[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14130-14139]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 14131]]

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 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,

[[Page 14132]]

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 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

[[Page 14133]]

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 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.

[[Page 14134]]

  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. 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.

[[Page 14135]]

  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. 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?

[[Page 14136]]

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 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

[[Page 14137]]

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.''
       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

[[Page 14138]]


     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

     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
     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
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     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)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     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.

[[Page 14139]]



                              {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.

                          ____________________