[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6152-6161]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5326, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, 
 AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013; WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF 
   CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN 
                  RESOLUTIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 643 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 643

       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. 5326) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
     committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
     recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  House Resolution 614 is amended in section 2(a) by 
     inserting ``and the allocations of spending authority printed 
     in Tables 11 and 12 of House Report 112-421 shall be 
     considered for all purposes in the House to be the 
     allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974'' before the period.
       Sec. 3.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported on May 10, 2012, 
     providing for consideration or disposition of any measure 
     reported by the Committee on the Budget relating to section 
     201 of House Concurrent Resolution 112.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). 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 the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
pending which I yield myself such time as I

[[Page 6153]]

may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I always look around when I hear the Reading Clerk 
reading the rule because I can't tell if folks are glossing over or if 
they are excited about it, like I am. If you paid close attention to 
the Reading Clerk this morning, Mr. Speaker, you're excited about it. 
You're excited about it because we're here to do the first 
appropriations bill of the FY 2013 cycle. Now, Mr. Speaker, as you 
know, there is about two-thirds of the budget that is the mandatory 
spending--that budget that gets spent whether Congress shows up to work 
or not. It's just money that gets borrowed from our children and goes 
right out the door.
  This one-third of the budget, the discretionary spending side, is the 
part that doesn't go out the door unless the House comes together and 
passes a bill, sends it to the Senate, and gets the Senate to pass a 
bill, and it goes to the President's desk for signature. This is the 
first of those bills that we're going to have a chance to do in this 
Congress. And as we began the year last year, we are going to begin the 
year this year--with an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, an open rule allows any Member of this body 
to bring any idea that they have and offer it as an amendment to the 
underlying bill. You don't have to be a high-ranking Republican to get 
an amendment to this bill. You don't have to be a senior Democrat to 
get an amendment to this bill. You just have to be a representative of 
constituents back home, and you can show up on this floor and have a 
say. This is going to be Congress at its best, Mr. Speaker. When you 
hear it read, it sounds like a lot of legalistic mumbo jumbo, but when 
you see it in action, it is this House as our Founding Fathers intended 
this House to be.
  This is House Resolution 643, Mr. Speaker, and it is an open rule for 
consideration of H.R. 5326, the fiscal year 2013 Commerce-Justice-
Science appropriations bill.
  You know, last year, Mr. Speaker, we only got through 6\1/2\ of the 
appropriations bills in this House before it became apparent the 
process was going to break down, and we went to a minibus to finish the 
deal. But we considered 350 amendments--350 different ideas, Mr. 
Speaker--350 lines that came from the body right here that said we have 
a better way than what the committee has reported to us.

                              {time}  1230

  Now, this is a special day, as my colleague from Florida knows, 
because this appropriations bill passed out of subcommittee by a voice 
vote--a voice vote. Democrats and Republicans came together in 
subcommittee, passed this bill, and sent it on to the full committee 
where, again, Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans came together to 
pass out of full committee this bill on a voice vote, and now we bring 
it to the House floor today. Goodness knows, we may be able to pass 
this rule on a voice vote, I say to my colleague from Florida, and 
perhaps the underlying legislation as well. This is the House working 
as the folks back home intended the House to work.
  Now, this is funding for the Commerce Department, Mr. Speaker. All of 
those programs intended to grow jobs in this country, to promote trade 
in this country, Commerce Department, funded under this bill. This is 
the bill that funds the Justice Department, funds our U.S. Marshals, 
funds our FBI, funds those parts of our society that we know need 
special attention, Mr. Speaker, in these difficult times.
  This is the bill that funds NASA, Mr. Speaker. This is the bill that 
funds the National Science Foundation. This is the bill that funds the 
U.S. Trade Representative and the International Trade Commission. Mr. 
Speaker, I will quote the subcommittee chairman, Frank Wolf, who said:

       This legislation builds on significant spending reductions 
     achieved in last year's bill while continuing to preserve 
     core priorities. Those priorities continue to be job 
     creation, fighting crime and terrorism--with a focus on 
     cybersecurity--and boosting U.S. competitiveness through 
     smart investments in science. This bill makes job creation a 
     priority by maintaining and expanding manufacturing and job 
     repatriation initiatives.

  Mr. Speaker, these are tough times. I don't know if you've seen all 
the young people outside this Chamber today, Mr. Speaker, folks in town 
with their schools, folks in town visiting Washington, D.C. You know, 
40 cents out of every dollar that this Chamber spends, Mr. Speaker, we 
borrow from those children. We heard lots of 1-minutes this morning 
about the student loan program. Of course, every penny that goes out 
the door is a penny that we borrowed from the next generation of 
Americans.
  This bill, passed out of subcommittee and full committee on a voice 
vote, represents a 1-percent reduction from the President's request in 
this title. A lot of folks in this body would like it to be more than 1 
percent. I suspect we'll have some amendments on this floor during this 
wonderful open amendment process that will in fact try to change that 
number to be greater than 1 percent. But what folks came together to 
say is these are priorities for this country. These all are important 
funding priorities that only the national and the Federal Government 
can do. So we want to fund those in a responsible way that both focuses 
on not borrowing from the next generation, but still maintaining 
important core priorities that I think we would all agree are important 
to this Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. And, again, I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Woodall, 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I also appreciated his comments about the fact that we are borrowing 
from the next generation. I gather that the previous generation 
borrowed from us. I don't know when the borrowing stops, but at least 
that seems to be the way of the world until we get to a point where we 
can be self-sustaining, as rightly we should be.
  This rule provides for consideration of Commerce-Justice-Science 
appropriations for fiscal year 2013.
  Many of my Republican colleagues have been patting themselves on the 
back for the open rule associated with this bill. They claim that this 
effort demonstrates transparency and their commitment to regular order. 
Putting aside for the moment whether a single open rule in 304 days 
makes for an open legislation process, the fact is that now the 
Republicans are using this rule to correct a mistake they made in their 
previous effort to deem and pass the Ryan budget.
  It seems, Mr. Speaker, that the deem and pass didn't work the first 
time around. It was supposed to break the spending agreement made by my 
friends in the Republican Party in the Budget Control Act, but they 
bungled that effort a couple weeks ago and now have to try to go back 
on their word. It seems to me that if you're going to break an 
agreement that you made in good faith, you ought to get it right the 
first time. Doing this twice just calls attention to what little regard 
there is for bipartisan cooperation and agreement.
  I heard my colleague, Mr. Woodall, comment about this coming out of 
the subcommittee and the committee by voice vote, and there is no 
disagreement in that regard. I guess to some that is to be a 
commendable effort. But he also suggested that we may very well, if we 
were to choose, carry this on voice vote. I would disabuse him of that 
notion. That is not going to happen. The deem and pass was wrong the 
first time around, and it's still wrong the second time around--and 
shouldn't have been placed in here--and it will be wrong the third, 
fourth, and however many more times around there are, in spite of open 
rules, if you put it in it, until the Republicans have repudiated every 
last promise they made.
  If breaking the Budget Control Act agreement wasn't enough, the 
Republican majority is also using this rule to silence Members on the 
upcoming reconciliation legislation being considered by this body later 
this week. Rather than using regular order--and I stick a tack in that 
to compliment my colleague on the Rules Committee, who does believe and 
has made it manifestly clear that he believes in regular

[[Page 6154]]

order--but rather than using regular order to debate the merits of 
breaking their promises, Republicans are imposing martial law to 
prevent Members from properly considering the legislation and having 
their say.
  Forcing same-day consideration--that's what we mean when we say 
``martial law''--of the legislation simply reinforces the majority's 
intent to use this legislation for partisan gain. Instead of working 
with Democrats on a bipartisan process, Republicans want to jeopardize 
funding for essential government programs so they can both go back on 
their agreements and force the House to consider the legislation sight 
unseen.
  This is an unfortunate situation because Democrats would have been 
pleased to support this open rule. Had the Republicans followed regular 
order, Democrats would support this rule; and I, for one, would argue 
that we should do so by voice if it had been that way. If the Budget 
Committee Democrats end up taking the entire 3 days that they are 
entitled to under the rules of the House before they finish their 
views, we could consider the reconciliation bill on Monday instead of 
Thursday.
  This is no way to run a budget process and no way to conduct the 
business of the House. I'd be amused at the Republicans' failed efforts 
here, Mr. Speaker, except that I'm dismayed to point out that millions 
of Americans depend on the programs considered under the appropriations 
process.
  An agreement was made with the Budget Control Act, and under the 
agreement the Republicans promised certain levels of funding for 
essential programs. That funding is now in jeopardy because the 
majority wants to spend time trying to go back on what they promised. 
Let me remind this body that the House and Senate both passed the 
Budget Control Act. The Senate has not passed the Ryan budget.

                              {time}  1240

  And deeming and passing does nothing but force this body, as I say 
all the time, to pretend that the budget, as offered, is in effect.
  As I said in the Rules Committee when the Republicans tried to do 
this the first time around, if we're going to pass legislation that 
pretends things exist, then I guess we don't need either the Senate or 
the President of the United States since we can just pretend that the 
laws have passed when, in fact, they have not.
  I don't have my copy of ``I'm Just a Bill,'' and my colleague wasn't 
here when I read it in committee at one point in time, but I'm pretty 
sure it doesn't mention that the way to pass legislation is to first 
pass one agreement and then try twice to pretend it never happened.
  I don't know what that looks like in a cartoon version, but probably 
less like ``Schoolhouse Rock'' and more like Wile E. Coyote falling 
straight off a cliff, because if we're going to get out of the business 
of reality and into the business of pretending, let's just pretend that 
every American has a job, that every student can go to college, and 
that no child goes to bed hungry. Let's pretend that the billions we 
wasted on unnecessary wars were, instead, actually invested right here 
in the United States of America. Let's pretend that Thanksgiving is in 
June and Christmas is in July and the election season is over and the 
deficit is gone.
  And since we've now pretended that everything is fine in our great 
country, let's go tell all of the unemployed, the middle class, the 
hungry and the poor that their problems aren't real. Or better yet, 
let's just pretend those people don't exist, because that's exactly 
what I believe the majority's budget does.
  Rather than using the power of the Federal budget to lead this 
country into a new era of economic growth, Republicans want to cut 
taxes for those that are wealthy among us, including those of us that 
serve in the House of Representatives, cut services for everyone else, 
and then feel like they've set the country on the right track.
  Instead of spending our time debating the merits of the 
appropriations legislation before us, we're, again, trying to convince 
the majority to stick with the promises they made in the first place.
  Rather than uniting in bipartisan fashion to support an open and 
transparent legislative process, Republicans are using partisan 
gimmickry to silence debate.
  Rather than debating this legislation under the Budget Control Act, 
we have to debate whether the Republican majority should even have to 
keep their promises.
  And rather than considering whether the inadequate levels of funding 
in this legislation, particularly in certain arenas--let me use one: 
the COPS program that I thought it was wrong when Democrats cut that 
program, and I think it's wrong now that Republicans are talking about 
less money for a program that all of us know is desperately needed in 
our various communities.
  We have to consider doing more for struggling Americans, and we have 
to consider whether we ought to be cutting even more, as my colleagues 
would have it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. 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 Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you, I don't actually prepare 
remarks when I come down here to sit opposite my friend from Florida, 
because I always know his opening statement is going to be that line by 
line by line that reminds me of absolutely everything that I want to 
say. And generally speaking, it reminds me of absolutely everything I'm 
proud of, and sometimes things that my friend from Florida wishes had 
not happened.
  You know, folks ask me back home, Mr. Speaker--I'm a freshman here. 
They say, Rob, what have you learned in your first term in Congress? 
And I say, What I have learned is that when you watch the House floor 
on C-SPAN, it looks like theater. And what I've learned is that the 
comments from my friends on the other side of aisle, it's not theater 
at all, it is heartfelt belief in absolutely every word that comes out 
of their mouth. And that's instructive, because if it were theater, we 
could go into a dark back room somewhere and try to sort it out around 
the edges. But when it's heartfelt belief about what direction we ought 
to take this country, it requires the full and open hearing that we 
give it here on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you were here for the deem and pass of 
the budget several Congresses ago before I was elected, but the 
gentleman's absolutely right. Deeming a budget as being passed by both 
Houses of Congress is a terrible way to run this institution. He is 
absolutely right.
  Now, I'm proud that he and I did not shirk our responsibilities. We 
passed a budget here in this House under yet another open process. We 
asked any Member of this House that had an idea about what the budget 
ought to look like in this country to bring that budget to the floor of 
this House and we'd have a vote and a debate on it. And we did, and we 
passed a budget here in the House of Representatives.
  Now, sadly, our friends on the Senate side have chosen for the 3rd 
year in a row not to pass a budget. And I would say again, those areas 
on which we agree, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's absolutely right. In 
the absence of actually having a budget that has passed the Senate--and 
not just because they haven't passed one, Mr. Speaker, but because they 
have said affirmatively and apparently with some pride they do not plan 
on passing a budget. So what's the responsible body here on the other 
side of the Capitol supposed to do? Well, what we said is we need to 
move forward with our appropriations process, and so we are going to 
move forward under the budget that has passed this entire U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  Now, the truth is we did that in a rule a couple of weeks back and we 
got it wrong. This is not the first time we've had to make up for the 
Senate's mistake. You would think, as often as we've had to take up for 
those folks,

[[Page 6155]]

we'd have figured out how to do it right. But sadly, we didn't get it 
quite right, and I hope we don't get into the habit of getting it 
right. I hope we get into the habit of actually passing a budget over 
there, bringing a budget to conference, and having a budget that 
controls all of Capitol Hill.
  But in an effort to make up for what's not happening there, we did 
absolutely, in this rule that's before us today, Mr. Speaker, specify 
that the caps that we created, the 435 of us created in the budget that 
we passed, will be the caps that regulate the activity that the 435 of 
us engage in for the rest of the year. And I welcome the Senate to join 
in that debate.
  You know, to be fair to my colleague from Florida, we just see the 
Budget Control Act differently. I think we both voted for the Budget 
Control Act last fall. I viewed it as budget caps. In fact, if you open 
up the legislation, it says budgetary caps. And when I read the word 
``caps,'' Mr. Speaker, what I see is you can't spend any more than 
that. I was never under any illusion that I was obligated to spend 
absolutely all of it.
  And, candidly, I think that's one of the issues we have here in this 
body, Mr. Speaker. You may hear other speakers come down here today on 
the other side of the aisle who believe exactly that, that because we 
signed an agreement with the President that we would not spend a penny 
more than $1.047 trillion this year that we are, in fact, now obligated 
to spend every single penny of that $1.047 trillion.
  As we talked about, 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend in 
this town, Mr. Speaker, is borrowed, borrowed from our children, from 
our grandchildren. Forty cents out of every dollar is money that we do 
not have but we are borrowing against the next generation's prosperity 
to spend on our priorities today.
  My friend from Florida brings up the COPS program. The COPS program 
is a neat program, provides dollars to local law enforcement agencies 
to help them succeed in their local law enforcement mission. But the 
clever little secret that sometimes we don't talk about, Mr. Speaker, 
is that my community back home takes all the tax money out of their 
pocket and they send it to Washington, D.C. We don't have access to any 
money in my part of the world, my little Seventh District there in 
northeast Georgia. There's no money that we get back that we didn't 
send in to begin with.
  We can prioritize those local priorities locally. We can control 
those outcomes locally. Forty cents out of every dollar we're 
borrowing. Not one budget.
  I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that in this open process we 
allowed every Member of Congress to bring any budget they wanted to the 
House floor for debate and consideration. Not one of those budgets, not 
one, balanced next year. Not one. Not one budget. And some of the 
brightest leaders I hope that our Nation has to offer, Mr. Speaker, sit 
here in these chairs in this body, and not one of them had a proposal 
for how to right this ship next year. Not one.
  So the question is: What, do we just quit trying? Do we just quit 
trying, Mr. Speaker? Do we just concede that the economic security of 
this Nation is just going to drip, drip, drip away with deficit 
spending year after year after year? Are we going to concede that the 
50 percent increase in the public debt that's occurred over the last 4 
years is just the way it's going to be; that's a pattern that is going 
to continue, instead of a pattern that needs to be stopped?

                              {time}  1250

  But here is the good news. I have heartfelt feelings on that issue, 
and my friend from Florida has heartfelt feelings on that issue. The 
rule that we from the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker--my colleague from 
Florida and I--have brought to the floor today is going to open up that 
debate so that absolutely all Members can have their passions and 
feelings heard on this issue.
  One more point of pride, Mr. Speaker, because I really do like coming 
down here on open rule days.
  What we don't talk about sometimes from that Budget Control Act is 
that those caps--that $1.047 trillion I mentioned earlier, which is the 
most that we could possibly spend--that's only good from October 1 to 
the first week of January because that very same agreement said that in 
the failure of the Joint Select Committee last fall to act--and I will 
tell you it was quite the failure--it was going to lead to 8 percent 
across-the-board reductions in every single account that we're talking 
about here on the floor today--8 percent across-the-board reductions.
  What our budget does and what our caps do is recognize that failure, 
Mr. Speaker, that the House representatives on that Joint Select 
Committee and that the Senator representatives on that Joint Select 
Committee did not come to an agreement on deficit reduction. Thus those 
caps, those 8 percent across-the-board reductions, are barreling down 
the road towards this institution, Mr. Speaker, and picking up speed 
every day.
  Now, we can either tell the American people that all is well and 
let's go ahead and spend the maximum amount possible--but, oh, watch 
out; here come those across-the-board cuts that nobody planned for--or 
we can do the responsible thing, and the responsible thing is to plan 
for that contingency. I say ``contingency.'' I dare say, Mr. Speaker, 
it's almost a certainty that we're not going to find a way around those 
across-the-board cuts but that we can find a way around them with the 
budget that this institution passed. With the numbers that this 
institution passed, we can replace those revenues--replace that 
spending that was going to be saved with across-the-board cuts--with 
targeted cuts, with targeted cuts to programs that we in this body 
agree on.
  Mr. Speaker, I didn't come to this body to do across-the-board cuts. 
There is good spending and there is bad spending. I didn't come to this 
body to use the meat ax to go after everything. I came to this body to 
set the priorities that my constituents sent me here to set. Far from 
being an abomination of the process, this House-passed budget, this 
House reconciliation bill that's coming at the end of this week--and 
yes, this first appropriations bill, the FY 2013-cycle--is the way this 
process is supposed to be done.
  I rise in strong support of this rule, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment 
to the rule to make sure that we bring up the bill by Mr. Tierney of 
Massachusetts in order to prevent a doubling of student loan interest 
rates, which would be fully paid for by repealing tax giveaways for big 
oil companies.
  To discuss our amendment to the rule, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, the 
ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, Mr. 
Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. This rule 
provides for the consideration of the Commerce-Justice appropriations, 
but it adds some extraneous matters, things like martial law for 
reconciliation. If we are going to consider other matters in this rule, 
we ought to be allowed, as the gentleman from Florida said, to be able 
to consider the question of the doubling of the interest rates of 
student loans.
  The House Democrats, months ago, asked for this action to be taken so 
that interest rates would not double on students this July 1, doubling 
from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Calls for bipartisanship were met with 
silence, silence, silence, and silence for months. All of a sudden, the 
Republicans in Congress started to understand this issue when President 
Obama took it to the parents and to the students of this country and 
explained to them what was at stake. Then, 2 weeks ago, the Republicans 
surprised us with a bill on the floor when they said they all now agree 
with it. Even though they had voted against

[[Page 6156]]

it 2 weeks earlier, they agreed that there shouldn't be a doubling of 
the student loan rates.
  But what did they decide to do?
  In deciding on not doubling the student loan rates, they gave the 
House a choice in which they would take it out on women's health, 
denying women early screenings for breast cancer, for cervical cancer, 
denying newborn infants early screenings for birth defects. That's how 
they decided they would pay for it.
  We tried to offer a Democratic alternative, the legislation of Mr. 
Tierney of Massachusetts, which would have taken away the unjustified, 
unfair tax breaks to the largest oil companies in the country at a time 
of record profits and use some of that money to pay for making sure 
that the interest rates don't double, but the Republicans wouldn't 
allow us to offer that.
  Today, what we're trying to do is to defeat the previous question so 
that we will be able to offer the Democratic substitute, which would 
keep the interest rates from doubling. We would pay for it by taking 
away the unfair tax cuts to the largest oil companies and not do what 
the Republicans did, which is to say you can have your student loan 
subsidy, but you're going to have to take it out of the hides of 
newborn infants, of children's immunizations, and of the preventative 
care and early screenings for women with cervical and breast cancer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We know that that decision, that 
early screening, is a matter of life and death for those women, but 
that was of no matter to the Republicans. Now we see today a recent 
poll out that suggested over half of the country supports the student 
loans not doubling, paying for it in the manner in which the Democrats 
did, as opposed to 30 percent of the country that think the Republicans 
are on the right track in going after women's health, children's health 
and children's immunizations.
  So I would hope that we will defeat the previous question, that Mr. 
Hastings will be allowed to move to consider the legislation by Mr. 
Tierney, and that we can put this issue to rest so that families and 
students now sitting around trying to figure out how they're going to 
pay for the college educations of their children who have just been 
accepted to college or who are continuing in college can do that with 
the peace of mind of knowing that the interest rates won't double on 
July 1.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume to say I've 
just gotten the sad news that our friends on the Senate side hadn't 
just stuck it to us by not passing a budget last year and didn't just 
stick it to us by not passing a budget this year, but have just stuck 
it to us one more time by failing to move forward on the student loan 
legislation there.
  I don't know what to do down here, Mr. Speaker. I mean, on the one 
hand, my colleagues say--rightfully so--that they don't want us just 
running on our own down here, doing our own thing all the time, 
pretending as if the Senate doesn't exist. On the other hand, we've 
dealt with the student loan issue--we've preserved rates at their 
current low levels--and the Senate can't get its work done. I don't 
know what more we can do.
  Folks are prepared to go over for a vigil outside the Senate Chamber. 
I want you to put me on your invitation list. I'll go by there with 
you, and we'll see what we can do to shake things up over there, but 
those 6-year term limits are not quite as effective at motivating 
action as are 2-year term limits here on the House side.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today isn't actually about student 
loans. You might not have believed that in listening to the last 
speaker. It's about the Commerce Department; it's about the Justice 
Department; and it's about science funding in this body. Now, the good 
news is we're going to be able to deal with all of these issues one by 
one by one.
  I came to this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, in wanting to move away from the 
2,000-page bills that I'd seen in past Congresses. I came to this 
Chamber in wanting to deal with one issue at a time, in wanting to deal 
with things so you didn't have to vote for all or nothing but so that 
you could vote for the individual items that you actually believe in 
and vote against those items that you don't believe in. That's the 
process we have today.
  This is the first of a dozen different bills that are going to come 
down through this Chamber, and folks will be able to offer amendments 
line item by line item. If I didn't say it before, Mr. Speaker, I want 
to say it now: that that's actually what can happen here. This isn't a 
``take it or leave it'' proposition today. This rule, again, I can't 
take all the credit for. I was actually tied up in the reconciliation 
markup yesterday. My friend from Florida was actually as responsible as 
anyone for bringing a rule to the floor that would allow every single 
line of the underlying bill to be considered by the 435 folks in this 
Chamber.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, you have a subcommittee, and that's a small 
group of folks who knows a lot about the issue on which it works. This 
is the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee over there. Then you 
have a full committee, and the full committee has a lot of really smart 
people who know a lot about their topic here. In this case, that's the 
Appropriations Committee, the full Appropriations Committee, and, of 
course, they both passed that out by a voice vote.
  If you're like me, Mr. Speaker, if you serve on the Budget Committee 
and on the Rules Committee, you don't ever get a say in appropriations 
spending. There are a lot of really smart guys on that subcommittee and 
a lot of really smart men and women on that full committee. But what 
about my say? What about the 920,000 people I represent, Mr. Speaker? 
And that's the solution that the Rules Committee brought out last 
night.
  They said you have not gotten your say yet for the Seventh District 
of Georgia, Mr. Woodall, but you will get it during this process--and 
not just you, but you and you and you and you. Every single Member of 
this House, by virtue of the fact that they were elected by American 
citizens back home, will have the opportunity to come to this floor and 
have their voices heard.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, this isn't a tough decision today. This is one of the 
proudest decisions we get to make in this House, and that is to have 
its membership work its will and report out the very best bill that we 
can, send that over to the Senate, and see what happens next.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, my good 
friend, Mr. Courtney.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to 
allow the Tierney amendment to move forward, which would allow a real 
solution to the 53-day ticking time bomb for college students and 
middle class families all across this country.
  Today, literally, as we're standing here, high school seniors are 
getting notices in the mail about whether they've been admitted to 
college; students are now packing up and leaving for the end of the 
spring term already thinking about next year; financial aid offices are 
trying to plan with families about how to pay for next year's tuition; 
and yet what they have before them is a situation where on July 1, the 
rates will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.
  On July 23, the President of the United States stood on that podium 
and challenged Congress to avoid that rate increase from going through. 
And for 3 months, we had a Republican majority which stonewalled this 
issue with no bill, no markup, no hearing. I filed legislation the day 
after that speech. We have over 150 cosponsors to permanently lock in 
the lower rate. Yet, as Mr. Miller indicated, what we heard from the 
House Republicans was a bill 10 days ago which bypassed committees, 
nothing from the Education

[[Page 6157]]

and the Workforce Committee, rammed it through the Rules Committee, and 
paid for in the most disgraceful, grotesque fashion.
  It wipes out a fund to pay for prevention of heart disease, diabetes, 
cancer, and early-childhood diseases. That is not a solution. The 
President made it clear when that scam was presented that it would be 
vetoed immediately. It is a dead letter. It is time for us to, yes, 
debate a CJS appropriations bill, which is very important. But those 
kids, those families need a horizon before them as they deal with one 
of the most exciting opportunities and challenges before them, which is 
how to pay for higher education.
  We should defeat this rule. We should allow a motion to go forward 
which will defuse this ticking time bomb for middle class families all 
across America, push aside that joke of a bill that passed 10 days ago, 
and get down to the business of addressing middle class families' needs 
and young people's needs to help solve the problems of this country and 
give them the opportunity to succeed.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I actually had this conversation with some schoolchildren in my 
district over the break, as I'm sure everybody in this body did. They 
call it a break, Mr. Speaker. The truth is, it's a district work 
period. You're working every bit as hard down in your home State as you 
are here and probably harder back home.
  I was talking to young people and I said, Does anybody here have a 
parent that just let's them eat anything they want to, drink all the 
soda they want, eat all the candy they want? There wasn't a single hand 
that went up. Apparently, parents had some discipline incorporated in 
the lives of each one of these children. I asked, Who thinks their 
parents love them? The answer was every child in that room felt loved 
by their parents. They didn't get everything they wanted all the time, 
there were limits to it, but they felt loved.
  Mr. Speaker, we're in the business of spending other people's money. 
It's not my money; it's not my colleague from Florida's money. It is 
other people's money in this body. Not only are we spending every penny 
of the money that they send us, Mr. Speaker. We are borrowing even 
more. If you think about it, we talk about how we borrow 40 cents out 
of every dollar that we spend. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is we 
collect every penny that America is willing to give us, and we borrow 
66 percent more. Communities back home aren't operating under that kind 
of funny mathematics. They understand they can only spend the money 
that they have. Families back home aren't operating under those kinds 
of funny mathematics. It's only here.
  So in the case of these programs--again, student loans are in 
absolutely no way at issue in the underlying bill, and they are 
absolutely in no way at issue in this rule. But just to touch on that 
topic for a moment--and we had the Speaker of this House come down and 
give a passionate plea for votes in support of the very provision that 
is being discussed here today. Not only did he speak on behalf of those 
provisions; this Chamber passed it.
  We talk about the ticking time bomb. That's the ticking time bomb in 
action in the Senate. This body has acted. Now, what did we do? I 
happen to be one of those folks who took out student loans, Mr. 
Speaker. So I know a little bit about the student loan process. I 
happened to take mine out from a private institution. We were using 
competition to keep the marketplace regulated in those days. Now the 
Federal Government is the only place you can go for a student loan. 
That was courtesy of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Again, 
it was heartfelt. They believed in their heart that it was going to be 
a better program if only the Federal Government ran it instead of 
letting private financial institutions who lend money for a living 
manage it.
  But 6.8 percent is the below-market rate that's available for folks 
who borrow Stafford loan money. You may have had a Stafford loan, Mr. 
Speaker. Other folks out here might have had a Stafford loan. But there 
are two kinds of Stafford loans. There is the Stafford loan that you 
pay interest on after you've borrowed the money. Imagine that, you 
borrow the money, you pay interest on it. Then there is the Stafford 
loan that's called the subsidized Stafford loan. That's a much smaller 
piece of the pie, Mr. Speaker.
  We have the loans that families have to go out and get on their own 
to help pay for their children's education. We have savings that folks 
are going out and spending on their children's education. We have grant 
programs that are scholarship programs all that are out there to help 
with education. We have the PLUS program out there, which is a loan 
that parents and students can take out together. Then, in addition to 
all those programs, we have the Stafford loans, which, again, some of 
them are loans you pay interest on immediately and some of them--a very 
small fraction of them--are loans that are subsidized while you're in 
school.
  This conversation we're having here today is about whether or not 
this subsidized Stafford loan, that was over 7 percent when I borrowed 
it--it's 6.8 percent in normal times; but the rate was reduced to 3.4 
percent by my colleagues. This conversation is about whether or not 
that rate should be allowed to return to normal levels.
  Again I say to folks, there is no money that's coming out of 
anybody's pocket in this room. This is America's money, America's money 
that we're borrowing, that we're spending. If we want to borrow that 
money to cut artificially low rates in half, make them artificially 
lower, we absolutely can. Not only can, we did. We talk about this as 
if it is something that might happen one day. We did it. It was 2 weeks 
ago. I was down here on the House floor. In fact, I sat right over 
there. I remember the vote happening. It's done here.
  Did we pay for it, Mr. Speaker? We did. We paid for it with a program 
that I would characterize as a slush fund. It is $15 billion that 
exists over there in the Health and Human Services Department. It came 
out of the Affordable Care Act. The President looked at it and said, 
You know what, that really was too much of a slush fund. He cut it by 
almost a third. Now we said, You know what, perhaps we should go after 
the rest of it because accountability is an issue here, Mr. Speaker.
  We hear folks talk about prevention and cancer and women and 
children. I wish that's where the money went. I went and got the list 
of where those projects are, Mr. Speaker. In my part of the world, it 
was a $2.5 million grant to the county I grew up in to help with 
obesity training in schools. I'm in favor of that. I think we ought to 
absolutely work on obesity. I hope my home school district is already 
working on those issues. In other parts of the country, New York, for 
example, this is money that went to lobby in favor of soda taxes. 
That's right. This money that is being described by my friends on the 
other side of the aisle as critical to protecting the health of women 
so that they can get breast cancer screenings was spent in New York 
City to lobby in favor of job-killing taxes for my home State of 
Georgia.
  This is not about women and children, Mr. Speaker. This is about 
unaccountability when you start handing out slush funds to bureaucrats. 
In Philadelphia, it was to lobby against cigarettes. Is that something 
we ought to do? Well, golly, we can go out and do that on our own every 
day. Does the Federal Government need to borrow from our children and 
our grandchildren to help Philadelphia lobby against cigarette taxes? 
In California, it's going to put up signs so folks can find the local 
parks in the name of obesity training, Mr. Speaker. Do we need signs to 
help us find the local parks? We have them in our community. I thought 
they had them in other communities. Do I need to borrow from my 
children and my grandchildren to put up more signs for parks? Mr. 
Speaker, we don't.

                              {time}  1310

  This is not a priority that the American people stood up and voted 
for. This is a slush fund that is used by bureaucrats to focus on 
whatever their priority of the day is. And what's so

[[Page 6158]]

disappointing is that this responsible government endorsed by a vote of 
this full House, is being described by my colleagues as an assault on 
women's health. It is offensive to me.
  There are so many things that we legitimately disagree about. Go back 
where we began, Mr. Speaker. We disagree from the heart about so many 
directions in this country. There is not one person in this body--not 
one--that wants to put women's health at risk. Not one.
  This is about responsible government and cutting out the waste, 
cutting out the low-priority spending, cutting out the dollars that 
come from taxpayers' pockets in my district to spend for job-killing 
legislation in New York.
  Mr. Speaker, we're going to have a full debate on this, a full 
debate. Every Member of this body will be able to bring their voice to 
the floor. I look forward to that full debate. I believe in this 
country. I believe in this institution. I believe that full debate is 
going to take us exactly where we need to be.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my very good friend, Mr. Tierney from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for acknowledging this.
  Americans need to know that their family member is going to be able 
to afford a college degree, whether it is a 2-year degree or a 4-year 
degree. Too many people are afraid that their child is not going to be 
able to get through college. Too many students don't think they can 
meet the cost of it. And that's what we need to deal with.
  Public dollars for schools, Pell Grants, lower interest rates, work-
study, those are things that we've done together to allow people to 
have the opportunity of college so that everybody can try to achieve 
their goal, to have an equal opportunity to achieve those goals with 
things we have done together in the past.
  We have been helping businesses find very educated and skilled people 
to drive our economy. It doesn't matter if you earn $20,000, $30,000, 
$60,000 or if you are suddenly unemployed because you lost a job. It 
feels the same if your kids are pushed out of school if they can't 
afford to pay for it. Getting a degree really makes a difference for 
many people, whether or not they're going to be able to get a good job. 
And helping them do that is something we've all decided to invest in.
  Carrying a huge loan debt, it may mean that you have to delay 
starting a family, delay buying a house, taking a job that you 
otherwise wouldn't take. Pell Grants, work-study, lower interest rates, 
all of those things for higher education, one of the opportunities that 
we all helped to create so that people that have long been benefiting 
from special favors, from tax loopholes, corporations and people that 
are extremely wealthy, they need to do their part. That's simply what 
we're asking them to do.
  We can keep this country moving forward if we can invest in our 
future. What we want to do is find a way and make a time that those who 
have benefited so extraordinarily realize that they too have to step up 
to the plate and join the rest of us to help pay for those 
opportunities to make sure that we can move forward.
  This is a good time to invest in America and Americans. We have 250 
tax expenditures in the Tax Code. Those are special tax rates, special 
favors, credits, deductions. Our friends on the other side of the aisle 
apparently think that's what America should borrow for, that that is 
what they should borrow for and pay corporations that made $130 billion 
last year, to give them more money instead of helping people get 
through college and get a degree that they need to get a good job.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I filed a bill last week that would have lowered the 
interest rates, back at a time when the Republican budget would have 
let it double, back when the Speaker and the chairman of the Education 
Committee and the second-ranking Member of the Republican Party all 
voted to keep it at 6.8 percent. I filed a bill, and I found a way to 
pay for it. It was paid for by taking one tax credit from Big Oil that 
made $130 billion last year, one tax credit that they weren't 
originally intended to have even benefited from but had managed to sort 
of squeak their way into eventually.
  So there's a way to pay for it. Now, if you didn't agree with it, the 
Republicans didn't agree with it, then they could have found one that 
wasn't noxious, one that everybody could agree on. But instead, they 
finally came around to deciding that they wanted to lower the interest 
rates because they couldn't take the political heat when the President 
was out there talking to American families. And American parents and 
American students said, What are you doing? Why are you borrowing and 
giving oil companies $130 billion of profits plus tax credits when we 
could be having a way to make sure that our family members get the 
education they need to get a job and move forward in their lives?
  So the Republicans finally came along and said, Okay, we will lower 
the interest rates. We can't take the heat. But we are going to find a 
poison pill. We are going to look at what the President has planned to 
do with preventive funds, which are screenings for breast cancer, 
screenings for cervical cancer, immunizations for children; and we'll 
use that.
  I will suggest to my friends on the other side, stop waiting for the 
Senate. Use some leadership. Come across the aisle and look at those 
250 tax expenditures. Let's find one we can agree on, not wait for the 
Senate and not blame it on them. Let's move forward on that. Stop being 
so partisan and stop being so ideological. And let's move forward.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my 
friend from Massachusetts that there is only one bill in this 
institution that abolishes not just the oil company tax credits that he 
wants to go after, not just all the corporate welfare that he wants to 
go after, not just all the benefits and exclusions and exemptions that 
the wealthy in this country utilize to lower their tax bills. There is 
one bill in this Congress that abolishes every single special 
exemption, deduction, carve-out, and giveaway in the entire United 
States Tax Code. It's H.R. 25. I'm the sponsor of that legislation. I 
join you in your desire to eliminate all those special interest tax 
breaks and deductions. I welcome your cosponsorship of that 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would inform my colleague that I am the 
last speaker. I don't know whether he is, but I am prepared to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. As am I.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment 
in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the majority tried once 2 weeks 
ago to go back on what they agreed to. It did not work. So now here we 
are again, trying to ``re-deem'' ourselves. But this is no way to run 
an economy, no way to run a budget process, and no way to stick up for 
the millions of struggling Americans who need us to focus on improving 
the economy.
  We can ``pretend'' that the Ryan budget has passed when, in fact, it 
has not. We can deem it or come here to re-deem it. But while we are 
living in legislative fantasyland, millions of other Americans will 
still be struggling to find jobs, to pay off their student loans, to 
access affordable health care and decent housing, and, really, in the 
final analysis, just to survive in an economy that--not just this year 
or last, not just in the last decade or the decade before--but in an 
economy that

[[Page 6159]]

favors those who have the most, rather than look out for those who have 
the least.
  In the celebrated cartoon that carries Wile E. Coyote, he used to 
pretend that there was going to be some kind of rubberized floor mat 
when he landed off a cliff, only to find that soon after that, he was 
in a very long and painful fall to the bottom.
  I've said before and I will repeat: we are better people than what's 
happening here. I agree with my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) that 
we see things differently. And in our heart of hearts, both of us and 
many of the Members of this body are in agreement and want things to be 
better.

                              {time}  1320

  As long as Republicans insist on replacing substantive debate with 
partisan gimmicks, broken promises, and misplaced priorities, the fall 
to the bottom is going to seem very long and is likely to be very 
painful for millions of Americans.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule for the reason that it 
is deeming something that is being pretended to be passed. I'd ask them 
to oppose this rule for the reason that it includes in it martial law 
that disallows the open discussion that my colleague rightly points to 
in an open rule. But this particular provision disallows that as it 
pertains to the reconciliation. And that is just no way for us to go 
about trying to come to terms with the enormous consequences and 
circumstances that we face by not having faced them many, many, many 
years ago.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for 
joining me here for this debate today. And there really are some things 
that we disagree about here in this body at large. But one thing we 
don't disagree about is the importance of bringing open rules to this 
floor to debate appropriations bills.
  This appropriations bill that we're bringing under this rule, Mr. 
Speaker, is a 1 percent reduction from the levels the President has 
proposed. As we hear folks talk about the doom and the gloom and the 
kicking of children and the punishing of women--1 percent. There's a 
long, hard fall to the bottom coming all right, and it's coming in the 
American economy. And I'll tell you who gets hurt the most in a bad 
economy: it's the poorest and the weakest among us. We all know it.
  We're asking for 1 percent less than what the President proposed in 
the name of taking a small step in the right direction. You could have 
gotten me for 20 or 25 percent less, just to be clear. You could've 
gotten me on board if we'd gone 20 or 25 percent less. But this body is 
trying to move in a responsible fashion.
  There's only one budget that's passed in this town, Mr. Speaker. The 
President's budget didn't pass. It got zero votes last year in the 
Senate. It got zero votes this year in the House. It didn't even get 
introduced last year in the House. There's only one budget in this town 
that has passed. That's the one that came out of the open process that 
we had right here.
  We can take our toys and go home or we can try to do our 
appropriations bills under the one proposal that has garnered a 
majority vote in this entire Nation. I vote for the latter. And a vote 
for this rule is a vote for the latter.
  Let's go ahead and start that process. Let's go ahead and do for the 
American people what we promised them we would do; and that is, operate 
this institution so that everybody has a voice, and at the end of the 
day we move our very best legislation forward.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 643 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 4. 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. 
     4816) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the 
     reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans, 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 Education and the Workforce and 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. 
     Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration 
     of H.R. 4816.
                                  ____

       (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. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page 6160]]

  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 will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 643, if 
ordered; and approval of the Journal, by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 174, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 199]

                               YEAS--235

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

                               NAYS--174

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

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Carson (IN)
     Costa
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Gibson
     Hinojosa
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Palazzo
     Pence
     Reichert
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Schakowsky
     Slaughter
     Tonko

                              {time}  1348

  Messrs. ENGEL, CROWLEY, PETERSON, CLEAVER, RICHMOND, PASCRELL and 
RANGEL and Ms. TSONGAS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PAUL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 199, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 199, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 199, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  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 228, 
noes 181, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                               AYES--228

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

[[Page 6161]]


     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     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--181

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

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Carson (IN)
     Chaffetz
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Gibson
     Hinojosa
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Meehan
     Moore
     Myrick
     Palazzo
     Pence
     Reichert
     Royce
     Slaughter
     Tonko

                              {time}  1357

  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. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 200, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the 
following vote. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: 
Rollcall vote 200, H. Res. 643--Providing for consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5326) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2013, and for other purposes; waiving a requirement of 
clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain 
resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules; and for other 
purposes--I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 200, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________