```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5644-H5649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6233, AGRICULTURAL DISASTER 
                         ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2012

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 752 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 752

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance 
     available for fiscal year 2012 with the costs of such 
     assistance offset by changes to certain conservation 
     programs, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Agriculture; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.

                             General Leave

  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 752 is a closed rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 6233, the Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 
2012.
  As a lifelong farmer myself, including operating a nursery and being 
a beekeeper, I can certainly empathize with being vulnerable to Mother 
Nature and the plight caused by unpredictable weather.
  Without a doubt, the good Lord has blessed this country with an 
abundance of natural gifts, and I am very thankful for America's 
farmers, who work to utilize and protect these blessings to help feed 
our country and others throughout the world. Unfortunately, the drought 
devastating so much of the United States this year has yielded a 
tremendous amount of financial hardships not only for these farmers but 
also for those throughout the rest of the economy that depend on their 
products.
  Mr. Speaker, it's important to remember that it is not just farmers 
affected by this drought. The consequences of this disaster impact all 
Americans, from those living in the biggest cities to those living in 
the most remote areas of this country. Not only does drought aggravate 
the risk of wildfires that have raged throughout the West, but it 
compromises our crops, which are used to feed our livestock and even 
fuel our cars.

                              {time}  1040

  The effects will last long after rain brings much-needed relief. With 
the price of corn jumping 50 percent since June, grocery costs continue 
to climb. The Department of Agriculture now estimates food prices could 
climb between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent this year, and between 3 
percent and 4 percent next year.
  Also of consequence to price conscious energy consumers is how the

[[Page H5645]]

drought impacts the price of gasoline. Federal law provides that 10 
percent of gasoline to be composed of ethanol. The increasing price has 
led some ethanol refineries to cut production, which, in turn, 
increases what drivers pay at the pump.
  While many will suffer from inflated costs of staples they use every 
day, there are millions of Americans who live in communities throughout 
this country that are economically dependent on agriculture activity. 
Many of those living in sparsely populated regions work in businesses 
that thrive on the income associated with agricultural sales.
  If anything positive is to come from this drought, my hope is that 
Americans gain a renewed appreciation for all the different ways 
agricultural productivity touches everyone's lives every day.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill, H.R. 6233, the supplemental agriculture disaster assistance.
  Look, weather impacts our lives. I'm going to talk a little bit about 
climate change and some of the driving factors that are causing more 
severe weather conditions, be they droughts or floods. Yes, they affect 
businesses, but the solution is not another Republican Big Government 
government bailout of yet another industry. The Republicans have bailed 
out Wall Street. The Republicans have bailed out the banks. Now the 
Republicans are seeking to bail out cows. Yes, Mr. Speaker, another Big 
Government solution to another problem, in part, of their own creation 
by refusing to take up action and reducing our carbon emissions for 
climate change.
  Where does this all end, when it's too cloudy? The solar industry 
might suffer. Are we going to bail them out? When it's not windy 
enough, the wind industry might suffer. Are we going to bail them out? 
We have restaurants on Pearl Street Mall in Boulder that have rooftop 
lounges. When it's too hot, less people go up to the rooftop lounges. 
We've had a drought in May and June and not enough people went to 
rooftop lounges. I would like to ask my colleague, Ms. Foxx, if there 
could be government bailout money for those rooftop lounges.
  I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. I'm sorry. I don't understand the analogy that you're 
making.
  Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, there's just a particular sector. 
Maybe they have a lot of lobbyists. Maybe they're a big special 
interest, they own cows. We're going to bail them out because the price 
of hay has gone up. That's what we're talking about here today.
  We're talking about a closed rule. We're talking about a closed 
process. This is nothing new, this lack of transparency, this limited 
debate, pushing through a Big Government Republican bailout on short 
notice without even giving Members enough time to offer improvements to 
the bill, to change the bill. The first time that Republicans and 
Democrats even saw this bill was late Tuesday night, and here we are on 
the floor of the House without a single hearing, without a single 
markup, pushing through this bill, shutting out opportunities for 
Democrats or Republicans to offer improvements to this bill.
  This is one of the worst and widest droughts we've seen in decades. I 
see that firsthand in Colorado. We have had devastating fires this 
summer coupled with extreme heat in the West. This is indicative of a 
need to address the true culprit: climate change. The evidence that 
recent droughts and heat waves are linked to climate change is growing 
suddenly and represents the strong scientific consensus.
  We need the very conservation programs in the farm bill that are 
being gutted for this Big Government bailout of cows. The very programs 
cut by this bill are needed to help farmers and ranchers conserve soil, 
conserve water to make their farms and ranches more resilient to the 
devastating impacts we see from climate change and to mitigate that 
impact.
  Look, American farmers, ranchers, and environmentalists have all been 
waiting for months to see a farm bill come to the floor. To the 
disappointment of many, instead of a farm bill, which I understand for 
at least 5 weeks we're not going to see in the House of 
Representatives, we're presented with a cow bailout, which is yet 
another Republican Big Government bailout of an American industry.

  When the Senate passed their farm bill over a month ago, the House 
majority couldn't even manage to bring a package to the floor for 
Members to debate. Earlier this week, the Republicans were looking at a 
1-year extension of the farm bill and have now decided to pull that 1-
year extension in favor of a cow bailout.
  Let me once again stress that our severe concerns around droughts in 
the West and across the country are critical, but we mustn't gut 
programs that are some of the very programs that can help prevent the 
impact of droughts in seeking to bail out a particular industry. When 
we look at drought assistance funding, we need to have a bipartisan 
discussion about how we're going to structure it and where it's going 
to come from and why certain industries are going to be favored over 
others.
  Why is there going to be a cow bailout instead of a rooftop terrace 
bailout? When it's too hot, businesses suffer. If you're going to have 
a big Republican bailout, why don't you discuss who it goes to and not 
just give it to who has the most lobbyists here or who gives the most 
campaign contributions.
  Furthermore, the conservation provisions that are cut by this bill do 
have strong bipartisan support in both Chambers. Both the Senate and 
the House Agriculture Committees understand the importance of the farm 
bill's conservation title. Both farm bills retain funding for the 
conservation title because many folks on both sides of the aisle agree 
that conservation practices are critical to protect our soil, the 
future production of our agriculture, water, and wildlife resources. 
That's yet another reason to consider a comprehensive bill, to help 
ensure the strength of agriculture and protect American jobs, rather 
than another Republican bailout.
  Instead of voting on the underlying bill, instead of even talking 
about a 5-year extension of the agriculture bill, here we are today 
gutting critical programs with bipartisan support to bail out yet 
another industry with a centrally planned Big Government solution.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, we all grieve for the people in this 
country who are willing to farm, who are willing to deal with the 
vicissitudes of mother nature and do their best to provide food and 
other products for the American people and people all around the world.
  We obviously don't have a lot of control over the weather. We have no 
control over the weather. We have no control over the climate, 
basically, but we need to respond to our fellow human beings, our 
fellow Americans when there is a need to do that.
  The drought would not be as exacerbated and the effects would not be 
so exacerbated were it not for the overall job climate in this country. 
We are really suffering from the effects of our colleagues having been 
in charge of the Congress for 4 years and an administration that is 
totally out of touch with what is happening, not only in this country, 
but around the world, in terms of our economic situation. We have 
record unemployment in this country, Mr. Speaker. We have record 
deficits. We have record debts. It seems like everybody recognizes that 
except for our liberal colleagues across the aisle.
  We know there's something wrong with the American job climate in this 
country. Whereas most people recognize the government should not wall 
off entrepreneurship with oppressive taxes, a costly, overcomplicated, 
and unnecessarily burdensome regulatory apparatus, we have a liberal 
President who is so out of touch that he said:

       If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody 
     else made that happen.

  It would be bad enough if that were the first Freudian slip from 
liberal leaders here in Washington, but this comes on the heels of both 
President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decreeing on 
separate occasions that the private sector is doing

[[Page H5646]]

just fine. Apparently, the two highest ranking Democrats in the country 
are trying to convince themselves of an alternative reality where 
unemployment would no longer be a problem if only more Americans worked 
for the government. Fortunately, we still have a lot of Americans 
working out there trying to produce food for all of us.

                              {time}  1050

  I recognize there are many government workers, teachers, police 
officers, firefighters, who provide critical services to this country. 
But to suggest that the unemployment problem in this country can be 
solved by continuing an unending, demonstrably failed liberal spending 
spree ignores the reality that it's the private sector that generates 
the wealth which provides revenue for government to work through an 
increasing seizure of personal earnings, as was displayed on the floor 
yesterday.
  Liberal elites would have us all believe that the only way to promote 
job growth is through a perpetual expansion of special handouts and 
concessions to government employee unions and politically favored 
industries.
  Less we forget that a centrally planned government-sponsored green 
jobs revolution was the only solution for unemployment worries during 
the height of the recent recession, I want to remind my colleague of 
the Solyndra loans and the many loans in that area that were made that 
have created crony capitalism in our country. The liberal Democrats 
promised to solve these problems by ramming through a $1 trillion 
stimulus bill, financed exclusively by our posterity through deficit 
spending and quickly shifted their focus on other crises vulnerable to 
exploitation, such as a new $800 billion energy tax that sought to 
crush millions of jobs while sending hundreds of billions overseas as 
well as the now-infamous government takeover of health care, otherwise 
known as ObamaCare.
  We're actually fortunate for these striking statements which reveal a 
peek into the mystifying mindset of liberal elites who apparently 
believe that government dependence is a necessary condition for 
economic health.
  Well, here's a news flash for the liberals who remain stubbornly 
unaware of the hardships that continue to grip Americans: the results 
are in, and everyone else knows that Big Government cannot simply 
prescribe economic prosperity and have it be so.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I listened very carefully to the gentlelady from North Carolina. I 
didn't hear her defend this bovine bailout that the Republicans are 
proposing here today. Now, I'm going to take a few minutes and address 
some of the mischaracterizations of the President of the United States 
that were in some of those comments, but then I do want to bring it 
back to this Big Government bovine bailout that the Republicans are 
proposing here before us today.
  Look, the President understands and I understand, as somebody who 
started several businesses before I got here--I created several hundred 
jobs--that of course I didn't do it alone. If we didn't have roads so 
that employees could get to work, I wouldn't have been able to start a 
company. I wouldn't have been able to have any employees to get to 
work. If we didn't have schools that help prepare programmers and 
technicians to work technology companies--tech companies that I started 
that hired programmers, that were good-paying jobs--I wouldn't have 
been able to start a company. If we didn't have investors and 
shareholders and the right level of securities regulation to prevent 
fraud and to give them the confidence to invest in the companies that I 
started, we wouldn't have capital formation and venture capital flowing 
to the companies that needed it.
  If we didn't have the rule of law, if we didn't fund our courts, if 
we didn't invest in basic research, if the government hadn't provided 
the funding to start the Internet, I wouldn't have been able to start a 
single company.
  And most of my friends who are entrepreneurs, who have started 
companies, who are corporate executives agree. Yes, the entrepreneur is 
critical. And the President's Jobs Council recognizes that, and this 
President has been more friendly to entrepreneurship and to business 
than any President in my lifetime, working to ensure that small 
businesses have the opportunity to succeed and grow and create jobs in 
the private sector.
  But without that basic infrastructure, we have to ask ourselves what 
separates the United States of America from a country like Somalia or 
even a centrally planned country like North Korea. A lot separates us. 
But a big part of that is this collaboration of a public sector role 
that enables entrepreneurship, enables success in the private sector, 
enables people to create fortunes, enables people to create jobs. 
That's the proper role of government.
  Government doesn't stand in the way of job creation. The government's 
policy framework, courts people can trust, roads for people to get to 
work, good public schools, good health care--that's what enables 
success. As somebody who reached some degree of success in the private 
sector before I got here, I agree completely with President Obama that 
I couldn't have achieved that degree of success without the public 
infrastructure that played a role in allowing me and so many other 
entrepreneurs to succeed.
  Now, moving back to the topic, the topic of the bovine bailout that 
the Republicans have proposed here today. The gentlelady from North 
Carolina said, We have no control over climate, basically. That was the 
quote that she just said. Well, the vast majority of scientific 
consensus and agreement would indicate otherwise.
  We don't control weather. But climate is different than weather. And, 
yes, humans are contributing to climate change through carbon emissions 
and emissions of other greenhouse gases. The global climate has warmed. 
The average climate in Colorado now is two to three degrees warmer than 
it was a century ago, and it continues to accelerate. Now, that doesn't 
cause a drought or a flood in any one particular year, but it causes an 
increased incidence of severe weather patterns that cost us all money, 
which is why we're even talking about a bovine bailout here today.
  Now, look, I wish this had come to the floor under an open process. I 
would have offered an amendment just to talk about it to say, why don't 
you bail out rooftop restaurants, rooftop terraces?
  Look, we're talking about the role of the government, the role of the 
private sector. I find it ironic and to the point of being bizarre--
almost like I'm in an alternative universe--that in the very same 
remarks that the gentlelady from North Carolina railed against a 
President who dares to say that the public sector has a role in 
creating the landscape for private businesses to succeed, at the same 
time, she is advocating for a bovine bailout of a particular industry.
  Now why this particular industry? Why not rooftop terraces? Why not 
solar, if it's too cloudy? Why not wind, if it's not windy enough? 
Many, many, many businesses are affected by weather. Retail stores are 
affected when it snows too much. Should they be coming to Washington, 
clamoring for a bailout?
  Look, both sides respect the role of the private sector. And when you 
have government preempting the private sector by picking out a 
particular industry and elevating it above all others, by giving it 
government subsidies and a big bailout, you are upsetting the very 
market forces that the gentlelady from North Carolina espoused support 
of in another context.
  This bill today gives us a terrible choice between drought assistance 
and conservation. Now, both might be worthy; but disproportionate cuts 
to conservation programs that are used to fund this bill undermine the 
continued success of conservation programs that have bipartisan support 
and are helping farmers mitigate the impact of climate change in their 
businesses.
  There are so many other issues of relevance for farmers that this 
House could be taking up. Why aren't we talking about the estate tax, 
which affects small farmers across this country? If we don't act by 
December 31, the estate tax will go to a 55 percent tax above $1 
million in assets, forcing many small farmers out of business and 
preventing them from being passed down from one generation to the next.

[[Page H5647]]

  Are we going to leave it until the last minute? Is that a plan for 
the lame duck session? Are the Republicans scared to take on the estate 
tax before the election?
  I would advocate that we get down to work and start addressing issues 
that actually affect farmers. We should be voting to provide for the 
success of American agriculture, opening new markets, investing in 
basic research, helping to ensure that families have access to healthy 
food and nutrition.
  We need to make sure that farmers' and ranchers' needs are addressed. 
And if we don't address the fundamental drivers of climate change, 
we're only going to be faced with more and more difficulties, more and 
more requests for bailouts. It may be cows this time. It may be 
chickens next time. It may be corn the next time. There are always 
going to be folks here in Washington, hat in hand, coming to 
Republicans, saying, Give us a Big Government solution.
  And the question will come to this Congress, Are we going to do 
something about the underlying problem? And whether that approach is 
through a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax or incentives for 
renewables, what are we going to do to prevent farmers in this country 
from being driven out of business? This bill does nothing.
  Sure, you can hand them government money. You can hand them taxpayer 
money, if that's the lack of regard that you have for taxpayer money, 
you want to hand it out to whoever comes to town and begs for it. Go 
right ahead. And I have some rooftop terrace restaurant owners in my 
district. Give them some while you are at it.

                              {time}  1100

  That's not a solution. That's what got us into this budget deficit. 
That's what got us into this hole. Let's address the underlying issue 
of climate change in a scientific manner, have the real political 
discussions that are necessary to negotiate a bipartisan solution that 
reduces our carbon emissions, reduces the impact of climate change on 
American farmers, reduces the incidence and severity of droughts across 
the United States of America, and also be the global leaders that we 
need to be on this critical issue.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague if he 
has any more speakers or if he is ready to close.
  Mr. POLIS. I am the only remaining speaker, and I am prepared to 
close.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I will close after the gentleman closes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment which 
proposes that Congress will not adjourn until the President signs 
middle class tax cuts into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into 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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question. This will give us the opportunity to 
renew middle class tax cuts. When we talk about job creation, when we 
talk about growing our economy, the need to make sure that we don't 
increase taxes on the middle class during a recess is something 
economists from both sides of the aisle agree on, something Democrats 
agree on. I hope Republicans agree, too, that we shouldn't raise taxes 
on at least 98 percent of Americans.
  Then let's have the discussion about the other 2 percent. But let's 
agree on what we agree on. Let's not raise taxes on 98 percent of 
American families before Congress goes on break. Before the Republicans 
send us all home to enjoy our summers, let's do something about jobs. 
Let's do something about the economy, and let's demand that we give 
middle class families across America the surety and the security to 
know that they're not going to need to pay an additional $1,000 a year 
in taxes, an additional $2,000 a year in taxes.
  I think it is critical, and I call upon my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we 
can bring forward this critical amendment to provide the certainty that 
America needs to grow our economy and create jobs.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleague across the 
aisle, I don't understand why our friends can't take yes for an answer. 
We want to extend the tax cuts that were begun over 10 years ago to 
everyone in this country. We agree with that, and that's what we're 
doing. We don't want to raise taxes on anyone.
  I would also like to commend to my colleague across the aisle, who 
represents a group of people who only ask for bipartisan cooperation 
when they're in the minority, a book by Australian geologist Ian Plimer 
who wrote a book called ``Heaven and Earth,'' which I think really does 
do a scientific presentation of what is happening in terms of climate 
change.
  Last, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that my colleague is trying to 
deal with a chicken and egg issue relative to infrastructure and how 
does infrastructure get funded. He wants to say that this all comes 
from the benevolent government, but he conveniently leaves out the fact 
that the government doesn't create wealth. All our government does is 
spend wealth, and in many cases waste the fruits of hardworking 
Americans by doing things often very inefficiently. Public 
infrastructure is funded by the taxes that we take away from 
hardworking Americans.
  Entrepreneurs predated the government in our country. And we all know 
that the Constitution was written to try to establish a limited 
government in our country so that the entrepreneurial spirit could 
thrive, as it has in most cases. My colleague talks about the 
government enabling entrepreneurs. Excuse me, I don't believe the 
government does a lot to enable the private sector. What most people in 
the private sector will tell you is just get the government out of my 
way. Get the foot of the government off my neck, and I will do just 
fine.
  I know my colleague has been in the private sector and created a lot 
of wealth for himself, and I applaud him for doing that. But most of 
the people that I know, Mr. Speaker, who are in the private sector 
would simply say the government isn't enabling me at all. Leave me 
alone, and I'll do just fine.
  Mr. Speaker, talk about taking the President's words out of context, 
as I think my colleague knows, when you put the President's words in 
context, they are even more disturbing than outside of context. I do 
believe that our President does believe that the government is the 
solution, and most of us think the government is the problem. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 752 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution 
     (H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent 
     resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die 
     unless a law is enacted to provide for the extension of 
     certain expired or expiring tax provisions that apply to 
     middle-income taxpayers if called up by Representative 
     Slaughter of New York or her designee. All points of order 
     against the resolution and against its consideration are 
     waived. (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

[[Page H5648]]

     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. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 182, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 548]

                               YEAS--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     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
     Jones
     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
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     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
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--182

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     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
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Black
     Burton (IN)
     Cardoza
     Cohen
     Costello
     Fleischmann
     Graves (MO)
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Yoder

                              {time}  1132

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California and Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 181, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 549]

                               AYES--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham

[[Page H5649]]

     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     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
     Jones
     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
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     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
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--181

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     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
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Akin
     Black
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Cardoza
     Cohen
     Costello
     Fleischmann
     Graves (MO)
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kissell
     Yoder

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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.

                          ____________________
```