[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9993-10002]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5973, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
    DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5972, 
  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 697 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 697

       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. 5973) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs 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.  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. 5972) making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, 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 except for section 169C. The amendment specified in 
     section 3 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted 
     in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. During 
     consideration of the bill for further 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, as amended, 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. 3.  The amendment referred to in section 2 of this 
     resolution is as follows: insert before section 418 the 
     caption ``Spending Reduction Account''.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing 
     for adjournment during the month of July.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 697 provides for an open rule providing 
for consideration of two bills, H.R. 5973, which is a bill making 
appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration and related agencies, and H.R. 5972, the 
fiscal year 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are offering yet another open rule, 
something that our liberal Democrat colleagues gleefully denied this 
House when they held the gavel. Once again, House Republicans continue 
our commitment to an open appropriations process in which all Members 
from both parties have an opportunity to influence the final 
legislative product.
  In fact, this rule represents the eleventh open rule the Rules 
Committee has reported to the House thus far in the 112th Congress, 
which is in stark contrast to the 111th, in which the House considered 
a grand total of zero open rules.
  I want to thank my colleagues from the Appropriations Committee for 
their leadership and hard work in producing the two bills referenced in 
this rule. H.R. 5973 includes $19.4 billion in discretionary funding, 
which represents a cut of $365 million below last year's level. H.R. 
5972 provides a total of $51.6 billion in discretionary spending for 
the departments and agencies funded in the bill for fiscal 2013, which 
is a level representing $3.9 billion below last year's level.
  While my liberal colleagues would undoubtedly prefer to borrow and 
spend more and continue to ignore the dire fiscal realities of our 
country, House Republicans remain committed to reining in wasteful 
spending, even if it involves making difficult and sometimes unpopular 
decisions in order to save our country from fiscal ruin.
  The simple truth is we cannot afford to fund every program at the 
bloated levels that, for many years, kept political promises but, in 
the end, hurt the fiscal stability of our country. It would be 
unconscionable to continue indebting future generations to creditors 
like China without working to reduce Federal spending, which is the 
real driver of our deficit.
  These are important bills, Mr. Speaker, and I'm proud that House 
Republicans, led by our esteemed Rules Committee Chairman Dreier, have 
embraced an open process to consider this legislation. We welcome the 
support of our Democrat colleagues on final passage of the underlying 
legislation.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just would like to point out to my 
colleagues that I don't want them to be under the misimpression that 
somehow this Republican leadership is somehow conducting an open and 
transparent process. At last count, they have given us 41 completely 
closed rules, and that's not even getting into the number of structured 
rules we've had. So I would be a little bit more humble before I would 
brag about the open process in this House.
  I rise in opposition to this rule, which combines two unrelated 
appropriations bills, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and 
the Agriculture appropriations bills. And this rule also concedes that 
the House Republicans will not finish all their appropriation bills on 
time.
  Under the House rules, the House cannot adjourn for more than 3 days 
in a row in July unless all the appropriation bills are finished. 
Section 4 in this rule is an admission that the Republican leadership 
hasn't met this threshold.
  Mr. Speaker, I also oppose this rule because Republican budget caps 
have

[[Page 9994]]

made it impossible to bring appropriations bills to the floor that meet 
the needs of our country. Rather than a balanced, fair approach to 
control our Federal deficit, Republicans have launched an all-out 
assault against middle-income families and those who are struggling in 
poverty. Rather than asking Donald Trump to pay one penny more in 
taxes, the Republicans are pursuing an agenda that would decimate food 
stamps, that turns Medicare into a voucher program, that goes after 
student loans. I could go on and on and on. Everything that they bring 
to this floor lowers the quality of life and the standard of living for 
the people in this country.
  This Congress should be about lifting people up, not putting people 
down. And yet, the bills that get brought to this floor, time and time 
again, are all about putting the American people down.
  Not only is the underlying Transportation appropriations bill 
underfunded, but we're considering it while the ninth--the ninth--
extension of the surface transportation bill, the bill that funds our 
roads and bridges, is on the verge of expiring, and the summer 
construction season quickly moves towards a close.
  We need a transportation bill, and we would have one, Mr. Speaker, if 
the Republican leadership would simply accept the bipartisan Senate 
bill. Instead, the Republican leadership has decided to play politics 
by including unrelated provisions like the construction of the Keystone 
pipeline in a bill meant to build and repair America's roads and 
bridges, in a bill that would have put thousands and thousands and 
thousands of Americans to work on these critical projects.
  I had the honor of hosting Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a 
former Republican Member of this body, in my congressional district 
yesterday. Secretary LaHood made it clear that Congress needs to get 
its act together and pass a transportation bill. Rather than more 
recesses, I would say to my friends, we ought to stay here and not 
leave until we get this bill passed.
  Instead, this transportation appropriations bill is, essentially, a 
shell full of placeholder language waiting for the authorization bill 
to be finished. This is not a way to legislate.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle like to say, where are the 
jobs? Well, I'll tell you where the jobs are. They're in this 
transportation bill that they are holding up, that they are holding 
hostage. You want to put Americans back to work? Pass this bill.
  I'm also deeply disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that this is the second 
year in a row that the appropriations bill fails to fund the 
Sustainable Communities initiative, which brings together the 
Department of Transportation, HUD, and EPA to develop effective models 
of integrated planning and promote economic development in metropolitan 
areas across the country. We should be pursuing the smart, holistic 
approaches to urban planning and improvement encouraged by the 
Sustainable Communities initiative, and this bill doesn't do that.
  I also have concerns with the project-based Section 8 funding level 
included in the THUD legislation, and with proposals to short-fund 
project-based contracts. Short-funding does not reduce Federal 
expenditures, but instead shifts the cost to the next fiscal year. In 
fact, according to the National Housing Trust, short-funding can 
increase financing costs because of the uncertainty it creates among 
lenders and investors. Short-funding is a direct result of the need to 
conform to the Ryan budget, and I hope that the Senate's funding level 
is adopted during this conference, if they ever do have a conference.
  The sad reality, Mr. Speaker, is that of these two appropriations 
bills, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations 
is the better one. And this Agriculture appropriations bill is, to put 
it nicely, not where it needs to be. It is woefully inadequate in 
several places, and it continues a pattern set by this Republican 
leadership of trying to undermine the Wall Street reforms made under 
Dodd-Frank and to dismantle the antihunger safety net.
  This bill decimates funding for the Commodity Futures Trading 
Corporation, one of the key regulators of the financial services 
industry. In fact, the bill cuts funding for the CFTC by 41 percent, a 
cut that will drastically reduce CFTC's ability to oversee an industry 
that continues to take risky gambles, as evidenced by J.P. Morgan's 
recent loss of $2 billion. The Republican leadership, once again, would 
rather allow Wall Street to run amok instead of providing proper 
oversight so that Americans on Main Street don't get taken to the 
cleaners.
  Also not surprising is this Republican leadership's continued assault 
on the hungry in America. Over the past 18 months, the Republican 
leadership has pushed two plans to block grant SNAP, formerly known as 
food stamps, dramatically cut WIC funding in last year's Agriculture 
appropriations bill, and brought a reconciliation bill to the floor 
that would cut $36 million from SNAP, the most effective and efficient 
Federal antihunger program we have in this country.

                              {time}  1740

  Of course, we are still anticipating a farm bill from the Agriculture 
Committee that will cut at least $14 billion from this program. Also, 
while this bill funds WIC at $6.9 billion, it is still $119 million 
short of President Obama's request.
  In essence, this bill is gambling that food prices and participation 
will stabilize and not continue to rise. Yet just as concerning is the 
lack of set-asides for breast-feeding counselors, electronic benefit 
cards and infrastructure. These provisions were included in the 
President's request and also in the Senate bill. They should not be 
excluded from the House version.
  The other problem with the WIC language is the provision dealing with 
white potatoes. For the first time, Congress is mandating that white 
potatoes be included in the WIC food package. This is unprecedented and 
is deeply troubling. Congress has never, until now, interfered with the 
science of the WIC food package. This food package was specifically 
designed by the Institute of Medicine to provide the necessary 
nutrients through specific foods that are often not consumed, for a 
variety of reasons, by low-income pregnant women and their newborns, 
infants and young children. Like the effort to treat pizza as a 
vegetable, this is clearly done on behalf of industry. It does not 
belong in this bill.
  This bill also cuts the Commodities Supplemental Food Program below 
the President's request. This program provides food to seniors across 
the country, but the funding level in this bill is so inadequate that 
it will actually result in 55,000 fewer seniors being served. That's 
55,000 fewer low-income seniors on fixed incomes who will have food 
taken away from them simply because this committee decided that 
tightening our Nation's fiscal belt should mean less food for elderly 
in America instead of fewer profits for the wealthy.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill doesn't spare international food 
aid from drastic cuts either. This bill cuts title II PL480 by 22 
percent, or $316 million, under FY12 levels and $250 million below the 
President's FY13 request. These dramatic cuts would result in decreases 
in emergency services to between 6 million and 8 million vulnerable 
people, some of whom are already on the brink of starvation. They also 
weaken the funding for programs that fight long-term hunger and that 
build the capacity of people to withstand new emergencies. For example, 
it was the Food for Peace development programs in Ethiopia that helped 
keep communities from falling into famine and to withstand the shock of 
last year's drought, saving the American taxpayer hundreds of millions 
of dollars.
  Not only are these cuts unconscionable, but they are unwise because 
they will ultimately lead to future costs should there be widespread 
hunger, famine or civil unrest that requires American assistance. Mr. 
Speaker, we need to do better. We must do better. We need a surface 
transportation bill that actually puts Americans back to work.

[[Page 9995]]

  I again ask my Republican friends to stop holding the Senate bill 
hostage. Bring it to the floor. Let us have an up-or-down vote on it. 
Let us pass it and get people back to work. We need to ensure that Wall 
Street doesn't, once again, run unchecked; and we need to guarantee 
that we don't let Americans go hungry during these difficult economic 
times. The Republican agenda is quite contrary to where I think the 
majority of Americans are, and we're seeing that agenda--that radical 
right-wing agenda--at work in these appropriations bills.
  I will just close with this, Mr. Speaker:
  My colleagues on the other side like to talk about numbers all the 
time while I like to talk about people. I got elected to Congress to 
help people. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the agenda by 
this Republican majority is all about putting people down. We should be 
about lifting people up in this country. We can meet our budgetary 
challenges without lowering the standard of living for the people of 
this country.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding 
time.
  I am very pleased to speak in favor of the rule on H.R. 5972, the 
fiscal year 2013 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bill.
  I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Rules 
Committee for their assistance in moving this important bill forward. I 
also want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks for their 
commitment to moving appropriations bills through the House so that we 
can fund America's priorities while demonstrating the committee's 
proven record of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.
  In particular, I want to thank THUD Ranking Member John Olver for his 
assistance in crafting this legislation. This is his last THUD bill 
before retiring at the end of this year.
  The Transportation and HUD bill represents responsible choices for 
our Nation's most pressing housing and transportation needs. This 
bill's allocation of $51.6 billion is almost $4 billion below fiscal 
year 2012 and is almost $2 billion below the President's request. The 
bill also reflects the budget resolution passed by the House.
  The bill is largely free of authorizations, leaving that important 
work to the Transportation and Infrastructure and Financial Services 
Committees. As the amendments to the THUD bill are rolling in, we are 
seeing a very familiar theme--authorizing provisions. There are a 
multitude of issues, especially in the transportation title and the 
housing title, that very desperately needed to be considered and acted 
upon by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction. A number of Members 
have good ideas for improving these programs, and the authorizers need 
to have the opportunity to turn these ideas into law.
  The Appropriations Committee can only deal with existing law, so I 
would urge my colleagues with amendments that are out of order to 
please bring these issues to the relevant chairmen, and let's improve 
the underlying statutes. We can't make these authorizing changes on 
this appropriations bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I look forward to the 
general debate on the Transportation and HUD bill and to a very speedy 
amendment process.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Thank you very much for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to the $19.405 billion allocation that 
our Subcommittee on Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration-
related agencies received, but I rise in support of the rule for moving 
this process forward with a great floor debate.
  The allocation given to our committee is $1.7 billion, or 8 percent, 
below what the President requested; and it is $365 million, or 1.8 
percent, below what we enacted in the House last year, in 2012.
  Chairman Kingston, my colleague on the Republican side of the aisle 
and chair of our committee, does a great job. He has talked about how 
we have savings that have been found and that, in tough budgetary 
times, everybody has got to tighten his belt. We all know that, but 
it's about the cost of tightening those belts and about those who 
depend on those programs which, in many ways, are their survival. I 
feel several programs have been cut so deeply that people will either 
be unable or will have difficulty in performing the duties of those 
programs.
  This bill slashes Food for Peace by 22 percent. Let me be crystal 
clear about what this cut means. Mr. McGovern just spelled it out very 
clearly. It's the wrong thing to do. It means 6 million to 8 million 
people will face starvation--6 million to 8 million people. Cutting 
food aid only increases the need to bump up other, more costly efforts 
later on. It means that 44,000 Americans who produce that food could be 
losing their jobs. Those include farmers, the shippers of food, 
processors, port workers, and merchant mariners, who ship it across the 
seas.
  In another example, 41 percent is being cut from the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission--41 percent. That's misguided and shows a 
lack of understanding of its oversight responsibilities. A failure to 
fund robust oversight will only hurt American taxpayers. The CFTC is 
charged with the oversight of unregulated swaps at $300 trillion a 
year--$300 trillion of these swaps--and it is grossly unregulated.
  This regulatory oversight protects the American taxpayer and reckless 
Wall Street behavior that caused the 2008 financial crisis. We all know 
that reckless Wall Street behavior led to the collapse of the housing 
market, which is still dragging down economic growth in all of our 
communities across America. We in Congress need to restore the people's 
confidence in our ability to govern and to regulate Wall Street and to 
benefit Main Street. We in Congress need to restore the CFTC funding.
  Remember, too, that the FDA, which is the Food and Drug 
Administration, oversees 80 percent of our Nation's food supply, 
including food for more than 3,000 facilities in 200 countries around 
the world.

                              {time}  1750

  I appreciate the effort here to bump up food safety modernization 
implementation. However, the total Food and Drug Administration is 
funded at $16 million under what we gave them last year, and $31 
million below what was requested for this year.
  As you know, in addition to overseeing most of our food supply, it is 
responsible for the safety of drugs and medical devices, many of which 
are imported to the United States.
  In closing, I do think that Chairman Kingston made a good effort in 
crafting this bill, given the allocation he had to deal with. I support 
this rule and continue to work with him as we move forward on this 
bill. Let's have a good hearty debate and adopt some amendments to 
correct it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, one of the bills that will seek consideration 
under this open rule is H.R. 5973, which primarily funds agriculture 
and nutrition programs. The legislation contains discretionary funding, 
as well as required mandatory funding for food and nutrition programs 
within the Department of Agriculture. This includes funding for the 
special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children, or WIC, the food stamp, or Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program, SNAP, and the child nutrition programs.
  The bill provides $6.9 billion in discretionary funding for WIC, 
which, contrary to what liberals suggest, is $303.5 million above last 
year's level. This program provides supplemental nutritional foods 
needed by pregnant and nursing mothers, babies, and young children. 
Language is included for oversight and monitoring requirements

[[Page 9996]]

to ensure the proper use of taxpayer dollars, as well as food price 
tracking to ensure necessary resources continue serving those eligible 
for program benefits.
  The bill provides for $19.7 billion in required mandatory funding 
outside of the discretionary funding jurisdiction of the Appropriations 
Committee for child nutrition programs, which is $1.5 billion above 
last year's level. The bill provides for $80 billion in required 
mandatory spending, which is, again, outside of the discretionary 
funding jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee, for SNAP, the 
food stamp program. This is $408 million below last year's level.
  Since food stamps or SNAP spending is driven by program 
participation, the spending is called mandatory. This legislation also 
includes new stringent reporting requirements to help weed out and 
eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, such as a requirement 
for States to include the fraud hotline number on all EBT cards, a 
directive that the Secretary of Agriculture ban fraudulent vendors, and 
a requirement for States to share data with enforcement agencies.
  The legislation includes $996 million for food safety and inspection 
programs, which is equal to the President's budget request, and a 
decrease of $9 million below last year's level. These mandatory 
inspection activities, which play a significant role in maintaining the 
safety and productivity of the country's $832 billion meat and poultry 
industry, help maintain critical meat, poultry, and egg product 
inspection and testing activities and support the implementation of a 
poultry inspection program to improve safety and inspection efficiency. 
This voluntary inspection program is expected to reduce government 
costs by $85 million to $95 million over 3 years and reduce costs to 
private businesses by a total of $250 million.
  The FDA receives a total of almost $2.5 billion in discretionary 
funding in the bill, representing a 0.7 percent or $16.3 million 
reduction below last year's level. Total funding for the FDA, including 
user fees, is $3.8 billion.
  These are just some of the priorities outlined in the underlying 
legislation. I look forward to hearing from committee leaders, who will 
provide further discussion of various elements of the legislation at 
the time the bill is debated.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, I just want to yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to make a point here.
  I think it's important for us not to try to fool anybody by saying 
that we are adequately living up to the challenge of combating hunger 
and food insecurity in this country, because I will say to the 
gentlelady that there are 49 million Americans who would disagree with 
you. There are 49 million Americans who are hungry in our country, the 
richest country on the planet. Seventeen million of them are children.
  Among the many things that are cut in this Agriculture appropriations 
bill is the Commodity Supplemental Food program. The cut in that alone 
would throw 55,000 seniors off of food assistance.
  We can talk about that we're trying to do the best we can, but let's 
not say that somehow we're doing something we're not. We are not 
meeting the challenge of ending hunger and food insecurity in America. 
Not by a long shot. That's one of the frustrating things about this 
appropriations process--that the very programs to help people get out 
of poverty, to get on their feet again, are being slashed. You are 
balancing the budget on the backs of hungry people while you ask Donald 
Trump not to pay one penny more in taxes. I think that's unfair, and 
that's why, I think, this whole process is unfair.
  At this point, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill.
  It does not meet our responsibilities to the American people. This 
bill's allocation is $1.7 billion below the President's request. The 
lower allocation represents a breaking of the bipartisan agreement we 
made last August. It will have a dramatic impact on the fundamental 
American priorities embodied in this bill, especially in the critical 
areas of financial protection, nutrition, food safety, and antihunger 
programs.
  I would like to submit this letter from the United States Conference 
of Catholic Bishops for the Record, a letter that speaks out against 
the inadequate funding for nutrition and antihunger programs in this 
appropriations bill.
  Nearly half of the babies born in the United States every year 
participate in the Women, Infants, and Children feeding program. It is 
a short-term intervention that can help provide a lifetime of good 
nutrition and health behaviors. And yet at a time of great need, the 
bill underfunds WIC by $119 million.
  The Food and Drug Administration is the cornerstone of our food and 
product safety system, and yet this bill rescinds $47.7 million in 
previous funding and displaces the agency's vital mission: protecting 
the health of Americans at risk.
  The bill cuts the Food for Peace program. Because of this cut, at 
least 6.6 million fewer hungry people around the globe will be fed. 
Already, 300 children perish every hour of every day because of hunger 
and related causes. Ronald Reagan correctly called Food for Peace ``an 
instrument of American compassion,'' and we should support it.
  We know for a fact that the risky behavior in derivative markets that 
precipitated the 2008 financial meltdown is still happening. We've seen 
it with MF Global and J.P. Morgan. Americans want more accountability 
from Wall Street and less speculation erratically driving up oil 
prices. And yet, this bill funds the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission at $25 million less than 2012 and the full $128 million--41 
percent. This is quite simply setting the commission up for failure.
  We have a lot of work to do to fix this bill. We must ensure that the 
fundamental priorities of the people that we represent--like preserving 
fair markets, improving nutrition, ensuring food and consumer safety--
are upheld.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  I might add that in the State of Connecticut, in the Third 
Congressional District, one out of seven individuals is food insecure. 
What does food insecurity mean? It means they don't know where their 
next meal is coming from.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. We have 49 million people in this Nation who are going 
to bed hungry every night in the richest country in the world. It is 
inconceivable that we would cut back on food and nutrition programs 
when the Nation is suffering from the most serious economic recession 
it is having, and that we would cut back on food stamps.
  We have cut back on school breakfast programs, school lunch programs, 
The Emergency Food Assistance program, the Commodity Supplemental Food 
program. And while the richest people in this Nation are having three 
squares a day or better, let's get our priorities straight. Let's focus 
on the people that we have come here to represent. Oppose this rule and 
oppose this bill.

                                          United States Conference


                                          of Catholic Bishops,

                                     Washington DC, June 26, 2012.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the United States 
     Conference of Catholic Bishops, we wish to address the moral 
     and human dimensions of the FY 2013 Agriculture 
     Appropriations legislation. The bishops' conference urges you 
     to resist significant cuts to both domestic and international 
     food aid and conservation and rural development programs. 
     Major reductions at this time of economic turmoil and rising 
     poverty will hurt hungry, poor and vulnerable people in our 
     nation and around the world.
       In For I Was Hungry and You Gave Me Food, the bishops 
     wrote, ``The primary goals of agricultural policies should be 
     providing

[[Page 9997]]

     food for all people and reducing poverty among farmers and 
     farm workers in this county and abroad.'' Adequate nutrition 
     is essential to protect human life and dignity. We urge 
     support for just and sufficient funding for agriculture 
     policies that serve hungry, poor and vulnerable people while 
     promoting good stewardship of the land and natural resources. 
     In our soup kitchens and on our parish doorsteps, we see the 
     faces of poor and hungry people every day. As a faith 
     community, we feed those without work, pregnant women and 
     children and seniors on a limited income. The Catholic 
     community at home and abroad includes farmers, ranchers, 
     farmworkers and business owners who grow food, care for the 
     land and help rural communities prosper.
       The bishops' conference acknowledges the difficult 
     challenges that Congress, the Administration and government 
     at all levels face to match scarce resources with growing 
     needs. A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate 
     cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons; it 
     requires shared sacrifice by all.
       As pastors and teachers, we believe these are economic, 
     political and moral choices with human consequences. Our 
     bishops' conference has offered several moral criteria to 
     help guide difficult budgetary decisions:
       Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it 
     protects or threatens human life and dignity.
       A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it 
     affects ``the least of these'' (Matthew 25). The needs of 
     those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty 
     should come first.
       Government and other institutions have a shared 
     responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially 
     ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity 
     in difficult economic times.
       We address the following programs as they reflect a 
     priority for poor and hungry people and promote good 
     stewardship:


                           DOMESTIC PROGRAMS

       WIC: The Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program is 
     fully funded at $7.04 billion in the President's FY 2013 
     budget. With record high child poverty (1 in 5 children), a 
     cut to this program would harm some of the most vulnerable 
     people in our country.
       TEFAP: The Emergency Food Assistance Program receives 
     appropriations funding for food storage and distribution 
     grants in local communities. Cuts to the program could force 
     some of our parishes and other charities to turn away hungry 
     people when they continue to need our help.
       SNAP: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
     (formerly food stamps), received a $2 billion cut made to the 
     reserve fund in the 2010 child nutrition bill. Restoration of 
     funding is necessary as families continue to struggle with 
     joblessness and poverty.
       CSFP: The Commodity Supplemental Food Program provides food 
     assistance to low-income seniors, pregnant and breastfeeding 
     women and infants and children. Adequate funding is needed to 
     help faith communities and other charities provide food 
     packages to hungry people in their local communities. 
     Reductions will result in a loss of food for thousands of 
     low-income seniors.
       CSP: Adequately fund the Conservation Stewardship Program 
     to help farmers conserve and care for farm land for future 
     generations. Strong conservation programs are necessary to 
     promote good stewardship of creation and provide needed 
     support to family farms.
       VAPG: Maintain current funding for the Value Added Producer 
     Grants program to help farmers and ranchers develop new farm 
     and food-related businesses to increase rural economic 
     opportunity and help farm and ranch families thrive. In 
     addition, restore funding for the Rural Micro-entrepreneur 
     Assistance Program (RMAP)--which was eliminated in the FY 
     2012 funding bill--to help small businesses develop and grow 
     in rural communities.


                         INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

       Food for Peace: The President's Budget proposal calls for a 
     4.5% cut to the Title II Food Aid program from the FY 2012 
     appropriated levels, which is a 20% cut from the FY 2010 
     level. Such substantial cuts over just two years will 
     undoubtedly lead to an unacceptable loss of life for those in 
     dire circumstances.
       Safe Box: Congress must protect Title II Food Aid funds to 
     development programs by preserving the ``safe box'' 
     provision. Programs funded through the safe box help 
     chronically hungry communities build lasting agricultural 
     capacity that minimizes the impact of severe weather and 
     other catastrophes.
       Local and Regional Purchase: Direct funds to the Local and 
     Regional Procurement (LRP) of food commodities. As 
     demonstrated in the pilot program funded by the 2008 Farm 
     Bill, LRP can reduce the cost of food assistance, shorten 
     delivery times, and improve overall response for both 
     emergency and development programs.
       202e Funds: Increase the amount of cash resources in the 
     Title II program. The distribution of food alone is not 
     enough to stimulate sustainable development. Agencies like 
     Catholic Relief Services use these funds to operate nutrition 
     education programs that save the lives of mothers and 
     children and for agricultural programs that increase the 
     quality and amount of food that poor farmers produce. 
     Increasing cash resources would also reduce the need to sell 
     U.S. food in developing countries to generate cash to support 
     such programs (monetization).


                        Priorities and Subsidies

       The bishops' conference supports farm safety net programs 
     such as crop insurance and disaster assistance that are 
     targeted to the needs of small to medium sized farmers and 
     ranchers. Savings should be used to fund hunger and nutrition 
     programs that serve people in need.
       At a time of great competition for agricultural resources 
     and budgetary constraints, the needs of those who are hungry, 
     poor and vulnerable should come before assistance to those 
     who are relatively well off and powerful. With other 
     Christian leaders, we urge the committee to draw a ``circle 
     of protection'' around resources that serve those in greatest 
     need and to put their needs first even though they do not 
     have powerful advocates or great influence. The moral measure 
     of the agriculture appropriations process is how it serves 
     ``the least of these.'' We urge you to protect and fund 
     programs that feed hungry people, help the most vulnerable 
     farmers, strengthen rural communities and promote good 
     stewardship of God's creation.
           Sincerely yours,
     Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire,
       Bishop of Stockton, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice 
     and Human Development.
     Most Reverend Richard E. Pates,
       Bishop of Des Moines, Chairman, Committee on International 
     Justice and Peace.

                              {time}  1800

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the other bill that will benefit from 
consideration under this open rule is H.R. 5972, which provides funding 
aimed at supporting a vibrant and safe transportation infrastructure 
while making the difficult decisions needed to balance the budget.
  The bill includes $17.6 billion in discretionary appropriations for 
the Department of Transportation for fiscal year 2013. This is $69 
million below last year's level. The bill designates $39.1 billion from 
the highway trust fund for the Federal highway program, which is the 
same level provided last year.
  However, the committee recognizes that since the highway program 
still requires reauthorization and the funding level provided in the 
bill may change upon the enactment of a highway authorization bill for 
the next fiscal year, the Appropriations Committee is prepared to 
support a differing highway trust fund spending level should a new 
multiyear authorization bill be enacted.
  Included in the legislation is $12.6 billion for the Federal Aviation 
Administration, which is $91 million above last year's level. The bill 
provides nearly $1 billion for the FAA's Next Generation Air 
Transportation System, otherwise known as NextGen, allowing the FAA to 
move forward with the next step in modernizing the Nation's air control 
and airport system. The bill also supports operations and staffing, 
which will help ease congestion and reduce delays for travelers in U.S. 
airspace while rejecting the administration's proposals for new 
aviation fees.
  The legislation contains funding for the various transportation 
safety programs and agencies within the Department of Transportation. 
This includes $776 million in both mandatory and discretionary funding 
for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, representing a 
reduction of $23.8 million below last year; $551 million for the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, representing a reduction 
of $2.6 million below last year; and $177 million for the Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which is $4 million above 
last year's level.
  The legislation includes a total of $33.6 billion to the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, which is $3.8 billion below last 
year's level. The bill wastes no funding on any new, unauthorized 
``sustainable,'' ``livable,'' or ``green'' community development 
programs. $26.3 billion is included in the bill for public and Indian 
housing, representing an increase of $759 million above last year's 
level.

[[Page 9998]]

  Within this total, the bill provides funding to renew benefits for 
every single individual and family currently receiving assistance and 
ensures that no critical benefits are eliminated or canceled. The bill 
also fully funds the President's request for veterans' housing at $75 
million and Native American block grants at $650 million.
  Housing programs within the bill are funded at $9.3 billion, 
representing a reduction of $361 million below last year's level and 
$49 million below the request. Within this total, the bill provides 
sufficient funding for the most vulnerable populations, including $165 
million for housing for the disabled, an increase of $15 million over 
last year, and $425 million for housing for the elderly, again, an 
increase of $50 million above last year.
  These are just some of the priorities outlined in the underlying 
legislation. Again, I look forward to hearing from committee leaders 
who will provide further discussion of the various elements of the 
legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows Members to go home to 
their districts, even if we don't address the doubling of student loan 
interest rates that are about to hit people across the country and even 
if we don't hammer out a deal to fund our transportation programs and 
create jobs, notwithstanding the fact that our infrastructure is 
crumbling.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to say that the House cannot adjourn at the end of this week until 
we finish our business.
  And to discuss this amendment, I would yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
rule because we are set to adjourn this week without finishing our 
critical work on transportation.
  We need a long-term surface transportation bill that puts Americans 
back to work. Mr. Speaker, this House only builds roads in order to 
find cans to kick down those roads. We cannot have a ``big league'' 
economy with ``little league'' infrastructure in this country. We need 
a long-term investment to repair our roads, bridges, and highways, and 
to maintain our transit systems.
  Leaders of our country have always recognized this fact. Three years 
after Lewis and Clark left for the West, President Jefferson secured 
funding for the Cumberland Road. If Jefferson recognized the importance 
that transportation can have in linking this country, uniting the 
States in a shared economy and trade, surely we can show that same 
recognition today by staying here to ensure that the work of job 
creation is done. The question before us is whether this body 
recognizes that transportation projects create jobs and set the stage 
for economic growth.
  A bipartisan bill passed out of the Senate. It was forged out of 
compromise. It is a bipartisan solution. It means immediate job 
creation. It means jobs for private sector contractors, laborers, and 
engineers.
  A conference committee is meeting right now to bring us a long-term 
authorization to create real jobs. We should not adjourn without a 
long-term, robust, and bipartisan investment in transportation and 
jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can finish this 
work.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are talking about the fact that 
we are going to have a district work period next week. The district 
work period is because next week we are celebrating the signing of the 
Declaration of Independence, one of the most important holidays in this 
country.
  Our colleagues across the aisle want to create more dependence in 
this country. They are as far away from the Founders of this country as 
you can be in terms of what makes this country unique and what makes it 
so great.
  We don't need more dependence in this country, Mr. Speaker. We need 
to celebrate what makes this country great, what makes us unique. It's 
the independence of this country and the independence of citizens and 
their ability to take care of themselves and to personally take care of 
each other and not continue to look to the nanny state that our friends 
would create and have tried to create over the years.
  These are very difficult times, Mr. Speaker. We all know that. But 
it's important that the American people understand that House 
Republicans have repeatedly worked to find common ground with the 
President and Senate Democrats and have passed several bipartisan bills 
that would improve this economy which has been so damaged by the 
policies of the left and this President.
  Several proposals supported even by the President have passed the 
House and have been signed into law, including trade pacts, a 
bipartisan veterans hiring bill, and a repeal of the IRS withholding 
tax on job creators. But the President's own job council has embraced 
many of the job proposals advocated by Republicans but ignored by the 
President himself.
  The simple truth is that President Obama's attempt supported by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and by them only, to 
stimulate the economy by growing government has failed.
  But you don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Just look at 
the facts: The recent jobs report showed that the U.S. gained only 
69,000 jobs in the month of May.
  May marked the 40th consecutive month that the unemployment rate has 
remained above 8 percent, repudiating the administration's pledge that 
unemployment would remain below 8 percent if the Democrat 2009 stimulus 
plan became law. Lest we forget, it was the Obama administration which 
claimed unemployment would be below 6 percent today if the $1.178 
trillion Democrat ``stimulus'' was signed into law.
  At the current rate of job growth, if the United States continues to 
struggle under the failed policies that have produced the ``Obama 
economy'' and adds only 69,000 jobs each month in the future, it would 
take a total of 10 years and 5 months--until June 2018--to regain all 
the jobs lost during the latest recession, which is longer than the 8 
years it took to regain the jobs lost during the Great Depression.

                              {time}  1810

  But even these figures, Mr. Speaker, hide the fact that the rate of 
underemployment, or real unemployment, which counts those who want to 
work but have stopped searching in this economy and those who are 
forced to work part-time because they cannot find full employment, is 
14.5 percent or higher.
  Also troubling is the realization that since 2008, which is the year 
President Obama was elected, median family income has declined by 
$1,154, falling to its lowest level since 1996. As of March 2012, the 
number of Americans receiving food stamps was 46.4 million, which is 
the third most in any month in history and up 80,000 from February. 
Today, 15 percent of Americans receive food stamps, representing an 
increase of 45 percent since President Obama took office.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to 
continue the failed policies they began in 2007 and instituted for 4 
years and worked with President Obama for 2 years on. Fortunately, Mr. 
Speaker, House Republicans are working to improve the dismal conditions 
imposed by the liberal regime that dominated Washington, D.C., for far 
too long.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Let me just say I hope that the gentlelady wasn't 
implying that somehow the Federal Government doesn't have a role in 
investing in our national highway infrastructure. Dwight Eisenhower, a 
Republican, I should remind the gentlelady, understood the importance 
of having a national highway program.
  As has been pointed out by a number of our speakers on the Democratic 
side, our infrastructure is aging and is falling apart, and we're not 
going to be able to compete in this global economy unless we make the 
proper investments. And by making the proper investments, we are not 
only helping our economy; we are putting people back to work. We are 
putting people back to

[[Page 9999]]

work. And yet the Republican leadership of this House is holding 
hostage a transportation bill that passed the Senate that would put 
countless people back to work, which passed overwhelmingly in the 
Senate by 74 votes--overwhelmingly in the Senate. We can't get that 
brought up on the House floor for a vote.
  The Republicans, I would say, Mr. Speaker, I think are intentionally 
running out the clock. I think it's a cynical attempt to hold 
everything up, to not invest in our economy, to slow down economic 
growth. Hopefully, I think, in their minds, they hope that it will win 
them the election. I think it's a cynical way to do politics. We ought 
to be on this floor helping the American people.
  And, yes, the 4th of July is a great time for us to celebrate our 
country, but a lot of Americans are not going to celebrate because 
they're out of work. And we have the ability to put them back to work. 
Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle are holding hostage the 
very bill that could put countless Americans back to work.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, unless Congress acts in the next 4 days, 
the subsidized Stafford student loan interest rate is going to double 
from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Despite the fact that that looming 
deadline which affects over 7 million college students all across 
American is staring us in the face, what we are debating here today is 
a rule which allows the House to go into recess for the 10th week since 
January, which is part of this rule.
  The good news is that a couple of hours ago it was reported that the 
Senate and Republican leadership have actually agreed upon a settlement 
of this issue which would allow the 3.4 percent rate to be extended for 
1 year. But I would note that Mitch McConnell, who's the minority 
leader for the Republic Party, said that:
  Final approval of student loan legislation, which would prevent rates 
on Federal Stafford loans from doubling to 6.8 percent, depends on 
House Republicans.
  The fact of the matter is we have no idea whether or not the House 
Republican leadership is going to agree to this compromise which the 
Senate leadership reached a few hours ago, because all we're debating 
here today is another adjournment or recess motion before the House. 
The fact of the matter is it is time for us to focus on this issue 
which the President on January 25 challenged Congress to act on.
  I started this countdown chart at day 110. We are now down to the 
final hours before the interest rates double, which will cost thousands 
of dollars in more interest costs to college students across America, 
unless we act. The fact of the matter is that the House Republican bill 
that they rushed to the floor without a subcommittee, without a markup, 
was completely rejected by Republicans in the Senate. We now have the 
glimmer of a deal, a compromise. We should not be debating another 
adjournment resolution for the 10th week of recess this year until we 
get this work done.
  There are millions of college students all across America who are 
waiting for us to get this issue resolved so that they can plan their 
budget for the next fall semester. And the fact that we're here again 
with another adjournment resolution with the most unproductive Congress 
in recent memory is ridiculous. We should reject this rule. Let's focus 
on getting the work done that the American people are counting on.
  Ms. FOXX. I need to remind my colleague across the aisle we're not 
debating an adjournment resolution here today. I also need to remind my 
colleague across the aisle that it was the Democrats that set this 
student loan problem up. They made promises in 2006 to the American 
people they couldn't keep; and so they set up a time bomb, actually, so 
that the interest rates on the student loans would go back up because, 
again, they made promises they couldn't keep about lowering the rate of 
interest.
  It affects a very small number of students, and it only affects them 
when they graduate from college, Mr. Speaker. If the Obama economy 
weren't so lousy and only 50 percent of the students graduating were 
getting jobs, it really wouldn't be that big an issue because it's a 
very small amount of money to the students. And if they had jobs, they 
wouldn't be quite so concerned about it. They only have to pay those 
loans back after they graduate because we're subsidizing interest while 
they are in school.
  So I think our colleagues don't really want to go in that direction 
and talk about blaming Republicans for this mess with student loans, 
since they created it. And if the students were getting jobs, most of 
them wouldn't be as concerned about it as they are now.
  Also, on the transportation bill that our colleagues tout so well, 
again, it fits right into their philosophy of borrow, borrow, borrow; 
spend, spend, spend. It is not a responsible bill because the 
Republican bill would stay within the limits of the revenue that we get 
from the highway trust fund. But they just want to borrow from the 
general fund and make our situation worse.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems clear to everyone except the liberal leadership 
that job creators are bogged down by overly burdensome Federal 
regulations that prevent job creation and hinder economic growth. These 
regulations are particularly damaging for the real job creators in the 
country: small business owners. The Federal Government may create jobs, 
but they are not sustainable jobs, and they are a drag on the economy.
  However, House Republicans recognize the need to remove onerous, 
redundant Federal regulations that are so harmful to small businesses 
and impede private sector investment and job creation. In order to ease 
the regulatory burden on the economy and to promote job creation, House 
Republicans have worked to advance legislation to rein in the 
unaccountable Federal regulatory apparatus and continue to pursue 
innovative initiatives such as my bill, H.R. 373, the Unfunded Mandates 
Information and Transparency Act, which would help improve transparency 
and accountability by disclosing costs to Federal mandates that would 
otherwise remain hidden from public scrutiny.
  House Republicans appreciate that America's Tax Code has grown overly 
complicated and cumbersome, filled with loopholes and giveaways and is 
fundamentally unfair. That's why the House Republican plan for 
America's job creators recognizes the need to eliminate the special 
interest tax breaks that litter the Tax Code and reduce our overall tax 
rate to no more than 25 percent for business and individuals, including 
small business owners. This would make the Tax Code flatter, fairer, 
and simpler. Commonsense changes to the Tax Code would ensure that 
everyone pays his or her fair share, lessens the burden on families, 
generates economic expansion, and creates jobs by making Americans more 
competitive.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote 
on the previous question so that an amendment to the rule can be 
offered.
  Mr. Speaker, we just heard about what makes this country great. Well, 
I think what makes this country great is the education of our people.

                              {time}  1820

  We know that having a good education is key to achieving the American 
Dream and key to keeping our country competitive. We all know that 
because the folks in this Chamber know the importance of a college 
education. Most people here have gone to college. But there are 
millions of young adults who are slowly seeing that opportunity 
evaporate with tuition skyrocketing.
  Students from across my district in San Diego are struggling, and 
they tell me that every day. Some are doing a delicate balancing act of 
providing for their families while taking on a full academic course 
load. And others,

[[Page 10000]]

quite frankly, are just scraping by each semester. An additional burden 
of $1,000 in interest payments is no trifling matter for these 
students. And yet, we see that partisan games have led to gridlock on 
this issue.
  College students know that if they miss deadlines, there are 
consequences. And for Congress, there should be consequences, too. 
Well, Mr. Speaker, the clock is running out, and I urge my colleagues, 
please, support a solution that gives students and families the relief 
that they desperately need.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  I think most Americans would agree, irrespective of which party they 
are in, that it would be a good idea to put Americans back to work 
building our highways and our bridges and our transportation systems, 
and do it now.
  I think most Americans would agree that doubling interest rates on 
student loans would be disastrous for people struggling to get a 
college education.
  I think most Americans would agree that if the other body passed a 
transportation bill by three-quarters of the Members voting for it, 
Republican and Democrat, it would be a good idea to take that bill up 
here.
  I think most Americans would agree that if the Republican and 
Democratic leadership in the other body reached an agreement on a way 
to keep the student loan rates low and not add to the deficit by paying 
for it, it would be a really good idea to bring the bill up here.
  The unfortunate thing for the House and for the country is that the 
only people who don't seem to be a part of that consensus are the 
Republican Members of the House of Representatives. No matter if the 
Senate Republicans say it's okay, and the Senate Democrats say it's 
okay, and the President says it's okay, and the House Democrats say 
it's okay, and more importantly, if the American people say it's okay, 
it somehow isn't usually okay with them.
  So what Mr. McGovern is saying is this: until we keep the student 
loan rates low, and until we pass a jobs bill to put people back to 
work on transportation, let's not take our 10th week of paid vacation 
this year. I think that's a pretty reasonable thing to do. So voting 
``no'' on the previous question says let's get our work done before we 
go home and take our 10th week of vacation for the year. Vote ``no.''
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I don't know about my colleagues across the 
aisle, it's not a paid vacation for me. I go home and spend time with 
my constituents and hear from them what's of concern. Maybe they're on 
vacation, but I know the people on our side of the aisle are not on 
vacation. They're working hard for the American people, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentlelady how many 
more speakers she has on her side?
  Ms. FOXX. We are prepared to close when the gentleman is prepared to 
close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I'm prepared to close. How much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, our job should be to help improve the quality of life 
for the citizens that we represent. We ought to be investing in our 
economy at this very difficult time. That's why we are urging the House 
Republicans to join with the Senate Republicans and the Senate 
Democrats and the House Democrats in bringing a highway bill to the 
floor so we can provide some certainty to our States, so there can be 
more investments in infrastructure, so there can be more jobs created. 
That would give the American people a little something to celebrate.
  We are urging my colleagues on the Republican side here in the House 
to join with us in making sure that interest rates on student loans 
don't double for a great number of young people in this country who are 
trying to get an education. My colleague from North Carolina would have 
us believe that it is no big deal. Well, it is a big deal. It's a big 
deal to those students and to their families. It is a big deal to those 
of us on this side of the aisle. And maybe that's one of the 
differences between the two parties. We believe college education ought 
to be affordable, and no one should not go to college because they 
can't afford the education.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of an 
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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the amendment basically says we're not 
going home, we're not leaving this place until we do our work because 
part of our job, I would say to my colleague from North Carolina, is 
not just going home and meeting with our constituents and marching in 
parades. Part of our job is to pass legislation that is important to 
the people we represent.
  This highway bill is important to putting people back to work. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle have dragged their feet and 
dragged their feet and dragged their feet. I think it is 
unconscionable. We are running out of time. We need to start doing the 
people's business here. And if that means that we have to stay through 
the weekend, we should stay through the weekend. If we have to stay 
through next week, we should stay through next week. But we ought to do 
something meaningful.
  Our job should not be about lowering the quality of life for people, 
and that is my problem with the appropriations process that my 
colleagues have pursued in this House. It is all about putting all of 
the burden of balancing our budget on middle-income families and on 
those who least can afford it. Donald Trump is not asked to pay one 
penny more.
  Mr. Speaker, 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.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, next week is the Fourth of July. We are 
going to be celebrating Independence Day, and I would like to say that 
I don't believe the job of the Federal Government is to provide things 
to citizens but to preserve our liberty, and that's what next week 
should be reminding us of.
  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are aware of the clear mandate the 
American people gave us. Our charge is to reduce the crushing debt that 
our country is currently carrying. According to the Senate Budget 
Committee, debt grew four times faster under President Obama than 
Clinton or Bush, with President Obama already having amassed more debt 
since taking office than did President Bush during his entire two terms 
in office. Today, the national debt is over $15 trillion, which amounts 
to nearly $48,000 for every man, woman and child in America.
  It's clear without a change in leadership in the White House and 
Senate, the legacy we are apt to leave our children and grandchildren 
will be a crushing debt burden and a weaker, less secure, and less 
prosperous Nation. This is simply unacceptable.
  The Federal Government's current budget deficits are simply 
unsustainable. During these tough economic times, American families are 
getting by on less, and the government should do the same.
  When the Democrat elites were in the majority, they pushed a job-
killing agenda starting with the $1 trillion failed stimulus package, 
followed by a massive job-killing tax hike in the form of cap-and-
trade, then the job-killing ObamaCare, all the while leaving our 
country with record debts and deficits as unemployment skyrocketed. 
Recognizing that government has gotten too expensive, Republicans are 
here to stop the senseless Obama spending binge. That's why I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

[[Page 10001]]

  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 697 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       Strike section 4 and insert the following:
       Sec 4. Except as specified in section 5, it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment during the 
     month of July.
       Sec. 5. It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent 
     resolution providing for adjournment on Friday, June 29, 
     2012, unless the Majority Leader and Minority Leader jointly 
     certify to the Speaker in writing that the Congress has 
     cleared for presentment to the President measures that will:

     --prevent the doubling of interest rates on student loans; 
       and
     --reauthorize Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor 
       carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of 
       the Highway Trust Fund.
                                  ____

       (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.

  Ms. FOXX. 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. McGOVERN. 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 H. Res. 
697 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, 
if requested; the motion to instruct on H.R. 4348 offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and the motion to instruct on H.R. 
4348 offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 168, not voting 38, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 412]

                               YEAS--226

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     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
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     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
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--168

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi

[[Page 10002]]


     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     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
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Altmire
     Blumenauer
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Clarke (NY)
     Crowley
     Diaz-Balart
     Engel
     Flake
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Holden
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Meeks
     Neal
     Pence
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1856

  Mr. HOLT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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. McGOVERN. 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 229, 
noes 166, not voting 37, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 413]

                               AYES--229

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     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
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     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
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     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--166

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     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
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--37

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Altmire
     Blumenauer
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Clarke (NY)
     Crowley
     Diaz-Balart
     Engel
     Flake
     Gutierrez
     Herger
     Holden
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Meeks
     Neal
     Pence
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1903

  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.

                          ____________________