September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5939 

you might have some loans that perform and some loans that don’t perform. The vast majority of these loans 

perform very, very well, and America is 

better off for it. 

I was at the Israeli Embassy last 

night speaking to a group of scientists. 

They’ve been so far ahead of us on renewable energy it’s a shame. We have 

seen what Germany’s done on wind. 

This party that is in the majority 

here, that wants to do away with the 

wind energy credit, I don’t know what 

the notion here is that somehow we, as 

a country, are not prepared to pay the 

price for progress. We have not won 

every battle in wars that we’ve been in, 

but we’ve won the war. 

And so this a company in which 

things, the numbers didn’t add up for 

us. It’s like one of our rockets or satellites not performing properly. But 

the head of NASA says that we’re not 

in a business in which we cannot take 

risks. We have to take risks. And when 

it comes to energy, our country has to 

be prepared to take risks. 

Now, it was Albert Einstein who said 

we cannot use the same level of thinking to solve problems that we used to 

create these problems. 

This country and our status as the 

leading Nation in the world requires us 

to take risks. And if this majority is so 

unimpressed with the ability of Americans and Americans to innovate and to 

compete in the renewable sector like 

others around the world who are also 

getting help from their governments, 

that is unfortunate. But, for me, I believe that America has to take risks. 

We’re going to lose, we’re going to win, 

but at the end of the day, as we learn 

and go forward, it will allow us to continue to be number one. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time, I have no additional speakers and 

reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself the balance of my time. 

We ought to have a debate in this 

Chamber on energy, on an energy policy, whether or not we should invest in 

innovation, whether or not we should 

invest in renewable, green, clean energy. I believe we should. 

My friends on the other side believe 

not just in the status quo, they believe 

in going backwards. They believe in investing, not in new technologies, but in 

the old technologies. 

b 1310 

But we should have that debate here. 

This bill really is not that debate, because this bill is a political stunt. It is 

not anything real. It is not anything 

that is going anywhere. This is just 

politics as usual, and that’s what 

makes this so frustrating. 

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to end where 

I began in my opening, which is to say 

we’re only here for a few days. I mean, 

I’ve never been part of a Congress that 

has worked less than this Congress and 

that has produced less than this Congress. Today’s Roll Call has a great 

piece: ‘‘Congress on Pace to be the 

Least Productive.’’ Is that what my 

friends on the other side of the aisle 

are aspiring to—to be known as the 

least productive Congress? 

We’re back for these few days. We 

ought to do something meaningful for 

the American people. We ought to be 

debating a jobs bill. We ought to bring 

the President’s jobs bill to the floor. If 

you don’t want to vote for it, vote 

against it, but at least we’d be doing 

something of substance. We ought to be 

extending tax breaks for middle-income Americans. Why would you leave 

town without making sure that middleincome Americans continue to get 

their tax breaks? 

We ought to have a responsible farm 

bill passed and signed into law. As 

we’re running out of time, we’re told 

that’s probably not going to happen at 

all. We ought to be talking about legislation that will actually strengthen 

this country, that will help improve 

the quality of education and give more 

access to education for our young people. 

We are doing none of those things. 

We are squandering this opportunity. 

With the exception of passing a continuing resolution, which is tantamount to kicking the can down the 

road, these 8 days that we have been 

back in session have been useless. They 

have just been about politics. That is 

why the American people are so sick 

and tired of this Congress. That is why 

the approval rating is so low. They 

want us to come to Washington to legislate and deliberate on issues that will 

make a positive difference in their 

lives. Instead, what we have is the 

same old, same old—politics as usual. 

There has to be some common ground 

between Republicans and Democrats on 

energy. Let’s find that common ground 

and move forward. Enough with the political stunts. It is time to start doing 

the people’s business, and this is not it. 

So I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote against this, again, restrictive rule that denies a multitude of 

amendments, including an amendment 

that would make sure the jobs that we 

are talking about are in America. Buy 

American. What is so wrong with even 

debating that? We’re not even given 

that opportunity. So vote against this 

restrictive rule, and vote against the 

underlying bill. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we can see 

that today’s legislation answers the 

question. It ends the debate about 

Solyndra. Taxpayers know the committee did its work. It held a Rules 

Committee hearing. Half a billion dollars was lost by Solyndra. We’re not 

down here jumping up and down. We 

haven’t even raised our voices. We simply said that we think that a better 

process could have taken place, and 

they’re arguing we never should have 

even had this on the floor—that we 

don’t need any feedback, that everybody already knows. Here is what they 

know. 

We lost half a billion dollars by one 

company. At least two others had the 

same outcome where they did not 

produce anything. They went belly 

up—bankrupt. We just think that the 

administration—government—is really 

not in the business and shouldn’t be in 

the business—despite what we’ve 

heard—of pushing the envelope. Let’s 

go out and invest whether it makes 

sense or not. 

Losing money is still a bad proposition. Republicans think it’s a bad 

proposition. There have been lots of arguments today that the government 

did the right thing, that this administration did the right thing. I think that 

the facts of the case say that half a billion dollars in a process that didn’t 

work—we need to hear the feedback, 

and we need to close the books on it. 

The rule is here to do exactly that—to 

place on the floor the opportunity for 

us to debate now the facts of the case, 

which is exactly what will happen. 

I yield back the balance of my time, 

and I move the previous question on 

the resolution. 

The previous question was ordered. 

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. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on 

that I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 

117, CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2013; AND 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 6365, NATIONAL SECURITY AND JOB PROTECTION ACT 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 

call up House Resolution 778 and ask 

for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: 

H. RES. 778 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this 

resolution it shall be in order to consider in 

the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 117) 

making continuing appropriations for fiscal 

year 2013, and for other purposes. All points 

of order against consideration of the joint 

resolution are waived. The joint resolution 

shall be considered as read. All points of 

order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 

be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution 

it shall be in order to consider in the House 

the bill (H.R. 6365) to amend the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 

of 1985 to replace the sequester established 

by the Budget Control Act of 2011. All points 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5940 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions in the 

bill are waived. The previous question shall 

be considered as ordered on the bill and on 

any amendment thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except: (1) one 

hour of debate equally divided and controlled 

by the chair and ranking minority member 

of the Committee on the Budget; and (2) one 

motion to recommit. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 1 

hour. 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the 

purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend 

from Florida (Mr. HASTINGS), pending 

which I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. During consideration of 

this resolution, all time yielded is for 

the purpose of debate only. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 

remarks. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. WOODALL. House Resolution 778 

is a closed rule for the consideration of 

two bills, H.R. 6365, which is the National Security and Job Protection 

Act, and H.J. Res. 117, which is the 

Continuing Appropriations Resolution 

for FY13. 

Mr. Speaker, I’m a freshman on the 

Rules Committee. It’s a good committee to be on. I enjoy it. I get to 

work with learned Members like my 

friend from Florida, who is across the 

aisle, but it falls to me to handle continuing resolution bills. As you’ll remember, when we showed up at the beginning of 2011, there was a lot of unfinished business from 2010, and we 

went right into continuing resolution 

act to continuing resolution act to continuing resolution act—sometimes 2 

and 3 weeks at a time. That’s no way to 

run a government. It’s no way to have 

a Congress. 

My friend from Florida and I disagree 

on a great deal of policy, but we believe 

that a deliberative process yields better results than the ‘‘right here, right 

now, hurry up and wait’’ kind of mentality that this body so often adopts. 

So what we’ve done here today with 

this bill, with this H.J. Res. 117, is to 

say we understand that the appropriations responsibilities of this Congress 

have not yet been completed. The Constitution gives this Congress—not just 

this body, but this Congress—the responsibility of providing appropriations for this Nation. 

Now, as the Speaker knows full well, 

this House has set about getting its 

business done. We divided those appropriations bills up across a number of 

bills. The Commerce-Justice-Science 

bill passed this House with a bipartisan 

majority. It went to the Senate, and 

the Senate had no floor action whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, you know that the 

Energy and Water bill passed this 

House with a bipartisan majority. It 

went to the Senate, and the Senate did 

nothing with it whatsoever. You know 

that the Homeland Security bill passed 

this body—again, with a bipartisan majority. It went to the Senate, and the 

Senate took no action. I can go on and 

on and on. There is the leg branch bill, 

the military construction bill, the defense bill, on and on and on. 

So here we are. We don’t have control 

over the Senate. We only have control 

over what goes on here in this body, 

and I’ve got to tell you that I’m proud 

as a freshman that we’ve set about getting our business done. With one deliberative bill at a time and one open rule 

on appropriations bills at a time, we allowed every Member of this body to 

come to the floor to offer their amendments and to have their voices heard in 

order to produce the very best work 

product that we could produce. I might 

add, Mr. Speaker, that we did that at a 

funding level even lower than what the 

American taxpayer asked of us in the 

Budget Control Act. I’m very proud of 

that work. 

b 1320 

But in the absence of the Senate taking action, Mr. Speaker, we have to 

move on. The American people are 

going to have a referendum in this 

country. They’re going to have a referendum on what fiscal responsibility 

means. 

We’re going to have an election in 

November, and new House Members are 

going to come and new Senate Members are going to come. The administration may change. We’re going to 

have that opportunity for all of us as 

citizens to speak out in November and 

choose a path for 2013. But our business 

today, Mr. Speaker, is making sure the 

doors stay open moving into 2013. 

As my colleagues know, in the absence of action, Mr. Speaker, government offices begin to close on October 

1 of this year, one by one—national 

parks, veterans services, Social Security services, Medicare services. That’s 

not the kind of governing responsibility that we all swore an oath to uphold. 

So I’m pleased to be here today, Mr. 

Speaker, to bring this rule to the floor 

to say, yes, we have gotten our work 

done in this House, but we’ve been stymied by the leadership in the Senate 

that has not scheduled votes on these 

bills, but we will not allow the American taxpayer and American citizens to 

pay the price of inaction by the United 

States Senate. We will make sure that 

government services continue with this 

great referendum that this great Republic will have in November. It’s a 6- 

month continuing resolution, Mr. 

Speaker, and it will solve that need. 

This rule also, Mr. Speaker, provides 

for consideration of H.R. 6365. It’s 

called the National Security and Job 

Protection Act, but what it is is a sequester replacement bill. Mr. Speaker, 

I don’t know that I’ve ever been more 

disgusted in my 18 months in this body. 

We came together here in this House 

in a bipartisan fashion. We passed the 

Budget Control Act, which gave six 

House Members and six Senate Members—six Republicans, six Democrats— 

12 Members of this Congress, esteemed 

Members of this Congress, talented, 

bright, conscientious, American-loving 

Members of this Congress, an opportunity to look at our entire budget. 

They didn’t just look at the $3.8 trillion that we’d spend this year, Mr. 

Speaker, not just that $3.8 trillion, but 

next year, and the year after that, and 

the year after that, well into the threegenerational window. It was hundreds 

of trillions of dollars these 12 men and 

women had an opportunity to look at 

to find bipartisan agreement. 

About 4 months they worked on that 

project, Mr. Speaker, and you know 

how that story turns out. After 4 

months of labor by 12 of the brightest, 

most conscientious Members of this 

body—six Republicans, six Democrats, 

six House Members, six Senate Members—looking at hundreds of trillions 

of dollars in tax expenditures in social 

programs, in taxes and tax cuts, they 

agreed on absolutely nothing. Not one 

dollar out of hundreds of trillions did 

they come together on. That was a tremendous disappointment. 

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in order 

to try to bring agreement to that body, 

we passed legislation that implemented 

what they called the sequester, to say, 

if against all odds this joint select 

committee were to fail—candidly, it 

was not on my radar screen that they 

would. This was a solemn responsibility. These were talented Members 

who were assigned to it. But if they 

were to fail, we would implement automatic spending cuts that would achieve 

the kind of budget reductions that 

every American knows that we need. 

The problem in this town is spending, 

and the sequester said we will not fail 

on this opportunity to address it. 

Well, that sequester goes into effect 

in January of next year, and hardest 

hit will be the United States military. 

Again, this was a device that was put 

into place not because folks thought it 

was the best policy in the room, but to 

be there as the hammer to say surely 

this 12-member committee, this joint 

select committee will come to the 

agreement that will bring us back from 

this fiscal cliff. They didn’t. Now this 

sequester hangs over the head of not 

just the United States military, but 

over Medicare, over social programs. 

Again, Mr. Speaker, I’m just so proud 

to be a freshman Member of this House. 

This House said back in the spring that 

is an unacceptable outcome. It was 

never intended to be the outcome. No 

one ever desired that it be the outcome, and we can change that outcome. 

So we passed a sequester replacement 

right here in this House that went into 

mandatory spending programs, which 

is where the real problem is in the 

budget, as we all know, and said let’s 

replace the sequester that may harm 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5941 

defense—cuts that are going to deal 

with our military, that are going to 

put our national security at risk, and 

let’s replace those with spending reductions that make sense. 

Again, we passed that in the House. 

The Senate has taken no action whatsoever. 

I don’t mean to suggest, Mr. Speaker, 

that they’ve taken no action on our 

bill. They most certainly have not. 

They’re under no obligation to. It’s the 

right thing to do, but they’re under no 

obligation. They are under an obligation to do something about it. They are 

under an obligation to stand up and listen to the same constituents that my 

colleague from Florida and I listen to 

to say there must be action. We must 

prevent this tremendous threat to our 

readiness, to our troops, and to our 

troops’ families. 

This bill, introduced in this body by 

Colonel ALLEN WEST of Florida, gives 

us an opportunity to do just that in the 

bipartisan, open-minded way that I 

think has characterized the 18 months 

that I’ve served in this House because 

of the leadership of folks like you, Mr. 

Speaker. It doesn’t say you have to use 

the House-passed bill already. 

Was it a good bill? Absolutely. Was it 

the right answer? I believe that it is. 

But what it says is use the Housepassed bill or use something like it. If 

you can find a better plan, if the Senate, in its wisdom, can find a better 

plan, that’s going to work, too. It’s not 

our way or the highway. It’s that we 

know that there’s a right way and a 

wrong way to deal with our budget 

challenges, and we want to do it the 

right way. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 

of this rule. I rise in strong support of 

the two underlying provisions, as well. 

I look forward to the debate on that 

this afternoon. We’re going to be able 

to debate these individually, which I 

believe is the right way to handle questions of this magnitude and this importance. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend 

from my neighboring State of Georgia, 

whom I consider to be one of the most 

conscientious, hardworking individuals 

in the Congress, and I appreciate the 

fact that he’s 18 months here in the 

Congress. He and I know that he understands this institution considerably, 

having worked here for a number of 

years, and I’m grateful the process allows and he has allowed that I receive 

the traditional 30 minutes. 

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides, as 

has been said, for consideration of two 

bills. To identify them again, H.J. Res. 

117 is the Continuing Appropriations 

Resolution, and H. Res. 6365 is the National Security and Job Protection 

Act. 

When my colleague began his remarks, he said the magic words, ‘‘This 

is a closed rule.’’ When I was, as he, 18 

months in the House in 1992 and I 

would be on radio, people were talking 

about how awful it was that the Democrats had so many closed rules. The 

Democrats lost the election that following year in 1994, and one of the leading reasons was closed rules. Yet we 

find ourselves on something as important as the financial circumstances of 

this country coming to the floor at the 

11th hour with a closed rule, and, in 

fact, not having many more days that 

we are scheduled to be here, but having 

absolutely no reason why we could not 

be here at any point in time between 

now and the time that our financial 

circumstances would begin to be, as 

they are, much worse. Maybe the Republicans should have added a third entitled resolution. I would call it the 

‘‘No More Getting Anything Done in 

This Congress Act,’’ because that is the 

message of this particular package. 

This continuing resolution is merely 

a reminder that my friends in the majority were unable to complete work on 

the regular appropriations bills. 

b 1330 

Instead of devoting congressional 

time to tackling the needs of essential 

government programs, Republicans 

have spent the summer trying to repeal 

the health care law, giving away benefits to the oil and gas industry, and 

chipping away repeatedly at women’s 

rights. 

Now, my colleague is correct in many 

respects to point out that the other 

body presents us with challenges, but 

it is not as if the other body has not 

done something. Let me tell you one of 

the measures that I have a continuing 

interest in because of my constituency, 

and that is that the Senate has passed 

a farm bill for a 5-year extension. 

What my colleagues or leadership on 

the Republican side will not do is put 

that farm bill here on the floor even 

though we are faced in this country 

with a residual from one of the worst 

droughts that America has ever experienced. Even though food prices for all 

of the people in this country are continuously rising, here we are with this 

time that the chair of the Agriculture 

Committee and the ranking member 

begging the leadership, cannot find 

time for it to be on this floor. Instead 

of devoting our time to tackling the 

needs of essential government programs, we decide that we’re going to 

attack women’s rights. 

Now, suddenly, you seem to have 

awakened to the looming, described, 

fiscal cliff. It’s kind of good that 

you’ve noticed; but rather than address 

this challenge head on, the Republicans 

are pushing a bill that doesn’t do anything. The sequester replacement does 

not actually prevent the sequester with 

a prudent mix, and every panel that 

has looked at this says that we have to 

have a prudent mix of spending cuts 

and revenue increases. What the Republicans simply do is kick the can 

down the road, which is no surprise. 

I said in an earlier Rules meeting, 

and it was during the Olympics, that if 

kicking the can down the road were an 

Olympic sport, then Congress and the 

Republican majority would win gold, 

bronze, silver, and tin. This poor can 

doesn’t have much more space to be 

kicked on, and I can tell you it places 

the burden on someone else to deal 

with this in the future. And this is 

what my Republican colleagues would 

call fiscal responsibility? 

We got into this mess because of the 

massive deficits the Republicans piled 

on this country. Two wars in the Middle East not paid for, huge tax cuts for 

the wealthiest Americans—for those 

among us that are in a high-paying position—and huge, unpaid prescription 

drug benefits are all things that Republican Members in this House voted for 

despite the huge costs that would be 

imposed. 

In fact, just 61 bills have been signed 

into law this year, the fewest in more 

than 60 years. In all of 2011, only 90 

bills were signed into law. When Democrats controlled both Chambers in 2010, 

258 bills were signed into law. 

Now, I don’t want to sound like I’m 

the only person who is making this observation that is being made. Let me 

cite two people, especially here inside 

the Beltway, that have made this observation, and that are generally respected as nonpartisan and accepted as 

experts by Republicans and Democrats. 

We on this side are not the only ones 

who have noticed the lack of productivity that I just identified with the 61 

bills. Norman Ornstein and Thomas 

Mann wrote in a Washington Post column, the two gentlemen, and I am 

quoting them: 

We have been studying Washington politics 

and Congress for more than 40 years, and 

never have we seen them this dysfunctional. 

In our past writings, we have criticized both 

parties when we believed it was warranted. 

Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies 

with the Republican Party. 

That’s from two particularly nonpartisan observers that everybody 

around here recognizes as experts. Now 

we are asked to support the RomneyRyan vision of America, which ignores 

any responsibility for today’s economic 

difficulties and instead demands that 

those who have the least in this great 

country should sacrifice the most. 

While Republicans last year were fighting tooth and nail to default on our 

debt obligations and crash the economy, millions of Americans were fighting to keep their jobs and millions lost 

them. 

Millions of Americans were fighting 

to pay off their mortgages, and millions could not pay them. Millions of 

Americans were seeking access to quality health care, and they could not afford it. Millions of children of parents 

who wanted them to go to college are 

finding themselves without the capacity to get a decent education largely 

for the reasons that I have suggested. 

But under the Romney-Ryan vision 

those priorities should take a back seat 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5942 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

to increase defense spending, and yet 

give more tax cuts for the wealthiest 

among us in our society. When it 

comes to Medicare and Medicaid, student loans and public safety, the Republicans are quick to dismiss billions 

of dollars in essential funding with a 

wave of their hand and the crocodile 

tears of deficit reduction. But when the 

defense contractors stand to lose just 

$1, Republicans suddenly find their 

fighting spirit and cry about a weakening America. 

It’s a shame, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans can’t shake off their do-nothing indolence to fight as hard for all 

Americans as they do for the richest. 

We have a long list of programs, tax 

cuts, and activities set to expire at the 

end of this year; but rather than confront those challenges head on, Republicans are wasting our time with donothing bills. I suppose that when you 

have absolutely no ideas to offer besides tax cuts for those that are better 

off among our society, you may as well 

campaign on a platform of ‘‘we have no 

ideas or even a plan to offer.’’ But the 

American people need and deserve 

much more. 

Mr. Speaker, I reject the Republican 

notion that a do-nothing Congress can 

help grow our economy, create more 

jobs, and address the many challenges 

facing this Nation from crumbling infrastructure to the impossibly high 

cost of education; and I also reject the 

Romney-Ryan vision that the only solution, at least that they have offered 

to these challenges, is tax cuts that 

help the rich and increase military 

spending. 

My Republican colleagues paint a 

very pessimistic vision, Mr. Speaker, of 

a country where it appears to them 

that we have given up on trying to better everyone’s lives and instead use the 

public’s resources to enrich those who 

have already made it. 

But I believe differently. We can afford to invest in our future. We can afford to create jobs. We can afford to 

make the choices now that will reap 

benefits for future generations—right 

now. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

b 1340 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume, 

before I yield to my freshman colleague from Pennsylvania, to say to 

my friend from Florida, I don’t think 

you heard the word ‘‘Democrat’’ come 

out of my mouth during my presentation except to talk about those 

things on which we cooperated together. There are absolutely challenges 

in this Chamber, but the challenges I’m 

talking about are challenges with the 

United States Senate. 

Democrats and Republicans in this 

body came together to pass 7 of the 12 

appropriations bills this cycle. We 

began back in April. Far from being an 

11th-hour solution, we began, as the 

Constitution requires us to begin, one 

piece of legislation at a time in the 

most open process this body can implement, Mr. Speaker, where every Member of this body gets to offer any 

amendment that they desire. Seven appropriations bills we’ve moved through 

this body, Mr. Speaker. And then it became apparent, as the Senate has 

moved not one of 12 bills, that that 

process was going to be fruitless—fruitless. 

Again, is that what the American 

people want from us? Absolutely not. 

Are we doing what the American people deserve in this body? Absolutely we 

are. In my 18 months, I have not found 

it to be a Republican-Democratic problem. I’ve found it to be a problem of 

ideas. 

I said to my friend from Florida, I 

know that he believes in his heart 

every single word that he has just 

enunciated. He speaks for inspiration, 

Mr. Speaker. I have the great pleasure 

of sitting behind him on the dais in the 

Rules Committee, so it’s always his 

words that inspire me before it’s my 

turn to take the microphone. 

My constituents back home, they 

say, ROB, what have you learned in 18 

months with a voting card? I said, 

What I have learned is it’s not theater 

on the other side of the aisle. Folks 

aren’t taking to the microphone for 

their 15 seconds of fame on television. 

They’re taking to the microphone with 

heartfelt beliefs that they know in 

their heart to be a reflection of their 

constituents back home. 

And so as we hear two different presentations about what it is we’re doing 

today—a presentation that suggests 

it’s an 11th-hour, last-minute process 

versus that presentation that says 

we’ve done it all right in the openness 

of day, and here, 4 weeks before the 

deadline approaches us, we are going to 

take action to make sure that uncertainty does not further slow this economy. 

I’m told, Mr. Speaker, that the fewer 

days Congress is in session, the higher 

the stock market goes because at least 

nothing bad happens here. We’re the 

problem, Mr. Speaker. Government is 

not the solution. Government is too 

often the problem. 

The last Congress that passed as few 

bills as this Congress has passed, it was 

the 104th Congress, when Republicans 

took control of this House for the first 

time in over 60 years, because they 

were elected then not to expand the 

size and scope of government but to 

improve the size and scope of government, to reform those processes. 

What my friend from Florida says 

about 2005, 2006, unfunded priority after 

unfunded priority, I’d love to tell him 

he’s wrong, but he’s absolutely right. 

He’s absolutely right. The American 

taxpayer knew it, and Republicans in 

this Chamber paid the price for it in 

the very next election. That’s the ace 

in the hole for America, Mr. Speaker, 

the American taxpayer. They’re paying 

attention to what happens here. 

My colleague may believe that we’re 

on the wrong track. I’ll tell you, in 18 

months, I’ve never been more proud for 

what this institution has done. We’re 

going to find out when the American 

taxpayer speaks out in that referendum November 6. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, there are 87 

new freshmen in this freshman class 

and two more added. I yield 2 minutes 

to a freshman colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. MARINO). 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today regarding the Continuing Appropriations Resolution. 

This week’s violent ambush at the 

United States Embassy in Cairo and 

the brutal attacks against U.S. diplomats in Benghazi serve as a blunt reminder that countries in the Middle 

East have been increasingly unstable 

and anti-American. The brutal attacks 

also emphasize the fact that the United 

States cannot continue to use taxpayer 

dollars to bankroll countries, with no 

conditions. We should immediately 

suspend all funding for those countries 

that refuse to meet strict conditions 

and fail to take adequate measures to 

prevent the loss of American lives. 

Egypt has been one of the five top 

countries receiving the most U.S. aid 

over the past decade, and President 

Obama said he doesn’t think we would 

consider Egypt an ally. Certain countries continue to serve as a safe haven 

for those who wish to cause harm to 

Americans and tear down our fundamental principles of freedom and liberty. Such actions merit repercussions, 

not a continued free flow of American 

tax dollars. 

When our Nation has a debt of more 

than $16 trillion and people in my district in Pennsylvania are struggling to 

find jobs to support their families, it is 

past time that we reconsider funding to 

people that wish harm on the United 

States. It is time to end the practice of 

appeasement and take a staunch position regarding Libya, Egypt, and others in order to ensure a more calculated, tactful approach. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 

Speaker, before yielding to my good 

friend and colleague, Mr. MCGOVERN, I 

would just urge my colleague from 

Pennsylvania to know that all of us are 

mindful, and rightfully should be concerned, about what’s transpired in the 

Middle East. But he cites to one set of 

finances, and I would urge that he look 

at how and why the United States is involved in a compact with the Egypt 

military for the moneys that are distributed there, and not base it on what 

is happening today but look at what 

has happened throughout the years to 

assist in stabilizing that area. It didn’t 

just happen overnight. It happened as a 

result of a serious compact in peace negotiations. 

I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes 

to my good friend, the gentleman from 

Massachusetts (Mr. MCGOVERN). 

Mr. MCGOVERN. I want to thank my 

colleague for the time, and I rise in 

very strong opposition to this rule and 

to the underlying legislation. 

Mr. Speaker, if I could create a rule 

that would best sum up the Republican 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5943 

leadership of this House over the past 2 

years, this would be it, because this 

rule represents everything we have 

seen over the length of this Congress. 

It’s a closed rule that stifles debate, 

and it’s a rule that makes in order partisan, meaningless legislation that will 

do nothing—absolutely nothing—to address the real issues facing the American people. 

I voted against the sequester because 

it was a lousy idea and a terrible way 

to run a government. 

But let’s be clear: This bill does not 

stop the sequester. It simply kicks the 

can down the road once again and prohibits any effort to address our fiscal 

situation that raises a single dime of 

revenue. The Republican approach is 

not fair, it is not balanced, and it 

stands no chance of becoming law. 

Meanwhile, back in the real world, 

the American people are wondering 

why Congress isn’t focused on their 

concerns. Where is the comprehensive 

jobs legislation, like the Make it In 

America plan? Nowhere to be found. 

Where is the middle class tax cut bill 

that passed the Senate? Not on this 

House floor. Where is the bipartisan 

farm bill and drought relief bill that 

passed the Senate, or the Violence 

Against Women Act or postal reform? 

Not here on this floor. Where is the big, 

bipartisan, balanced plan to reduce the 

deficit? Not here. And where—and this 

one really bugs me, Mr. Speaker— 

where in the world is a full and fair debate on the war in Afghanistan? 

It’s absolutely stunning to me that 

Governor Romney accepted the nomination of his party and asked the 

American people for their votes to be 

Commander in Chief without even 

mentioning the longest war in U.S. history, a war that continues to do this 

and continues to claim the lives of 

American servicemen and -women, a 

war for which we are borrowing tens of 

billions of dollars every month. 

Apparently, the Republican leadership of this House would like to ignore 

these big issues and instead focus on 

meaningless sound bites for their 30- 

second political commercials. It is no 

wonder that the public has the lowest 

regard for Congress in history. I guess 

the Republican plan is to do next to 

nothing and to get out of town as 

quickly as possible—even though we 

just got back from a 5-week recess— 

and hope that the American people 

don’t notice we were even here. 

It’s a sad day for the people’s House, 

Mr. Speaker. And let me remind my 

colleagues, Mr. Speaker, this is the 

people’s House. It is not the House of 

Big Oil, it is not the House of Big 

Banks, Big Business, or special interest 

super PACs. This is the people’s House, 

and I hope the people take it back. 

I urge my colleagues to reject this 

rule. 

b 1350 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

I’d just like to remind my colleague 

from Massachusetts how we ended up 

here; and, again, we ended up in a way 

I think that we can all be proud of. 

Take ourselves back to April of this 

year. Again, this is the 2013 funding bill 

we’re talking about. We sit here in September of 2012, we’re talking about 

funding 2013 spending. We began this 

process back in April on the floor of 

this House, bill after bill after bill 

passing in a bipartisan way. 

The Military Construction, Veterans’ 

Affairs bill, Mr. Speaker. What could 

be more important and what could be 

more bipartisan? Passed this House 

407–12. We went through that bill, Mr. 

Speaker. We went to every single Member of this Chamber. Not just 435, Mr. 

Speaker. We went to every delegate as 

well and said do you have a voice that 

needs to be heard on this floor on this 

issue and gave every Member that opportunity. 

At the end of that, Mr. Speaker, 

which was just a free-for-all of democracy right here—it was our Republic at 

its best—this House came together, 

407–12, to pass that bill. Mr. Speaker, 

226 Republicans, most of our number, 

181 Democrats, most of their number, 

passed that bill—407–12 for our military 

and our veterans. That bill didn’t see 

the light of day on the Senate side, Mr. 

Speaker. 

Our failure to pass this continuing 

resolution today sees those dollars go 

to zero. Far from being an abdication 

of responsibility, this is the height of 

taking responsibility. Abdication of responsibility has already happened. I 

can’t fix it. I can’t change it. We did 

our business here in this House. But we 

are being held hostage. And by ‘‘we,’’ I 

mean we, the citizens of this country. I 

mean ‘‘we,’’ the voters of this country. 

Those with the priorities of this land, 

we are being held hostage by a Senate 

that is finding other priorities, priorities other than military construction 

and our veterans. 

Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t end there 

with Military Construction. It goes on. 

It goes through Leg Branch appropriations, Homeland Security appropriations, Energy and Water appropriations, Transportation and Housing and 

Urban Development appropriations. 

How about Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, Mr. 

Speaker? I mean, when you listen to 

some of the voices on this floor, there’s 

a reason, there’s a benefit to being a 

Southerner and talking slow. It gives 

your blood pressure time to come down 

just a little bit before the words begin 

to come out of your mouth, because 

Transportation, including mass transit, Housing and Urban Development, 

those programs for the neediest among 

us, passed this House 261–163 in a huge 

bipartisan majority; 182 Republicans, 

79 Democrats came together to say 

let’s focus on the priorities of our constituents back home. 

Transportation and Housing and 

Urban Development. Let’s move that 

bill through this body. Again, Mr. 

Speaker, in the most open process this 

institution can imagine where every 

single Member has a chance to be 

heard, where every single Member can 

offer their amendments right here in 

the well. 

There are no voices that are being 

quieted here. We all represent American citizens back home. It’s their 

voices that get shut out. 

Do we have a closed rule today on 

this continuing resolution? We do. 

I think back, Mr. Speaker, I know 

you do, too, to H.R. 1, back in the 

spring of 2011. It’s the only continuing 

resolution I’ve ever known of that 

came under an open rule, and boy did 

we have a show of democracy here. 

It began on a Tuesday, Mr. Speaker. 

Congress was supposed to adjourn by 

Thursday afternoon; but by early in 

the morning on Thursday, it was clear 

we were nowhere near done. As a freshman, I was a little cynical about this 

process. I had a suspicion the leadership was going to close that process 

down because Members had planes to 

catch and events to go to, and after all, 

all it was was a continuing appropriations bill. 

You know what this leadership said, 

Mr. Speaker? They said not on our 

watch. We’re going to go into Thursday 

night. And I don’t mean Thursday 

night at 9. I mean Thursday night past 

midnight. We’re going to go all night 

long. We’re going to go all night long 

into Friday. We’re going to go Friday 

to noon and Friday through dinner and 

all night long on Friday night. We finished at 5 a.m. on Saturday morning. 

Mr. Speaker, I jumped on the first 

flight out of National. Flew home. Did 

a town hall meeting no later than 3 

hours after we adjourned that Saturday morning. I was on fire because this 

House gave every single Member a 

chance to offer every single amendment that their constituents would 

have them do. That was extraordinary. 

We can’t do that every day. We can’t 

go marathon sessions 5 days, day and 

night. I’m young and vigorous, Mr. 

Speaker, but I’ve got to tell you, some 

folks may not be able to handle it. I’m 

with you, Mr. HASTINGS, if you’re ready 

to go those days and nights. I’ll do 

them with you. 

But we did that, those 12 appropriations bills. We did that in this body. 

Not all in one package, but one at the 

time, at the time, and the Senate said 

no. 

Our choice here today is do we close 

the doors at these agencies? Do we 

close the doors on these social services? Do we go through another one of 

those government shutdown scenarios 

that benefit absolutely no one, or do 

we do the right thing which is observe 

our budget caps, continue to reduce 

spending? That’s right, Mr. Speaker, 

you know as well as I do on these appropriations bills, on this discretionary 

spending we spent less in 2011 than 

they spent in 2010. We spent less in 2012 

than we spent in 2011. And if we pass 

this bill, we’ll spend less in 2013 than 

we spent in 2012. 

It hasn’t happened since before World 

War II. Three years in a row, Mr. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

Speaker, of this body coming together 

and telling the American people we can 

do better with less. That’s what this 

bill is about today, Mr. Speaker. 

Again, strong supporter of this rule. 

Strong supporter of the two underlying 

measures. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 

Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. 

My good friend from Georgia speaks 

out of both sides of his mouth. On the 

one hand, you’re saying that we began 

this process open and this democracy 

flourished, and you were so passionate 

about it until when we left at 5 a.m. in 

the morning you rushed home and you 

were on fire. 

I’m curious to know when we finish 

up here, ostensibly tomorrow afternoon, what is it that would cause us 

not to be able to be here and allow, as 

you put it, every Member to have his 

or her say for their constituents on 

this measure? 

But, no, we’re here on a closed rule. 

I understand that the government 

has to continue and that’s why we are 

doing a continuing resolution, but I 

also know we could have done an omnibus bill, and I also know that my colleague and others were the ones that 

caused this country to come to the 

brink and our credit rating to be assaulted; and you are going to tell me 

that we can’t stay here tomorrow, that 

we can’t come back here after the holidays or tomorrow and stay here if need 

be to get this done? 

But, no, we’re doing it now before 

April so that when we come back, we 

will be faced with the same crisis, and 

the only thing that’s going to change is 

the faces and the places that the people 

come from, and all I’m saying is let’s 

do it now. Let’s do those things that 

you were talking about. And if it requires 5 a.m. in the morning, let’s do it 

at 5 a.m. in the morning. I’m 76 and I’m 

still staying up. I don’t know about 

you. 

Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to 

my colleague from Georgia. 

Mr. WOODALL. I’m grateful to my 

friend for yielding. 

I’d say to the gentleman, I think we 

would be here until 5 a.m. yet again. 

But our experience, as was our experience on H.R. 1, is time and time again 

we do the people’s work here and the 

Senate says, no. I have had no indication from the Senate that they will accept anything in that body except this 

continuing resolution. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, first I ask my colleague. 

You know and I know you have farm 

interests in Georgia the same as I do, 

not necessarily the same, but we have 

farm interests in Georgia and farm interests in Florida. The Senate did pass 

the farm bill. 

Can my colleague tell me why we 

don’t have the farm bill on the floor 

during all of this period of time? We 

could at least do that in light of the 

disaster relief that took place. 

Mr. WOODALL. If the gentleman will 

yield? 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to 

my friend. 

Mr. WOODALL. I’d say that I regret 

I’m not high enough up the chain to 

know all the strategic decisions, but I 

will tell you that the bill that came 

out of the Senate is a sad 2-year bill 

that provides absolutely no certainty 

to any of the farmers in my district. It 

spends more and provides less certainty. 

b 1400 

The farmers in my district say, ROB, 

we need a farm bill, but why can’t you 

do it right? And I know my colleague 

would agree with me. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Where did 

you get the number 2-year rather than 

5-year bill from? Because the 5-year 

proposal is what the chair of the Agriculture Committee, your and my colleague, Mr. LUCAS, is seeking to offer. 

But I don’t want to get us caught in 

the weeds. 

Let me go ahead and yield 2 minutes 

to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KUCINICH). 

Mr. KUCINICH. Could I inquire of the 

Chair how much time remains? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. There 

are 10 minutes remaining for the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank Mr. HASTINGS

for the opportunity to rise in opposition to the rule for the CR. 

The continuing resolution contains 

$99.9 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operation funds to continue the 

war in Afghanistan and to fund other 

operations in the so-called ‘‘war on terror.’’ This is on top of over $1.3 trillion 

we’ve already spent in waging war 

abroad. 

This is a war that costs U.S. taxpayers $2 billion a week. It’s a war 

that, according to the Congressional 

Research Service, has cost the lives of 

nearly 2,000 U.S. servicemembers and 

has resulted in another 17,519 being injured, yet the war seems to have fallen 

from headlines and our national conscience, and this is wrong. 

We cannot afford another $100 billion 

on a war that will never result in stability in Afghanistan or the region. 

This war against Afghanistan 

boomeranged against the Soviet Union; 

it’s boomeranging against our country. 

When you look at the amount of 

money that is being spent—not just for 

the war, but for the United States Pentagon, we’re looking at a fiscal ’13 

budget of $613 billion, spending more 

money than every other country in the 

world almost combined for so-called 

‘‘defense.’’ 

Now, we have an obligation to defend 

our country, but we also have an obligation for housing, for health care, for 

education, for retirement security. If 

you’re concerned about Congress regaining authority under article I, section 8, then we should be voting to end 

this war right now by striking the 

money for it. If you’re concerned about 

the debt, then we should be voting to 

end this war by taking money away 

from funding and then you could contribute that to resolving the debt. If 

you’re concerned about emboldening 

radicals in other countries who are following in on the wake of our invasions, 

then we should be taking the money 

out of this for more war. If you’re concerned about the budget, that it 

doesn’t have enough for jobs and housing and health care and education and 

energy and the environment, then end 

the war now, vote against it. If you’re 

concerned about America taking steps 

to create peace, then we should get this 

money out of this budget which creates 

more war. 

This is time for us to reclaim our 

country, which we’re losing not just to 

war, but to a national security state 

like yesterday when we voted as a 

House—I voted against it—to empower 

security agencies to be able to intercept the phone calls of anybody in the 

United States who makes calls internationally. 

We have got to reclaim our Nation. 

This CR doesn’t do it. This is the same 

old, same old, same old war, national 

security state, forget the real needs of 

the American people. I’m going to vote 

against this rule and I’m going to vote 

against the underlying bill. 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I’d say 

to my friend from Florida that I have 

no further speakers remaining. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I also 

have no further speakers and I’m prepared to close, and I thank the distinguished gentleman. 

I also would like to offer an apology 

to my colleague. I committed a parliamentary faux pas when I said you 

speak out of both sides of your mouth. 

In the heat of the moment, I guess 

what I was trying to say is you said 

one thing one way than you said at another point in time, so I offer you my 

deepest my apologies. 

Mr. Speaker, we will soon start another long district work period even 

though we haven’t given the middle 

class an extension of tax cuts for the 

next year. If we defeat the previous 

question, I’m going to offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the 

House won’t leave town until middle 

class tax cuts are signed into law. The 

first step is to give this House a vote 

on the middle class tax cut, introduced 

by Mr. LEVIN, which is the same proposal the Senate has already passed 

and the President is eager to sign. 

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 

consent to insert the text of the 

amendment in the RECORD, along with 

extraneous material, immediately 

prior to the vote on the previous question. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

GARDNER). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 

Speaker, there is an upside to the Republicans’ ‘‘do-nothing’’ Congress. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5945 

First, it creates a clear contrast between the Republicans and Democrats. 

Democrats want to press forward 

with meaningful ideas to create jobs, 

improve access to affordable health 

and education, and invest in the kinds 

of programs that bring about progress 

and prosperity for all Americans. I believe that my friends in the majority 

want to push legislation that either 

cuts taxes for the wealthiest among us, 

or increases spending on the military, 

or does nothing more than pay the bills 

today—play politics while accomplishing nothing. 

This is not about the deficit. The 

United States doesn’t lack the money 

to prioritize our future. What we do 

lack is the political willpower and 

leadership necessary to set gainful priorities. 

The Romney-Ryan vision for America is nothing more than a reckless 

sellout to the ideological extremes of 

the Republican Party, a party that is 

utterly dominated at this point in our 

history by a Tea Party dogma which 

cares more to preserve tax cuts for the 

rich than to be about the business of 

ensuring the well-being of our entire 

society. 

The so-called ‘‘sacrifices’’ continually demanded by the Republican majority in order to provide ever more 

money for foreign wars and tax cuts for 

the wealthy are shortchanging the future of this Nation. Continuing to 

move further to the right—or to the 

left—does not constitute progress. Furthermore, the closed-door negotiations 

and closed process is truly disheartening and does not reflect the democracy that is supposed to be the hallmark of this institution. 

I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ 

and defeat the previous question, and I 

urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on the rule. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

I appreciate my colleague for his 

words. A lot of folks, Mr. Speaker, have 

the burden of working with folks whose 

motives they question. I have the great 

benefit of working on the Rules Committee with a team of folks whose motives I absolutely never question because I know folks are operating from 

their heart and from their constituents’ best interest. 

Let me say, because we talk so much 

about productivity down here on this 

floor, Mr. Speaker, The Washington 

Times did an article earlier this year 

on productivity in the House and the 

Senate. They called it ‘‘the futility 

index’’—the futility of all the efforts in 

the body. They said the Senate ranked 

number one of all the years that 

they’ve been keeping records; less activity going on in the Senate by a large 

margin than ever before. Then they 

came to the House and they said, you 

know what, it’s true the House hasn’t 

passed a lot of bills. As you know, Mr. 

Speaker, we outlawed all of those silly 

commemorative bills that were not 

about the people’s business but were 

about folks and their campaigns. Those 

no longer come to the floor. We eliminated a whole portion of that that was 

not about the people’s business. What 

The Washington Times said was this: 

that we had more time in this House in 

session than all but 10 Congresses since 

they began keeping records and that 

we had more debate in this House, Mr. 

Speaker, than all but two Congresses 

on record; more debate, more discussion about those ideas and those priorities that are important to the American people. 

Now, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, 

there’s not a man or woman in my district that defines success by how many 

bills the President of the United States 

will sign; or if they do, they find those 

things to be inversely proportional. 

They don’t want us to take over any 

new industries; they don’t want us to 

regulate any new industries; they don’t 

want us to pick any more winners and 

losers. They want us to stop. And even 

better than stopping, they want us to 

roll those things back. 

We’re having that debate in America, 

Mr. Speaker: Who are we? Who are we 

as Americans? Who are we as a people? 

And what is so wonderful about this 

country, despite all of our differences 

there has always been more that unites 

Americans than that divides us, always. You can’t pick up a newspaper 

today, Mr. Speaker, without them 

talking about the ideological divide in 

this country being as stark as it has 

ever been, but there is still more that 

unites us than divides us. 

I believe, when we come into this 

election in November, Mr. Speaker, 

we’re going to have the largest voter 

turnout in American history. I have no 

idea what they’re going to conclude. 

But I believe in this country, and I believe that if more of us are at the ballot box participating in this Republic— 

as we are required, duty bound to do— 

we’re going to end up with a better result. 

b 1410 

I look at the young faces in this 

Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I like to think 

of myself as young, but I’m in my forties. The gentleman from Florida expressed his age, despite his youthful 

vigor. It’s about the young people, Mr. 

Speaker. 

And when the gentleman says America is strong enough that we can handle all of these growing debt challenges, I say to the gentleman, I admire his optimism but I disagree with 

his conclusion. The numbers I look at 

tell me, if I take everything from everybody, if I take everyone’s house, everyone’s car, everyone’s bank account, 

if I nationalize every single company 

in this country, if I take it at all and 

put it in a bank account today, I still 

can’t pay the hundreds of trillions of 

dollars in promises that this Federal 

Government has made to generations 

to come. 

We don’t have a problem in this 

country, Mr. Speaker, that we’re not 

taxing people enough. Our problem is 

that we’re spending too much. 

I serve on the Budget Committee as 

well as the Rules Committee, and we 

took that challenge on head-on, headon, Mr. Speaker. They call some things 

the third rail of politics. We said, in 

this House, in a bipartisan way, the 

third rail of politics is failing to deal 

with these challenges. Failing to deal 

with these challenges is the problem; 

dealing with them is the solution. 

This wasn’t a solution that everyone 

agreed with. It was a solution that got 

the only bipartisan majority in this entire town. And we did it not once, but 

twice, Mr. Speaker. 

This is not a happy day. I usually 

come to the floor; I talk about how excited I am to be here because we’re 

going to do an open rule and we’re 

going to have the Republic at its best. 

That’s not today. 

That day was May 10 on the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations 

bill, where we had every voice heard. 

That day was July 19 on the Defense 

Department bill, where we had every 

voice heard passing those bills in huge 

bipartisan fashion. That day was June 

6, when we did it with the Energy and 

Water bill, huge bipartisan majority; 

and again on June 7 with the Homeland 

Security bill, and the Legislative 

Branch bill on June 8; May 31 on Military Construction, on and on and on, 

Transportation, HUD, June 29. 

We’ve done those things, and the silence on the Senate side is deafening. 

We could do all those bills again, but 

this House has already spoken. The 

people have already spoken. And this 

continuing resolution gives this body 

and the American people 6 months for 

that referendum in November, for 

every voting-age man and woman in 

this country to come out and have 

their voice heard. 

We’ve done all we can do in this 

body, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will my 

colleague yield? 

Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to 

yield to my friend. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I just 

want to ask, 6 months from now, when 

we come back, if you and I are here, 

will you commit that we would have 

that debate 6 months from now under 

an open rule? 

Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, 

I have had no prouder moment than 

our debate on H.R. 1—no prouder moment. 

Though I will say to the gentleman, 

as the gentleman knows quite well, it 

is frustrating that we can’t do the business today. We tried. 

As the gentleman from Florida 

knows, we tried all of these appropriation bills. They weren’t 6-month bills. 

They weren’t 2-week bills. They were 

entire FY13 bills, and we did them 

right. We did them the way they were 

supposed to be done. Some people won, 

some people lost, but, in the end, a bipartisan majority came together and 

passed every single one. That’s what 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5946 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

we should be doing here, Mr. Speaker, 

and we have. 

The American people are going to decide in November: Is the problem the 

House? Is the problem the Senate? Is 

the problem the executive branch? I 

have my own suspicions, but I trust the 

American people more than I trust any 

other vote that we make in this House, 

Mr. Speaker. 

Again, I rise in strong support of this 

rule. I rise in strong support of the two 

underlying bills, the continuing resolution bill and our opportunity job protection sequester replacement bill. 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

rule. I urge my colleagues to support 

the two underlying bills. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 

I rise in support of H. Res. 778, the Rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 117, making further continuing appropriations for the 

beginning of the 2013 Fiscal Year. This measure will continue to assure funding for all federal government agencies and allow the government to continue its day to day operations 

through March of 2013. 

I am quick to note Mr. Speaker the attempt 

by the Rules Committee Ranking Member, 

Ms. SLAUGHTER to amend the rule for H.R. 

6365 to make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for amendment #1 offered by 

the Budget Committee Ranking Member Mr. 

VAN HOLLEN, which would have replaced the 

entire sequester for 2013 with savings from 

specific policies that reflect a much-needed 

balanced approach to deficit reduction. The 

entire House should have been allowed to debate Mr. VAN HOLLEN’s measure even though 

I had serious concerns about the substance. 

Nevertheless, the debate is one that we 

should have. 

I rise in support of making further continuing 

appropriations for the beginning of the 2013 

Fiscal Year. This measure will continue to assure funding for all federal government agencies and allow the government to continue its 

day to day operations through March 27 of 

2013. 

I am also rising in support of helping families in Houston cope. 

I am rising in support of Texans who need 

critical Federal Government goods and services. 

I rise in support of people who are clinging 

to their jobs—the working poor. 

I rise in support of those on Medicaid who 

are beholden to the governor of Texas who is 

in the business of rejecting federal funds and 

then using them to prop up his budget numbers. 

I rise in support of the elderly. 

I rise in support of military veterans. 

I rise in support of children. 

Today, the House will consider H.J. Res. 

117, Six-Month Continuing Resolution. This 

Continuing Resolution will fund the government through March 27, 2013. The Senate is 

expected to consider the House-passed Continuing Resolution next week. 

The Continuing Resolution reflects a bipartisan agreement between Congressional Republicans, Congressional Democrats, and the 

White House—and will prevent a government 

shutdown and maintain the programs and 

services critical to the American people. 

The Continuing Resolution (‘‘CR’’) ensures a 

total rate of operations for FY 2013 at $1.047 

trillion—the level for FY 2013 discretionary 

spending that was agreed to as part of the 

Budget Control Act of 2011 (PL 112–25). 

As a starting point, the CR continues funding at the current rate of operations for federal 

agencies, programs and services. To meet the 

agreement to ensure the rate of operations at 

$1.047 trillion, a government-wide, across-theboard increase of 0.6 percent over the base 

rate is also included. 

The CR caps funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for FY 2013 at the 

President’s FY 2013 request of $88.5 billion— 

which is $26.6 billion below the FY 2012 OCO 

funding level. OCO is not included under the 

$1.047 trillion cap. 

The CR continues funding for the FEMA 

Disaster Relief Fund at last year’s level, with 

this disaster relief funding also not included 

under the $1.047 trillion cap. 

The CR includes a clean, six-month extension of TANF (Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families). Without this extension, cash 

assistance and work support for working families would stop in FY 2013. 

The CR extends the current pay freeze for 

federal employees, which includes Members 

of the House of Representatives and Senators, as requested by the President. 

The CR also includes various provisions, 

often needed in a longterm CR, to ensure 

adequate funding of certain key government 

operations and services through the six-month 

period, including provisions allowing additional 

funding for such things as: 

The Veterans Administration to meet an increase in the disability claims workload. 

The Interior Department and the Forest 

Service for wildfire suppression efforts. 

The FCC to conduct spectrum auctions. 

Nuclear weapons modernization efforts, to 

ensure the security of our nuclear stockpile. 

Sustaining Homeland Security cybersecurity 

efforts. 

I urge my colleagues to pass this Rule and 

the underlying Continuing Resolution. 

The material previously referred to 

by Mr. HASTINGS of Florida is as follows: 

AN AMENDMENT TO H. RES. 778 OFFERED BY

MR. HASTINGS OF FLORIDA

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: 

SEC. 3. Upon completion of consideration of 

House Resolution 746 the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the 

House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for 

consideration of the bill (H.R. 15) to amend 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

tax relief to middle-class families. All points 

of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. General debate shall be confined to 

the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 

ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Ways and Means. After general debate the 

bill shall be considered for amendment under 

the five-minute rule. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill are waived. At 

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill and amendments thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except 

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole 

rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after 

the third daily order of business under clause 

1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of 

the Whole for further consideration of the 

bill. 

SEC. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not 

apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this resolution. 

SEC. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this 

resolution, the House shall proceed to the 

consideration in the House of the resolution 

(H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of 

a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die unless a 

law is enacted to provide for the extension of 

certain expired or expiring tax provisions 

that apply to middle-income taxpayers if 

called up by Representative Slaughter of 

New York or her designee. All points of order 

against the resolution and against its consideration are waived. 

(The information contained herein was 

provided by the Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 110th and 

111th Congresses.) 

THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT

IT REALLY MEANS

This vote, the vote on whether to order the 

previous question on a special rule, is not 

merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 

against the Republican majority agenda and 

a vote to allow the opposition, at least for 

the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It 

is a vote about what the House should be debating. 

Mr. Clarence Cannon’s Precedents of the 

House of Representatives (VI, 308–311), describes the vote on the previous question on 

the rule as ‘‘a motion to direct or control the 

consideration of the subject before the House 

being made by the Member in charge.’’ To 

defeat the previous question is to give the 

opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker’s 

ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that 

‘‘the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the 

control of the resolution to the opposition’’ 

in order to offer an amendment. On March 

15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 

the previous question and a member of the 

opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, 

asking who was entitled to recognition. 

Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R–Illinois) said: 

‘‘The previous question having been refused, 

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to 

the first recognition.’’ 

Because the vote today may look bad for 

the Republican majority they will say ‘‘the 

vote on the previous question is simply a 

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate 

vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] 

has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.’’ But that is not what 

they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative 

Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here’s 

how the Republicans describe the previous 

question vote in their own manual: ‘‘Although it is generally not possible to amend 

the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, 

control of the time passes to the Member 

who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he 

then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 

amendment.’’ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5947 

In Deschler’s Procedure in the U.S. House 

of Representatives, the subchapter titled 

‘‘Amending Special Rules’’ states: ‘‘a refusal 

to order the previous question on such a rule 

[a special rule reported from the Committee 

on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.’’ (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ‘‘Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 

question, who may offer a proper amendment 

or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.’’ 

Clearly, the vote on the previous question 

on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools 

for those who oppose the Republican majority’s agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan. 

Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on ordering the previous 

question. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 

Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 

and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, 

this 15-minute vote on ordering the 

previous question on House Resolution 

778 will be followed by 5-minute votes 

on adoption of House Resolution 778, if 

ordered; adoption of House Resolution 

779, by the yeas and nays; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 1775. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 235, nays 

178, not voting 16, as follows: 

[Roll No. 572] 

YEAS—235 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Costa 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herrera Beutler 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NAYS—178 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Barrow 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gohmert 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Speier 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—16 

Akin 

Berg 

Broun (GA) 

Cleaver 

Diaz-Balart 

Herger 

Jackson (IL) 

King (NY) 

Michaud 

Nadler 

Ross (AR) 

Ryan (WI) 

Schweikert 

Sires 

Thompson (CA) 

Towns 

b 1436 

Messrs. CAPUANO, FARR, Mrs. 

MCCARTHY of New York, and Mr. 

WELCH changed their vote from ‘‘yea’’ 

to ‘‘nay.’’ 

Mrs. HARTZLER changed her vote 

from ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’ 

So the previous question was ordered. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the resolution. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. 

Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 

5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 232, noes 182, 

not voting 15, as follows: 

[Roll No. 573] 

AYES—232 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Dold 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herrera Beutler 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5948 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOES—182 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Barrow 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boren 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gohmert 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Miller (NC) 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

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 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—15 

Akin 

Berg 

Broun (GA) 

Cleaver 

Diaz-Balart 

Herger 

Jackson (IL) 

King (NY) 

Michaud 

Miller, George 

Nadler 

Ross (AR) 

Ryan (WI) 

Towns 

Welch 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. 

b 1443 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 6213, NO MORE 

SOLYNDRAS ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 

MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE 

RULES 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 779) providing for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 6213) to limit further taxpayer exposure from the loan guarantee program established under title XVII of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and providing for consideration of motions to 

suspend the rules, on which the yeas 

and nays were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the resolution. 

This is a 5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 232, nays 

182, not voting 15, as follows: 

[Roll No. 574] 

YEAS—232 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Costa 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herrera Beutler 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

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 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (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 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pearce 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

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 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—15 

Akin 

Berg 

Broun (GA) 

Buchanan 

Cleaver 

Emerson 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE