ``aye.''
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my absence from the
House for votes on the afternoon of July 9, 2013. I was unfortunately
absent due to a medical appointment. I would like to submit how I would
have voted had I been in attendance for the following votes:
Rollcall No. 308, on the motion on ordering the previous question on
the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2609, I would have voted
``no.''
Rollcall No. 309, on agreeing to the resolution (H. Res. 288), I
would have voted ``no.''
____________________