H5644 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

are taking here can play a role in continuing to encourage the positive reforms that we are seeing take place in 

Burma. We’re not there yet—that’s 

why we need to take this action—but 

we are moving in the right direction. 

My fellow Californian Mr. ROYCE

mentioned South Sudan—the newest 

country in the world. Last month, I 

was there when they marked their first 

anniversary of existence. This is a 

country that is seeking to get its sea 

legs. I was pleased to be there with my 

colleague Mr. PRICE, who cochairs our 

House Democracy Partnership. We are 

looking at the idea of possibly putting 

together a partnership between this 

new parliament, with a very impressive 

speaker, in South Sudan and the 

United States House of Representatives. The idea of incorporating South 

Sudan as part of the African Growth 

and Opportunity Act is again an indication that we very much want to 

strengthen ties with new and reemerging democracies around the 

world, not just politically but commercially as well. 

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this 

effort, and I congratulate my friends 

on both sides of the aisle who are making it happen. I especially express appreciation to my very, very good friend 

Mr. CAMP, who has championed this 

and so many other important issues. 

He and I will be together again this 

afternoon when we get to, I hope, put 

together a strong bipartisan effort to 

implement the notion of bringing 

about real meaningful tax reform. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. May I inquire as 

to how much time remains. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

MARCHANT). The gentleman from Washington has 101⁄2 minutes remaining. The 

gentleman from Michigan has 61⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Does the gentleman from Michigan have any more 

speakers? 

Mr. CAMP. I have no further requests 

for time. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I yield myself the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. Speaker, many people played a 

part in all of this. Nothing in Congress 

ever gets done by one person. Nothing 

ever gets done by one side or the other, 

and the good things that happen here 

always happen on a bipartisan basis. 

I’m sorry ED ROYCE left, because ED

ROYCE and I worked together. 

One day, he called me. He said, JIM, 

I’m going out to Africa to look at some 

of the places in which the AGOA Act is 

working. Will you go with me? 

I said, Why? 

Well, he said, I need a Democrat on 

the trip. 

That kind of relationship is rare 

around here, unfortunately, and I 

think that people need to recognize 

that it is still going on—that this place 

runs on trust. 

Very early on in this session, I said 

to DAVE CAMP, When are you going to 

bring up the AGOA Act? 

He said, It’s going to come up. 

I’ve asked him many times since, and 

he has said it’s going to come up. So I 

told all of my African friends, It’s 

going to come up because DAVE CAMP

said it’s going to come up. 

I’m really pleased to acknowledge 

that he kept his word, because what 

this place runs on is trust. If you don’t 

trust somebody in here, then you don’t 

do business with him. If you trust him, 

even if it takes him a long time and 

you have to poke him a bunch of times, 

you know that ultimately he’s going to 

do what he said he was going to do. I 

want to acknowledge Chairman CAMP

for that because I think it is reflective 

of what can make it possible for us to 

do tax reform in this House. 

It is something that took a long time 

the last time they did it, but it was 

built on the trust between Reagan and 

Rostenkowski and Tip O’Neill. It took 

a bit of time, but it will happen again 

if we learn to act on the behalf of the 

American people. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time 

as I may consume. 

I want to thank the ranking member 

of the Trade Subcommittee for his kind 

comments and for his leadership as 

well over the years. This really was a 

team effort. A lot of people on both 

sides of the aisle came together to 

make this a reality. 

I’ll just briefly say that this is bipartisan legislation that does deepen our 

trade and investment ties with Africa 

and with the CAFTA–DR countries. It 

also supports well-paying jobs here in 

the United States as well as in other 

countries, as Mr. DREIER stated. This is 

not a zero sum game. This will help 

both of our nations as well as Africa. 

Also, this legislation reauthorizes the 

import ban on Burmese products. 

I urge its passage, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 

CAMP) that the House suspend the rules 

and pass the bill, H.R. 5986. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill was 

passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

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. 

b 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5646 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

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. 

b 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 goodpaying 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. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5648 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 2, 2012 

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 

Luja ́n 

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) 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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 

b 1132 

Ms. LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 

Luja ́n 

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) 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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 

b 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. 

f 

AUTHORIZING THE ARCHITECT OF 

THE CAPITOL TO ESTABLISH 

BATTERY RECHARGING STATIONS UNDER JURISDICTION OF 

SENATE 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 

consent to take from the Speaker’s 

table the bill (S. 739) to authorize the 

Architect of the Capitol to establish 

battery recharging stations for privately owned vehicles in parking areas 

under the jurisdiction of the Senate at 

no net cost to the Federal Government, 

and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

BASS of New Hampshire). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 

from California? 

There was no objection. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

S. 739 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. BATTERY RECHARGING STATIONS 

FOR PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLES 

IN PARKING AREAS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE SENATE AT NO 

NET COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

(a) DEFINITION.—In this Act, the term 

‘‘covered employee’’ means— 

(1) an employee whose pay is disbursed by 

the Secretary of the Senate; or 

(2) any other individual who is authorized 

to park in any parking area under the jurisdiction of the Senate on Capitol Grounds. 

(b) AUTHORITY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), 

funds appropriated to the Architect of the 

Capitol under the heading ‘‘CAPITOL POWER

PLANT’’ under the heading ‘‘ARCHITECT OF 

THE CAPITOL’’ in any fiscal year are available to construct, operate, and maintain on 

a reimbursable basis battery recharging stations in parking areas under the jurisdiction 

of the Senate on Capitol Grounds for use by 

privately owned vehicles used by Senators or 

covered employees. 

(2) VENDORS AUTHORIZED.—In carrying out 

paragraph (1), the Architect of the Capitol 

may use 1 or more vendors on a commission 

basis. 

(3) APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION.—The Architect of the Capitol may construct or direct the construction of battery recharging 

stations described under paragraph (1) 

after— 

(A) submission of written notice detailing 

the numbers and locations of the battery recharging stations to the Committee on Rules 

and Administration of the Senate; and 

(B) approval by that Committee. 

(c) FEES AND CHARGES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

the Architect of the Capitol shall charge fees 

or charges for electricity provided to Senators and covered employees sufficient to 

cover the costs to the Architect of the Capitol to carry out this section, including costs 

to any vendors or other costs associated with 

maintaining the battery recharging stations. 

(2) APPROVAL OF FEES OR CHARGES.—The 

Architect of the Capitol may establish and 

adjust fees or charges under paragraph (1) 

after— 

(A) submission of written notice detailing 

the amount of the fee or charge to be established or adjusted to the Committee on Rules 

and Administration of the Senate; and 

(B) approval by that Committee. 

(d) DEPOSIT AND AVAILABILITY OF FEES, 

CHARGES, AND COMMISSIONS.—Any fees, 

charges, or commissions collected by the Architect of the Capitol under this section 

shall be— 

(1) deposited in the Treasury to the credit 

of the appropriations account described 

under subsection (b); and 

(2) available for obligation without further 

appropriation during— 

(A) the fiscal year collected; and 

(B) the fiscal year following the fiscal year 

collected. 

(e) REPORTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days 

after the end of each fiscal year, the Architect of the Capitol shall submit a report on 

the financial administration and cost recovery of activities under this section with respect to that fiscal year to the Committee on 

Rules and Administration of the Senate. 

(2) AVOIDING SUBSIDY.— 

(A) DETERMINATION.—Not later than 3 

years after the date of enactment of this Act 

and every 3 years thereafter, the Architect of 

the Capitol shall submit a report to the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 

Senate determining whether Senators and 

covered employees using battery charging 

stations as authorized by this Act are receiving a subsidy from the taxpayers. 

(B) MODIFICATION OF RATES AND FEES.—If a 

determination is made under subparagraph 

(A) that a subsidy is being received, the Architect of the Capital shall submit a plan to 

the Committee on Rules and Administration 

of the Senate on how to update the program 

to ensure no subsidy is being received. If the 

committee does not act on the plan within 60 

days, the Architect of the Capitol shall take 

appropriate steps to increase rates or fees to 

ensure reimbursement for the cost of the 

program consistent with an appropriate 

schedule for amortization, to be charged to 

those using the charging stations. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE